The Tools Used to Design & Build the White-Bryan Gestalt of Human Wholeness
Abstract
Peter Senge’s systems thinking, Robert Fritz’s structure, and the What-When-How Framework were instrumental in designing and building the White-Bryan Gestalt of Human Wholeness. In this article, these three tools and their use are explained to create common ground.
Keywords
Systems Thinking, Structure, Emotional Well-being, Emotional Intelligence
Table of Contents Show
Introduction
The White-Bryan Gestalt of Human Wholeness (GHW), part of the Emotional Intelligence 3.0 body of work, offers a comprehensive approach to wholeness that encompasses the lifecycle of information necessary to attain emotional well-being (EWB), core well-being, and cultural well-being for organizations. I discovered it (unintentionally) as I searched for a new model of emotional intelligence.
GHW incorporates multidimensional models that integrate the organic progression of EWB from different vantage points, a Development Matrix, workshops, and Emotional Intelligence 3.0® (EI3.0®) Guides that provide strategies and activities for facilitating transformation. The lifecycle was built using these tools: system thinking, structure, and the What-When-How Framework. This article describes how these tools were used to conceptualize GHW. For reference, EI3.0® is the first system of emotional maturity I designed in 2022. It has been expanded to accommodate the journey to EWB and to core well-being, where human wholeness is achieved.
Systems Thinking
World-renowned systems scientist Peter Senge said, “A system is a perceived whole whose elements' hang together’ because they continually affect each other over time and operate toward a common purpose.” GHW is a perceived whole whose elements influence each other and the common purpose of wholeness. It has these three systems nestled within it: The System of Emotional Well-being (SEW), The Model of Core Well-being (CWM), and The System of High Performance (SHiP), an organizational approach to achieving cultural well-being.
Systems thinking is a methodology for creating a dynamic circle that reflects the interconnectedness of a system's parts. Its application allows us to sort through the density created by different approaches, disciplines, and fields to discover interrelated forces and see how they come together as a shared process. It was a perfect tool for discerning the essential elements of EWB as it becomes independent of other disciplines.
With systems thinking, those deep currents that lead people astray and limit their EWB can finally be seen:
Once we see the relationship between structure and behavior, we can understand how systems work, what makes them produce poor results, and how to shift them into better behavior patterns. As our world continues to change rapidly and become more complex, systems thinking will help us manage, adapt, and see the wide range of choices we have before us. It is a way of thinking that allows us to identify root causes of problems and see new opportunities (Meadows 2008, 1-2).
Seeing root causes and new opportunities is critical in the emergence of a new discipline. Thus, systems thinking felt essential for exploring new, meaningful ways to develop EWB.
The initial step in building a system involves establishing a provisional boundary around a concept and mapping the contents within that boundary. The preferred process for mapping a system is to use a feedback loop (like a flywheel) to reveal patterns of behavior created by the underlying structure. This loop has two essential components: leverage points and limits called structural conflicts. Leverage points and structural conflicts tend to be opposites. They are the inputs that slow down or speed up the flywheel.
More specifically, a structural conflict is a behavior that counters the natural movement toward the system’s common purpose. That behavior acts as a brake that prevents acceleration through the system. Its opposite, a leverage point, facilitates and enhances movement toward the common purpose. This movement can result in small or large gains. High-change leverage points are places where a small amount of energy brings big gains.
All the elements of a system matter, and some have more bearing on the system than others. The goal in mapping the structure of emotional intelligence (what I thought I was mapping) was to identify the elements with the most influence on the flywheel (positive or negative). Low-influence system elements were not included in the system. That doesn’t mean they aren’t necessary. It simply means they didn’t have enough impact on the system to warrant inclusion.
Mapping the System
I designed a repeatable process for mapping a system. It unfolds in this manner:
Determine the system's common purpose and create an artificial boundary around it. If you don’t know what it is, make one up and experiment to see if your idea proves true.
Draw a flywheel. The beginning point of the flywheel is where the common purpose journey begins, and the endpoint is where it is complete.
Along the flywheel, identify the phases that must occur for the common purpose to unfold. If you are unsure of the phases, start with a simple structure format of beginning, middle, and end.
For each phase, identify spots where the system is slowing down or being halted (a structural conflict).
For each structural conflict, repeatedly ask, “What input causes that output?” When you cannot identify another input, you have likely reached the root cause of that particular conflict, which is a core structural conflict. Systems can be stymied in different places, so there can be more than one core structural conflict.
Identify the opposites of the structural conflict to determine potential leverage points.
Investigate each leverage point by asking, “What input causes that output?” When you cannot identify another input, you have likely reached the root cause of the leverage point, which is a high-change leverage point. Systems can be sped up in different places to create multiple high-change leverage points.
Study the high-change leverage points to determine the unlocking maneuvers that free that point’s energy to make the flywheel spin faster.
Sort through the unlocking maneuvers to determine the most impactful ones.
Along the way, further clarify boundaries by defining terms if used uniquely and identifying significant touch points with other systems. As you do so, the doorways into the system through existing models, theories, and research naturally emerge.
Everything identified in the system, regardless of influence, is a structural element. Some structural elements are more significant than others.
There are usually multiple structures residing in a system. Some people might call these different structures nestled systems.
This process is iterative. As you stand in and expand into the system, your view changes, allowing you to see the complexity unfolding at deeper levels. It requires embracing and being with what is at your location in the system to see the doorway to the next structure or nestled systems residing within the whole. That is why, even after four years, I still tinker with facets of GHW. There is always something new to see.
When I started this iterative mapping process, I sought the root cause of emotional intelligence. Instead, I uncovered a concept called emotional balance. While that contributed to a person’s emotional intelligence, it had far larger implications. As I continued to build the map and the theory that accompanied it, it became evident that we all have an emotional operating system. Its balance determines EWB and, ultimately, core well-being and wholeness. That was the moment I realized I wasn’t mapping emotional intelligence anymore. It was a “Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.” kind of moment.
Why Create a System?
Why create a system instead of just offering a model? Offering a holistic system serves several key objectives in research and theory development. First, it helps us to understand and explain how different elements within a system interact and influence each other. This understanding can benefit disciplines where systems can be complex and multifaceted.
Second, it allows researchers to predict how systems behave under various conditions. This predictive capability is essential for testing hypotheses and for making informed decisions.
Third, a holistic system simplifies the real world into a more manageable form, allowing researchers to focus on specific aspects of a phenomenon without getting overwhelmed by its entirety. This simplification helps in systematically analyzing and interpreting complex interactions.
Fourth, seeing the whole can guide empirical research and experiments by providing a structured framework. They help identify what data should be collected and what variables are most important to study, thus streamlining research efforts.
Fifth, a holistic system provides a visual or theoretical means to describe and discuss abstract concepts. It facilitates communication among researchers, helping to convey complex ideas and findings in a more understandable way.
Sixth, it can be used to teach and demonstrate principles and theories because learners visualize concepts and see the practical implications of theoretical knowledge.
Seventh, new questions and hypotheses may arise through system building, driving further research and innovation. It can reveal gaps in knowledge or inconsistencies in existing theories, prompting advancements in the field. Overall, the development and use of systems are fundamental to advancing knowledge, improving understanding, and applying theoretical insights in practical contexts.
Finally, and possibly more importantly, considering the significant impact that EWB has on quality of life and the current global lack of proficiency in emotional health, a model seemed inadequate to address the emotional recession occurring worldwide (Feller et al. 2018; “Emotional Well-Being: Emerging Insights and Questions for Future Research” 2018; Six Seconds, 2024).
The Common Purpose
The common purpose of the EWB flywheel revealed by applying the iterative mapping process and conducting research to develop a theory of EWB was to move the emotional operating system toward high balance, which is essential for EWB and core well-being—accordingly, the EWB flywheel treks from low to high emotional balance. See Figure 1. Low balance is emotional imbalance. The Emotional State Indicator (ESI), the central assessment in GHW, measures emotional balance. A later article in the Journal of Emotional Well-being will discuss the emotional operating system and emotional balance.
Research on the ESI revealed that anger, resistance, and defensive communication are the structural conflicts that slow down or grind the EWB system to a halt. Applying the principle that structural conflicts and leverage points are opposite sides of the same coin, identifying these structural conflicts also revealed the high-change leverage points of peace, allowing, and open communication. This research will be summarized in a later article in the Journal of Emotional Well-being.
Figure 1. The flywheel of emotional balance, the principal benchmark of emotional well-being.
This iterative mapping process also revealed that the primary objective of the core well-being flywheel is system balance, which is essential for wholeness. Accordingly, the flywheel treks from low to high system balance. Theory development between research studies identified self-acceptance as the high-change leverage point for system balance.
Finally, research on variations of the ESI revealed that the primary objective of the cultural well-being flywheel is an emotionally balanced culture, which is essential for a high-performing organization. Accordingly, the organizational well-being flywheel treks from low to high cultural balance. Theory development between research studies also pointed toward organizational immaturity, ineffective leadership, and destructive conflict (poor collaboration) as the structural conflicts that slow down organizational performance or grind it to a halt. Applying the principle that structural conflicts and leverage points are opposite sides of the same coin, identifying these structural conflicts also revealed the high-change leverage points of organizational maturity, effective leadership, and constructive conflict (high collaboration).
Systems can house multiple structures. That’s why GHW is multidimensional; it captures the different structures and systems that contribute to emotional and core well-being.
Structure
Structure is an essential concept in GHW. In The Path of Least Resistance: Learning to Become the Creative Force in Your Own Life, Robert Fritz wrote, “Structure determines behavior” (1989, 7). Thus, whatever structure you are in will likely dictate your actions. For instance, if you are in a structure of emotional imbalance, and you are unaware of that, it will force you to conform and be emotionally imbalanced like the structure. Understanding the emotional structure you are in offers insight into how you interact with the structural elements when stress increases and what you can do differently to shift toward or deepen emotional balance.
Seeing the structure underneath the surface has the same effect as a pair of night vision goggles. They can help you navigate the dark effectively by producing a clear image electronically. Life can sometimes feel the same way—a little like being lost in the dark. With the system perspective as your “night vision goggles,” you can see the forces working underneath the surface that may restrict your progress toward emotional balance. Seeing those forces allows them to be engaged in meaningful ways and leveraged for faster transformation.
More importantly, recognizing that structure determines behavior frees you from thinking something is wrong with you because of your level of emotional balance. No one is broken or needs to be fixed, and nothing is wrong with you. That simplifies the transformation task: change the structure if you aren’t achieving the results you seek. This notion that you are already whole and merely trying to find the structure that enables the wholeness within is a fundamental building block of GHW.
Structure not only determines behavior but also limits perception, and an imbalanced structure often prevents people from recognizing imbalanced behavior. Thus, it’s not only “Structure determines behavior” but “Structure determines behavior and limits awareness.” Consequently, individuals with an imbalanced emotional operating system typically perceive themselves as operating from emotional balance when, in reality, they are not and lack awareness of that fact.
Research supports this idea of a “structure lens.” According to Tasha Eurich, author of Insight: The Surprising Truth About How Others See Us, How We See Ourselves, and Why the Answers Matter More Than We Think, research reveals a striking disparity in self-awareness: although 95% of people consider themselves to be self-aware, in truth, only about 10-15% genuinely exhibit this quality. In GHW, self-awareness does not fully develop until a person is more emotionally balanced than not. Per the theory of GHW, about 84% of the population is emotionally imbalanced or moving toward emotional balance, which leaves 16% as more emotionally balanced than not and emotionally balanced, aligning with Eurich’s research results.
This structure lens is one of the reasons why developing EWB is a challenge. If someone feels safe in their world, breaking through the protective patterns of anger, resistance, and defensive communication can require a forceful emotional event that demands a person to reconsider their life. People usually aren’t curious enough to consider transforming without a shock like that. Alternatively, a person may feel too fearful of change, so they remain locked in place.
The What-When-How Framework
When possible, the simple tool of the What-When-How Framework is used to reduce complexity. That’s because many pairs of opposites in SEW have the exact dimensions of what, when, and how. It is a method for organizing the elements of a structure.
The what categorizes the entities that participate in the dynamic process of life—self, others, life, and system. The how categorizes the action the what takes. The when categorizes the time of the how using past, present, future, or a combination of them. Comparing the frameworks of different elements brings to light important aspects of the system, such as discrepancies, boundaries, sticking points, and connection points.
In the what dimension of the framework, the system element represents existence across all of time. The self is the individual I. Others represent the entities we encounter (alive or deceased) hourly, daily, weekly, yearly, or just once. These entities include individuals, teams, organizations, animals, and plants. Life means the dynamic process of living, including the circumstances offered to us each day. For instance, you go to start your car, and it won’t. Your car not starting is a circumstance life has presented to you. Alternatively, you plan a once-in-a-lifetime vacation to Hawaii, and it rains four of the six days you are there. The weather is a circumstance life has presented to you. You are not responsible for these events, and neither is another person. They are just what shows up.
Figure 2. The What-When-How Framework used in GHW.
A person’s Book of Life usually determines how they think others and life will behave. It is an imaginary book of rules that determines a person’s expectations. Most of us make rules about how life works, etch them in stone in our Book of Life, and then live by them. Additionally, families pass down notions of life, and we are loyal to those notions. Thus, they, too, get etched into our Book of Life. Knowing how life works gives us a sense of control and lets us feel like we know what will happen on a given day.
In Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together, Williams Isaacs called these expectations a person’s noble certainties—things we believe to be accurate but likely aren’t because they are based on a partial understanding of the world. Conflict is created when the behavior of the structural elements (self, others, and life) doesn’t align with these noble certainties and stress results. It can look like this in your head: “This shouldn’t be happening.” But it is.
Here is an example of this framework: I get angry when I go out to the garage and see that my bike tire is flat. The what is I and the bike (other), the when is now, and the how is anger. This framework is regularly used in articles in the Journal of Emotional Well-being.
Conclusion
The concepts and terminology of these tools have been integrated into GHW and are now regularly utilized within its framework. This overview provides a foundational understanding that will be essential as the EI3.0 body of work is explored in more depth in subsequent journal articles.
Downloads
Download a PDF of this article.
Download terms used in EI3.0 (revised March 30, 2025).
Download The White-Bryan Gestalt of Human Wholeness.
References
“Emotional Well-Being: Emerging Insights and Questions for Future Research.” 2018. National Institutes of Health. 2018. https:// www.nccih.nih.gov/research/ emotional- well-being-emerging- insights-and-questions- for-future-research. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6318722/#bibr5-2050312118822927.
Eurich, Tasha. 2018. Insight: The Surprising Truth About How Others See Us, How We See Ourselves, and Why the Answers Matter More Than We Think. New York, NY: Crown Currency.
Feller, Sophie C., Enrico G. Castillo, Jared M. Greenberg, Pilar Abascal, Richard Van Horn, and Kenneth B. Wells. 2018. “Emotional Well-Being and Public Health: Proposal for a Model National Initiative.” Public Health Reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974) 133 (2): 136–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033354918754540.
Fritz, Robert. 1989. The Path of Least Resistance: Learning to Become the Creative Force in Your Own Life. New York, NY: Fawcett Books.
Meadows, Donella H. 2008. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Senge, Peter M. 2014. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York, NY: Crown Currency.
“State of the Heart 2024 Global Report.” 2024. Six Seconds.
