Introduction
It is no secret that much research and much thought are taking place in an effort to understand what the future holds for collective enterprise. Most writers are discussing the end of monolithically hierarchical methods of organizing activity?both in analyzing what is happening today and theorizing about the future. This author has written about the social forces at work to undermine the hierarchical model and which press for new approaches. ("No Such Thing as a Leader." The Journal of Leadership Studies. Vol. 2, No. 2. Spring 1995: 103-115.)

The increasing complexity of the problems organizations face necessitates new means of arriving at solutions. The non-linearity of the challenges daily encountered by organizations demands input from a wide range of points of view to spur the creativity required to meet them. Hierarchical structures do not lend themselves to such a process. They in fact stifle openness. The more collaborative a group is in its working style, the better able it is to become greater than the sum of its parts and successfully respond to new dilemmas.

While little recognized, there are, for society, serendipitous benefits which accompany commitment to non-hierarchical forms of organization. To be effective, collaborative processes must pay scrupulous attention to fostering the common good?not only within the group, but in society as a whole. In addition, such groups must have an all-inclusive sense of community which genuinely seeks out and welcomes diversity. If truly collective enterprise is possible, these two effects are inevitable. If groups cannot achieve these aims, collaborative organization may be doomed to failure. Leadership for the future must therefore have the common good and the development of genuine community as its core concern.

To demonstrate this, it is first necessary to examine fundamental ideas about the relationship between the individual and groups. In his book, Healing the Shame that Binds You, John Bradshaw says, "Identification is one of our normal human processes. We always have the need to identify. Identification gives one a sense of security. By belonging to something larger than ourselves, we feel the security and protection of the larger reality." (11) Yet none of the groups with which people identify?family, peers, sports teams, or the nation?is "real" in the sense that they have any "reality" independent of the imagination of the members. They should thus have no fundamental meaning to divide us. Any group, category, or label is just an artificial fence placed around a set of people. (It is granted that this may be a fine point. The world's mystics tell us that nothing has any reality independent of our imagination.) As the boy who became King Arthur discovered when Merlin turned him into a hawk, the borders which divide us exist only in our minds.

In this sense we are only individuals, separately facing existential alienation. At the same time, humankind has a strong tradition of experiential awareness that all life is inter-connected. The world's great religious leaders and the mystics who followed and interpreted them are unanimous in this. What is left seems to be a paradox between our fundamental separateness and the intuition that there is no such thing as a separate existence.

To pursue this, there are three statements about the self and others to examine. The first is, "I am"; the second, "I and you are"; the third, "There is only us."

I Am
The first statement, "I am", speaks to the discovery of self made and refined daily throughout a lifetime. Beginning at birth, a process of individuation or awareness of self begins. A baby, when born, does not know it is separate. Only gradually does this awareness develop. Much of the first year or two of life is spent in discerning that some things are "me" and some are not.

The next stage, separation, is practice and experience in acting upon this awareness. The "terrible twos" is a response to physical individuation; adolescence is a response to psychological individuation. In both cases, limits are tested, safety is measured, and decisions made as to how to react to being separate.

The final component of the "I am" process is valuation. This is the one wherein our sense of self-esteem is developed. This is critical for the development of a functional individual and is the one with which many of us seem to have so much difficulty.

I and You Are
The second statement, "I and you are", is the one wherein it is discovered that existence is in the context of other people, a larger world. Things, people, and actions are evaluated in the light of "What does it mean to me?" The conclusion that things are good or bad (or evil) is based upon what their relationship with "me" is. Do they help or hurt me? Things that help are good; things that hurt are bad. These evaluative labels only have meaning at the point wherein the individual interacts with others.

Over the years, a "long view" of "What does it mean to me?" has developed which is called the common good. The mastodon could only be killed by a group effort. Out of mutual self-interest, each person seeks to act in ways which help everyone. Fostering the common good also serves as insurance for those times when the individual is the one who is "different" and could face the danger of exclusion. The common good is pragmatic.

There Is Only Us
But there is a different way of thinking about relationships with others. In some ways it seems like a new view. In fact, however, it is as old as all of humanity's great spiritual traditions. That is "There is only us" which is just another way of saying "There is no them." What is different today is that, to the voices of the prophets are being added the discoveries of physicists, biologists, chemists, mathematicians, economists, and psychologists. In short, the rest of the world may be, at last, catching up with Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed, not to mention the Rig Vedas.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And it was without form and void. That is how Judeo-Christian scripture begins. That statement of formlessness has been taken to be a negative. But in fact, God created the universe as an integrated whole. God made the universe without divisions, without categories, without fences. Bit by bit, as a result of the need to label things to distinguish them from ourselves, humankind has broken God's masterpiece apart?categorizing, dividing?making it appear to be more humanity's creation and less God's.

Physicists, reporting from the quantum world, say that if one asks an electron whether it is a particle or a wave, the answer is "Yes". And it is both at the same time. More importantly, physicists say that an electron has no meaning or existence except in its relationship to the matter or energy around it. "In the quantum world, relationships are not just interesting; to many physicists, they are all there is to reality." (Margaret Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science, p.32.)

Biologists and chemists describe self-renewing systems. These are systems which are capable of accepting new components into the system and adapting to their addition. What makes this important is the understanding that systems which are not self-renewing are at equilibrium and, as such, are dead or dying. Living entities must be self-renewing, accommodating to change and the incorporation of difference. Otherwise, they die.

Mathematicians demonstrate that there is no such thing as inconsequential data. The flap of a butterfly's wings in Tokyo affects a thunderstorm in New York. Even the most minute incident not only can but will have a significant impact upon the whole. This is true in the world of mathematics, but it is true in individual lives as well. Each person has a story of a word or a small act which changed their life.

The messages are clear, whether from religion or science. Fundamental reality is not in things but in relationships. There is no such thing as a separate existence. All members of any system, like it or not, are mutually dependent.

The Meaning of Common Good
The common good is concerned with both the welfare of the individual and the welfare of the group. However, given its "I and you are" roots, for most people the welfare of the individual wins out when the two appear to conflict.

An expanded view of the common good might begin by following, for the individual, the medical dictum "Do no harm" and add to it the related desire, "Make it better." It would culminate in improving relationships. This understanding would effectively deal with both individuals and their inter-relationships.

The common good (or well-being) of the individual may refer to satisfying the needs Abraham Maslow has presented to us, ranging from survival to self-actualization. The well-being of sets of people who, through choice, work together for some purpose, is determined by the quality of the relationships within that group. The group's common good results when that which improves the lives of the individual members is coupled with that which improves communication within the group. This assumes a broad view of what is meant by improving communication. It includes the breaking down of barriers between people and improving the level of mutual understanding among members of the group.

In the same way, the well-being of society, the entire collection of people who exist together regardless of choice, is equally determined by the quality of the relationships within the whole. Those relationships are fostered by that which improves the lives of the individual members and improves communication among them.

The Role of Common Good
What then, is the role of the common good in leadership? In a working environment it is, quite simply, the foundation upon which productivity is built. Group effort which does not have the common good as a primary concern will sooner or later spin down to dysfunction.

The complexity of problems with which groups are constantly faced demand that those groups tap what Peter Senge calls a "larger pool of meaning"?that is, understanding and options which transcend the wisdom of the individuals on their own. The group must have access to the information, perspective, and creativity that each individual brings to it. In order to have that access, the group must demonstrate a concern for each member as "a whole person". It must also have an atmosphere that appreciates the different gifts that each member brings and actively encourages the use of those gifts. Achieving this requires unusually effective group processes. In order to reach this level of functioning, the members must have concern for each other as human beings as well as professionals. They must then work on appreciating the different gifts they each bring to the table and encourage each other in the utilization of those gifts. Only then will they be fully ready to develop the sophisticated communication skills through which group synergy emerges.

In relation to society as a whole, the group must be concerned about the common good for three reasons. First, in order for the group to live on, it must replenish itself with new members who will at some point, of course, come from "outside." Every group we are in will have the need to replenish itself. It is in the group's self-interest to encourage a healthy society so that productive newcomers are available to become members of it. Everything the group can do to encourage the development of healthy individuals will serve its future survival needs. Second, the market for whatever goods, services, or ideas the group produces will be a subset of that larger society. The healthier society as a whole is, the more receptive it will be to what the group has to offer. Finally, groups which do not support the common good of society inevitably find themselves in messy public relations battles which impede them in the pursuit of their central mission.

The "I and you are" view of the world holds that individuals are separate and that each person evaluates others according to what good they can do for them. The enlightened version of this view has developed a concept called the common good. This is the idea that promoting others' welfare serves the individual while helping others.

Community
As the understanding that group processes are important and that the quality of relationships within the group influences the effectiveness of those processes has grown, a revised understanding of the meaning of community has become essential. Traditionally, when people have discussed "community", they have referred to an idea rooted in the "I and you are" view of the world. The communities to which people belong are "my family", "my school", "my state", "my region", and "my country". It is illuminating to observe that until very recently no one said "my world" or "my earth". It was not necessary because on that level, so far as it was known, there was no them beyond. But, the moment the mother ship from Alpha Centauri decloaks over London, all will join in the cries of "Earth First."

Community, imagined this way, means "Fort Us."

The idea of community is appreciated and supported because of all the good done within it. However, most views of community see community, unconsciously, as a fortress against "them." (This metaphor is made incarnate in the fenced and gated neighborhoods that are being created throughout the country today.) Consider how much effort is required to include newcomers in a group, even newcomers who are "just like everyone else in that group." Then consider the difficulties faced in including those who are truly different.

The benefits of community are enormous. Individuals or societies could not survive without them. And yet, in the "I and you are" world view out of which the common understanding of community arises lies the seed of us vs. them that grows into humanity's nightmares?the horrors we know as the Inquisition, slavery, Native American genocide, the Holocaust, Cambodia's Killing Fields, Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia. When "us" defines the good, if "they" threaten, killing them is justified.

The "There is only us" understanding of our relationship with others helps us reach a new understanding of community. Instead of a fortress in which "we" are made safe from "them", a model must be developed which seeks to include. "Tolerance" is not the answer. Tolerance is a passive aggressive word which means "I don't have to like it, but I will allow you to exist in my presence." That does nothing to take advantage of the other person's gifts. However, approving or accepting every thought and action taken by every person is also not the appropriate response. Our communities must have their own values. They are a glue which holds society together.

What is needed is somewhere in between and is difficult to put into words. It is the kind of community that M. Scott Peck describes in The Different Drum. That book chronicles his experiences in building this kind of community in groups large and small.

Without describing it in these terms, Peck believes community is an idea rooted in "There is only us." His view would hold that the phrase inclusive community is utterly redundant. While he acknowledges that it is sometimes (but extremely rarely) necessary for a group to exclude when someone acts in a manner destructive to the group, he holds that community must have a presumption of inclusivity, exclusion being only an ultimate, last resort.

Inseparable from this view is that a community is a safe place for each individual. One way of describing such a community focuses on its attitude toward difference. The type of community being described here:

The benefits achieved by developing such a community are particularly important for us today. As Peck says, "A community of sixty can usually come up with a dozen different points of view. The resulting consensual stew, composed of multiple ingredients is usually far more creative than a two-ingredient dish could ever be." (64) In addition, "[b]ecause a community includes members with many different points of view and the freedom to express them, it comes to appreciate the whole of a situation far better than an individual . . . or ordinary group can." (65) Creativity in the face of complex problems and a systems view in approaching those problems are critical to meeting the challenges all groups face today.

Implications for Leadership Training
The importance of the common good and the need for a revised understanding of community for effective group efforts requires reconsideration of the content of leadership education. Margaret Wheatley has said, "[T]he time I formerly spent on detailed planning and analysis I now use to look at the structures that might facilitate relationship. I have come to expect that something useful occurs if I link up people, units, or tasks, even though I cannot determine precise outcomes." (43-44)

Some of the skills and abilities mentioned here are already part of the common thinking about leadership training, but perhaps for slightly different reasons from those which this discussion suggests. Others are not, but are natural outgrowths of the model of relationally based leadership.

The fundamental attribute for participants in the kinds of groups described here must be a well-formed self identity. They must be able to deal with the questions of who they are and what they want out of life. Otherwise they will be incomplete participants in group processes.

An individual must next understand that all events, forces, and people are inter-related, and that these inter-relationships are too complex to be predictable in any linear fashion. They must understand that the temptation to control is dangerous.

The individual's primary skills must lie in the facilitation of relationships. They must have an understanding of the fundamental importance of the common good and be able to foster it. They must have good personal communication skills, but be equally adept at improving group communication. (In particular they must be able to support groups in the effort of developing a common vision.) They must value the potential benefits which human difference presents us and understand how to make creative use of those differences. They must also have an appreciation of the role of rituals in supporting group processes and be able to encourage and enhance such activities.

An understanding of the process of developing community must be developed. This will take a good deal of research because, as awareness of its importance is relatively new the means of achieving it are not yet well understood. It is not the purpose of this paper to examine that process. However, work has been done in this field and it should be included in leadership study. (Peck details his methods of developing community in the work cited.)

Finally, students must have countless opportunities to practice these skills. Beginning in the classroom, they must have the chance to try out collaborative group processes. More is required of the faculty than merely to say "Group A do X." Basic instruction must be provided, but the resultant personal growth in abilities which are not specific to the discipline being taught are enormous. In addition, of course, students must have the chance to participate in "real life" workplace experiences, most of which will not be based upon the concepts of community discussed here. Those experiences are invaluable in evaluating the merit of these ideas.

The leadership education issues listed here do not preclude more traditional elements (or even other "new" ones, such as systems thinking). But these are the ones which must be added to prepare individuals to participate in organizations constructed around organic models. At the same time, training in some of them is not "natural" for the academy and we must, if we accept the basic premise of this paper, endeavor to seek ways of developing these abilities in our students.

Conclusion
The increasing complexity of the world is a truism on the lips of every person with whom we speak. Most of us hope that one day, if only briefly, life will get simpler. It will not. Peter Vaill, who wrote Managing as a Performing Art, is right. We live in a time of "permanent whitewater." The frantic pace of change is a constant of our lives, not an anomaly out of which we will some day be able to step. Our compulsion to control makes that a fearsome concept. In order to cope we need to find a way to relax in the current. Reliance on the wisdom of healthy communities is the means of doing so.

Ultimately, effective relationships are what will make efficient group work possible. Speaking from the perspective of physics, Margaret Wheatley has said, "The quantum world has demolished the concept of the unconnected individual." (38) It is this concern with relationships that focuses our attention on the role of the common good and community in leadership. It is in an organization's enlightened self-interest to support society's development of the largest possible number of "functional individuals." The common good becomes important not only within the group carrying out tasks, but in that group's relationship with the larger world. Community is the factory in which the group's work is carried out.

For millennia leaders have been praised who, in addition to being "effective" (that is, they "got the job done"), were moral or principled. Concern for the well-being of individuals and society has been a mantle in which someone could wrap themselves to assume greatness. But it has been a mantle that could, with equal speed, be doffed. Additionally, many have assumed that concern for "the good" and true community was antithetical to efficiency. A mental model of enterprise now exists that places the common good and community not in opposition to efficiency but at the center of any effort to improve productivity. In a torn and cynical world, this presents a uniquely positive view of the future. The path to effective collaborative enterprise lies in understanding that "There is only us. There is no them."