Last Saturday, we had the privilege of hosting Awakin Call with Sandra Waddock.

An intellectual shaman takes on the three roles of the traditional indigenous shaman: healer, connector, and sense-maker -- helping make sense of the world in the interest of the greater good. This label not only describes those management professionals whom Sandra Waddock has interviewed for her book, Intellectual Shamans: Management Academics Making a Difference, but is also an apt description of her own role as an academic. Sandra Waddock is the Galligan Chair of Strategy, Carrol School Scholar of Corporate Responsibility, and Professor of Management at Boston College’s Carrol School of Management. With thirteen published books and nearly 150 papers, she shares her gift to push an agenda of change, responsibility and sustainability. She advises us to be ordinary difference-makers and actors for our common good, helping us heal old narratives and make sense of our world so there is dignity in all.

We'll post the transcript of the call soon, but till then, some of the nuggets that stood out from the call ...

• Q: Tell us about who an intellectual shaman is. These are two very different worlds from most people’s understanding.
• A: I’ve traveled the edges of shamanism for 30 years. 10-12 years ago, I wrote ‘The Different Makers’ while working in CSR. ‘The Different Makers’ had built many important social institutions that are alive today. All these people had inter-disciplinary expertise, and it lead me to wonder if I could do something like this with intellectuals. I wanted to see if I could interview people who looked like shaman in the modern world. Part of the intent is to put the idea of the shaman into modern society. In traditional societies, shaman is the medicine man/woman and healer. Yet there were two articles in Western academic literature about shamans at the time. A friend named told Carol told me to meet Peter, who was an embodiment of the intellectual shaman. They both embodied the healer, and also a connector. A traditional shaman typically journies via a trance state into another realm where they extract insight. A key element of what brings it together is ‘sense-making’. If I wanted to think about academics could fit this archetype, the first question was to see if I know someone who fits in this category. So I thought I’d start by interviewing a few people. I interviewed Karl Wike and a few others--- a total of 28 people (4 women and the rest men)—Otto Scharmer, Raj Sisodia, and bunch of other folks. I had their interviews transcribed and sat on the data for a few years. I chose them on the basis of whether they were people whose sessions I wanted to go to at a conference. It wasn’t a rigorous sampling- but rather my academic heroes. Then I thought I might be going off a cliff—can I really call them intellectual shamans? This whole concept of shaman is dismissed in our modern context. Who was I to call them intellectual shamans? That scared me but I eventually got it together wrote the book.
• Q: Did your colleagues know you were a shamanic practitioner in your personal life?
• A: Not til I started writing about this. I started working with people in 2000 but I didn’t tell too many people about it and I don’t talk about it too much. Its kind of personal and private like any spiritual practice.
• Q: After you got over that and wrote about it, how was it received in academia, particularly at the senior level?
• A: People were generally positive from what I can tell. I didn’t sell a million copies or anything but its been reviewed very well. The people I interviewed themselves were very senior people—here I was calling them shamans. What would they say about this? They really did see themselves as healers, and interdisciplinary bridgers. In today’s academia, we’re called to narrowly define what we do—and most of these people broke many of these rules, building new paradigms. Their fundamental goal was to make the world a better place.
• Q: How does shaman differ from interdisciplinary? Were these folks fine with the term from the beginning?
• A: Yes. You can’t do this without having them involved from the beginning. They were all fine with this label.
• Q: Did you find that all these people have some sort of personal spiritual practice? Did that contribute to their acceptance of the term? Is that why they were successful?
• A: I think that’s right, but they may not characterize it that way. Couple didn’t have a practice. Many meditated. Some were Mormons. Some connected with nature. Some from a sustainability orientation. One was from the Bhopal incident area—and seeing that was eye-opening and transformative for him. Some built up that sensibility over time through other types of inquiry. Otto and David probably stand out the most as those who bring others together.
• Q: These folks take the road not well traveled, while also being in prominent positions. Do you feel there were others who tried and couldn’t sustain in the current academic climate?
• A: Absolutely. There are many, many others. Many follow the crooked path. Some flipping between business and academia. Other had difficult paths to prominence—being denied tenure. They often had calling that took them on different paths. One of my mentors—Dave Brown—was always between in academia and a large scale social change agent. His heart was always in the change. That doesn’t meet the standard of getting into top tiered journals. Many said that they didn’t think they would have made it today’s metric oriented environments. Some were fairly explicit about that. Jim Walsh at U Mich wants his work to influence younger people, so he’s very oriented toward teaching. You don’t get rewarded for these kinds of things. I believe if you do the work that you’re really called to—you can push through a lot of skepticism that others lay on you. Some people have a very hard road, and a lot of the people I wrote about are exemplars of answering the call to make the world a better place.
• Q: Do you have any younger intellectual shamans on your radar? Is there formal academic support of this after your book got published?
• A: I don’t’ know the answer to your 2nd question – probably not. To the first question, yes, I can think of 3 people immediately. Few are already tenured. But yes, I know a lot of younger people who certainly want to and are called to do this type of work. They are all over the place. The book has appealed most to junior scholars who want to do this and be legitimized for doing these kinds of work.
• Q: All these people share certain characteristics. Some of these folks sound like Servicespace people! Could you share some stories of everyday shamans?
• A: I hang out with a lot of musicians. Lot of those folks see their work as connected to that. There are shamans in all cultures of the world—we just don’t’ recognize them in our culture. There are some teachers are like that—just magic. They know exactly how to reach each person . I’m working with a SDG group working about bringing about a flourishing, dignified world with greater well-being. We all know people like this. I bet they have these kinds of capacities. They connect, make sense, and they heal. In the shamanic literature, many indigenous shamans say there is something wrong with cultural myths of a culture. They are looking for information to change the cultural mythology to cure the patient. That made me think about the role of narrative. The dominant narrative of neo-liberalism says we’re self interested profit maximizers for shareholders, markets are free, etc – that’s a pretty problematic story. It includes nothing about sustainability or nature, or peoples social or spiritual experiences is incorporated in that. We have to change that story.
• Q: From what you know of the shamanic community, were they comfortable with intellectuals having this label? Did they feel it trivialized their practice?
• A: There was some feeling that this represented an appropriation of their culture. I think that’s the risk. Whereas if you look at the idea that each culture has its shamans, then why is it that we don’t’ acknowledge it here? Its also important to our world. I’m not trying to appropriate indigenous ceremonies from other cultures. But I think we all have this capacity to become the healer, sense-maker and connector. It makes you a bit of a maverick. People do it who are called to it.
• Q: How can people discover their actual calling if they’re not in touch with it? And if they are in touch, how can they align their lives better?
• A: I’m teaching a course called leadership and mindfulness. How do you adopt this for our modern world? Some sort of mindfulness practice, or connection with nature that over time allows them to see if they have a purpose in life and to ask that question. Some of it is retrospective sense-making. Sometimes its trying and experimenting, and other times there are various practices. I hope my students can be on some sort of practice. We do short vision quests adapted for modern life, short mindfulness practice—but I think there is no single way. I don’t’ believe in gurus or in one single way—we each have to find their own ways. For some it’s a traditional religion or structure, but for others its unique and individual—any number of practices.
• Q: If you are willing to share, how did you tumble onto your shamanic path? It seems like a key inner orientation for you.
• A: I was raised Catholic and long ago left the faith. Following ‘the one way’ didn’t’ seem right for me. For years I had nothing spiritual in my life. I was drawn to books on shamanism. They told of experiences I didn’t have but that allowed access to other parts of life. Back in the 70s I was working in PR and I met a guy working on the ‘relaxation response’ who was exploring meditative techniques. That was an introduction, and made me start. Was talking to a doctoral student in the early 2000s, and her husband was an acupuncturist among many other things. In the period prior to meeting him I went through a lot of introspection. He was a pretty remarkable guy with lots of training. He was doing this work of treating you at the spiritual level, not in a ritualistic way despite training in that way. He formed a group shortly after that and we still meet monthly to this day. I didn’t tell a lot of people about this. Here I was in a Jesuit schools management dept, and I’m doing this thing that seems weird. It took writing this book to get me through the fear of talking about it in public. Yes, I have this orientation, and have some practices. The connecting role is my dominant role or skill. My group says that when I do that, I go somewhere, get something. Not sure I have a gift, and the group keeps trying to convince me.
• Q: Since you’ve been doing this for about 15 years, did the group help guide the books?
• A: Yes, I was always a bit of a maverick. Idea was to work on the system from within and change it that way. I’m not sure I couldn’t have done the work in the last 20 -25 years without this group. I’ve allowed more things to happen to me through this group. I was the first in my family to go to college and get a doctorate. I wasn’t supposed to do any of this stuff.
• Q: The younger academics want to be acknowledged. People need community. Do you have ideas on how we can cultivate that more?
• A: Yes, its so important to find like-minded others in life. Shamanic stuff opened me up to music. I was doing martial arts as a relatively small woman. Now several groups in the management academy that want to make the world a better place. Having some sort of practice is so helpful. It gives an openness I didn’t previously have. I used to be mission or task oriented rather than process oriented.
• Q: I’m really intrigued by the music piece. How did that start?
• A: In my 20s I had a guitar. Later I met a group where we played music and sang. I liked it, started buying guitars. Then I discovered this music camp in New Hampshire. First year I was there, I got up and stage and that was that. Then I went to a songwriting camp that got me writing songs. Over the last 15 years I got better, joined a few bands. I still have a little band. We don’t play very often, but it’s a lot of fun. Ken Wilber talks about integral practice. I think you need something physical, intellectual, and for the heart and soul. Music was the heart stuff for me. I knew I needed something besides working all the time. My shaman said I’d die if all I did was work.
  I think impact in the world comes from working with others. I’m a teacher too. I tell students its about your purpose rather than how life is laid out for you. I see so many stressors in telling people who they need to be.
• Q: How were you as a parent?
• A: The intellectuals had a lot of rigor. Endless curiosity. My own son is a total empiricist. He thinks I’m nuts. He knew from when he was 5 years old that he’d be a scientist. He’s a computer scientist. He said some people are well rounded, but I’m kinda pointy. The students who took my class are kind of open to this other way. They’ve done meditation and service trips. Its in our ethos as an institution. The idea of being playful about it is great. Curiosity is so key. I see it in everyone
• Q: How do we heal the ecological crisis?
• A: We’re on a bad trajectory. Its all about growth, profits, money. That language is something we can shift. We need to find the new story. We need something new for the future. Well-being and dignity for a flourishing world, which is language I like.
• Q: Do you feel angry and frustrated about the scale of the problem? What are your strategies?
• A: I try to not let anger dominate me. Frustration and sadness that we can’t find our way clear is there. I do see many people interested in making a difference. I see communities of people working on these issues in their own ways. Some of these are ‘wicked problems’ in complex systems. In that context, how do you make change? That’s why I think change can happen anywhere in the system. The key is to be guided by a share values system. SDGs aren’t perfect, but they’re a good starting point. We need something like that to start.
• Q: I feel like you gave me a new term to describe who we are—‘Kindness Shamans’!
• A: I did this ‘Do Good’ project where students would go out and do acts of kindness for a week, and then write about it. It was wonderful and really does ripple both outwardly and inwardly.
• Q: In the Servicespace community, we like to say ‘Change Ourselves and Change the World’. Do you feel there is a hierarchy or natural ordering of embedded in how we ought to engage with the problems in the world? For instance, resolving our anger or hatred first as the most leveraged way of making a difference.
• A: Certainly resolving our own sense of anger is very important and a necessary element. But I think we must act and interact in the world. Sitting in a room meditating all day may make a difference for you, but I don’t believe it would do much for the world unless you went out there and did something. For me, I think sustainability is high on the agenda- getting to a place where humanity and nature can thrive—is key.
• Q: How can we as the broader Servicespace community support your work?
• A: I think you’re already doing that in so many ways and so many capacities. Keep being engaged at the level that calls you, generating new insights, and weaving new stories.