System 3: Grounded Presence and the Limits of Dual-Process Theory

System 3: Grounded Presence 1 System 3: Grounded Presence and the Limits of Dual-Process Theory American University of Beirut Lebanese Association of Mindfulness Abstract Kahneman's dual-process theory, distinguishing between automatic processing (System 1) and deliberate processing (System 2), has profoundly shaped understanding of cognition and decision-making. This theoretical paper proposes that a third mode of engagement has received limited attention within this framework: one that involves neither automatic reaction nor deliberate construction, but rather a grounded relation with experience characterized by meta-awareness, deep looking, feeling, and learning through micro-action. This paper develops System 3—grounded presence—as a conceptual framework with testable implications for leadership research and practice. Drawing on phenomenology, contemplative science, and the 4E cognition framework (embodied, embedded, enacted, extended), the paper articulates how grounded presence differs from both automatic and deliberate processing while being capable of operating alongside them. Emerging neuroscience research on meta-awareness and the neural correlates of mindfulness provides preliminary support for the distinctiveness of this mode. In an age of artificial intelligence, the extended dimension takes on new significance, as AI offers unprecedented cognitive partnership that can support— though not replace—grounded human presence. The paper argues that grounded presence opens four doors for engagement: action, nonaction, guiding deliberation, and deliberate choice. This last distinction—between analytical decision-making and deliberate choice emerging from presence—may have particular significance for leadership in complex, uncertain environments. The paper concludes with testable propositions and implications for leadership development, positioning grounded presence as a complementary capacity that enhances rather than replaces existing cognitive resources. Keywords: System 3, Grounded Presence, Dual-Process Theory, Meta-Awareness, 4E Cognition, Embodied, Embedded, Enacted, Extended, Artificial Intelligence, Leadership, Deliberate Choice, Non-Action, Mindfulness, Metacognition System 3: Grounded Presence 2 1. Introduction The dual-process theory of cognition, most influentially articulated by Kahneman (2011), has fundamentally shaped how decision-making is understood in psychology, behavioral economics, and organizational studies. The distinction between System 1 (fast, automatic, heuristic-based processing) and System 2 (slow, deliberate, analytical processing) provides a powerful framework for understanding cognitive biases, judgment under uncertainty, and the interplay between intuition and reasoning. This framework has generated substantial research and practical applications across diverse domains (Evans, 2008; Evans & Stanovich, 2013; Stanovich & West, 2000). Yet a third mode of engagement may have received insufficient attention within this framework. Beyond automatic reaction and deliberate construction lies a mode characterized by grounded relation with experience: looking without immediately interpreting, feeling without immediately judging, and learning through small experimental actions. This mode involves meta-awareness—being aware of one's own awareness—while remaining fully engaged with the situation at hand. Contemplative traditions have long recognized this capacity, describing it variously as sati (mindful awareness), sampajañña (clear comprehension), or witness consciousness (Bodhi, 2011; Dunne, 2015). Contemporary cognitive science is beginning to provide frameworks for understanding such states (Lutz et al., 2015). This paper proposes that such a mode constitutes a third cognitive-experiential system—System 3, here termed grounded presence. System 3 is not merely a slower or faster version of the other two systems. It is hypothesized to be a qualitatively different mode of relation with experience that can operate independently or simultaneously with System 1 and System 2. In grounded presence, genuine insight becomes possible—not through more processing, but through deeper looking, feeling, and experimental engagement. Wittgenstein's (1953) injunction—"Don't think, look!"—captures something essential about this mode. It privileges direct attendance to what is present over interpretation of what is present. When such looking is combined with feeling (sensing the quality of experience) and micro-acting (small experiments, tests, trials), a powerful mode of learning emerges that neither automatic nor deliberate processing may produce alone. System 3: Grounded Presence 3 Critically, grounded presence is not proposed as a disembodied mental state. Drawing on the 4E cognition framework (Newen et al., 2018), this paper argues that System 3 is embodied (rooted in bodily felt sense), embedded (always situated in context), enacted (emerging through engagement and action), and extended (distributed across brain, body, environment, and—increasingly—artificial intelligence). The emergence of AI as a cognitive partner adds a new dimension to extended cognition, offering possibilities for thinking-with that were previously unavailable. The existence of System 3, if empirically supported, would have significant implications for leadership. Leaders operate under sustained pressure, uncertainty, and complexity. They rely on System 1 for rapid pattern recognition and System 2 for strategic analysis (Dane & Pratt, 2007; Klein, 2009). But these processing modes, valuable as they are, may not exhaust the possibilities. Grounded presence could offer a different kind of engagement—one that can accompany and inform the other systems, enabling leaders to act with greater awareness, to deliberate with greater attunement, and to recognize when nonaction or deliberate choice—rather than analytical decision-making—may be the most appropriate response. This paper develops System 3—grounded presence—as a theoretical framework with testable implications for leadership research and practice. By articulating the nature of grounded presence, its phenomenology, its 4E grounding, its potential neural correlates, its relationship to AI, and its conditions of access, this paper aims to contribute to both cognitive theory and leadership practice. The paper concludes with specific propositions that could guide future empirical investigation. Figure 1 provides a conceptual overview of the framework developed in this paper. System 3: Grounded Presence 4 2. The Dual-Process Paradigm and Its Limits Kahneman's (2011) distinction between System 1 and System 2 has become foundational in cognitive science and its applications. System 1 operates automatically, rapidly, and with little sense of voluntary control. It is associative, pattern-based, and efficient but prone to predictable biases. System 2 is slow, effortful, and deliberate. It engages in logical reasoning, calculation, and conscious analysis but is cognitively expensive and easily depleted (Baumeister et al., 1998). Recent refinements have questioned the strict dichotomy while preserving the core insight that human cognition involves qualitatively different processing modes (Evans & Stanovich, 2013). This framework has generated substantial research and practical applications. In organizational contexts, it has informed approaches to decision-making, judgment under uncertainty, and the design of choice architectures (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Leaders are encouraged to recognize when System 1 biases may be distorting judgment and to engage System 2 for consequential decisions. However, the dual-process framework implicitly assumes that all cognitive engagement is processing—either automatic or deliberate. This assumption may leave unaddressed a different mode of engagement altogether: one characterized not by processing but by relation. What remains underexplored is the capacity for looking (attending without immediately interpreting), feeling (sensing without immediately judging), and micro-acting (learning through small experimental actions)—all while maintaining meta-awareness of the experience itself. Consider experiences that do not fit neatly into either System 1 or System 2: a sudden shift in perspective that reorganizes an entire problem; a felt sense that something is off despite no logical evidence; a moment of clarity that arises not from analysis but from simply being present with a situation. These experiences are not automatic reactions to familiar patterns, nor are they products of deliberate analysis. They may emerge from a different kind of engagement—one that involves direct relation with experience rather than processing of experience. Research on insight and the "aha moment" has documented these experiences (Kounios & Beeman, 2009, 2014), typically interpreting them within the dual-process framework as emergence of unconscious processing into consciousness. But phenomenologically, these System 3: Grounded Presence 5 experiences are distinct. They do not feel like reaction or analysis. They feel like seeing clearly, like recognition, like arrival—they may emerge from what might be called grounded presence (Petitmengin, 2006; Petitmengin et al., 2013). The dual-process paradigm, for all its value, may lack the categories to fully account for this mode of engagement. This paper proposes that these experiences could reflect the operation of a third mode—System 3, or grounded presence—that complements and can integrate with the other two systems. System 3: Grounded Presence 6 3. System 3: Grounded Presence Defined System 3 is proposed as grounded presence—a mode of meta-aware relation with experience that is hypothesized to be qualitatively distinct from both automatic processing (System 1) and deliberate processing (System 2). It is characterized not by processing but by presence: rooted, stable, open to looking, feeling, and learning through action. Several features may distinguish grounded presence from the other two systems. 3.1 Transcendence as Meta-Awareness Transcendence, as used in this paper, is not mystical or otherworldly. It refers to a specific and potentially trainable capacity: meta-awareness, or being aware of one's own awareness. When operating in System 1, one reacts; when operating in System 2, one thinks. In grounded presence, one is aware that one is reacting or thinking—and this awareness creates a different relationship to the reaction or thought. Meta-awareness has been operationalized in cognitive science as the capacity to take one's own mental processes as objects of attention (Schooler, 2002; Schooler et al., 2011). This capacity is distinct from both the automatic monitoring that characterizes much of cognition and the deliberate self-reflection of System 2. Contemplative traditions have long cultivated this capacity, referring to it as sati (Pali for mindfulness or recollection) and sampajañña (clear comprehension of what one is doing) (Bodhi, 2011; Gethin, 2011). Meta-awareness does not remove one from experience; it deepens relation with experience. It is the capacity to step back from immersion in automatic or deliberate processing while remaining fully engaged with what is present. This stepping back is not detachment but rather a widening of the field of awareness to include oneself as part of the situation (Dunne, 2015). Importantly, grounded presence may operate simultaneously with System 1 and System 2. One can react automatically while maintaining meta-awareness of the reaction. One can deliberate analytically while remaining present to the felt quality of the deliberation. This simultaneity is central to the proposed practical value of System 3. 3.2 Looking, Feeling, and Micro-Acting What dual-process theory may overlook is not another form of processing but a different mode of engagement: looking (attending without interpreting), feeling (sensing System 3: Grounded Presence 7 without judging), and micro-acting (experimenting, testing, learning through small actions). Wittgenstein's (1953) famous injunction—"Don't think, look!"—captures the first of these operations. It is a call to attend to what is actually present rather than to interpretations, theories, or assumptions about what is present. Deep looking, in the sense intended here, is not passive observation. It is active attendance—a bringing of full attention to what is before one. When combined with feeling (sensing the quality, texture, and resonance of experience) and micro-acting (small experimental actions that test, probe, and learn), a powerful mode of engagement may emerge. This mode could enable learning that neither automatic reaction nor deliberate analysis can produce alone (Scharmer, 2009; Depraz et al., 2003). Micro-acting is particularly significant. Grounded presence is not merely contemplative; it includes experimental engagement with the world. Small actions—trials, tests, probes—generate feedback that informs further looking and feeling. This creates an iterative loop of engagement that is neither automatic nor fully deliberate but responsive and adaptive. 3.3 What Grounded Presence Opens: Action, Non-Action, and Deliberate Choice Grounded presence may open multiple doors for engagement. First, it enables action— responsive intervention that emerges from presence rather than reaction. Second, it enables non-action—the deliberate choice to refrain, wait, or allow, recognizing that not every situation calls for intervention. Non-action is not passivity or avoidance; it is a deliberate choice that sometimes the most appropriate response is to remain present without acting (Varela et al., 1991). Third, grounded presence can inform and guide decision-making. When brought into System 2 deliberation, it provides felt sense as input—signaling when something is being overlooked, when an option resonates or creates unease, when the process itself is proceeding from the right place. This is S2+S3 integration: analysis accompanied by presence. Fourth—and perhaps most distinctively—grounded presence may enable deliberate choice that is not decision-making in the conventional sense. Decision-making implies analytical weighing of options against criteria. Deliberate choice, by contrast, emerges directly from presence: a clear sense of what is called for, what fits, what is right for this situation. Such choice does not require calculation; it requires attunement. The leader in grounded presence System 3: Grounded Presence 8 may simply know what to do—not through analysis but through clarity that arises from deep looking, feeling, and meta-awareness. This distinction between decision-making and deliberate choice may have practical significance. Many leadership situations do not yield to analytical optimization. The variables are too numerous, the uncertainty too great, the human dimensions too complex. In such situations, the attempt to "decide" through analysis can produce paralysis, anxiety, or false confidence. Deliberate choice—grounded in presence rather than calculation—offers a different pathway: one that honors complexity while potentially enabling clear, aligned action. For a practical heuristic that operationalizes deliberate choice in leadership contexts, including the role of experiential signals and pause in supporting such choice, see Matta (2025a). 3.4 Grounded Openness The term "grounded" is essential. This is not a floating, detached, or escapist mode. It is a presence that is more rooted, more embodied, more here than ordinary awareness. Grounded presence is the stillness at the center—the anchor that enables responsive engagement precisely because it is stable. Openness, in turn, refers to availability: to what is present, to what might emerge, to what the situation requires. This openness is not passive but actively maintained. It requires refraining from premature closure—from jumping to conclusions, from rushing to action, from collapsing uncertainty into false certainty. Keats (1817/1970) described this as "negative capability"—the capacity to remain in uncertainty without irritable reaching after fact and reason. Together, groundedness and openness create a stable yet responsive mode of engagement. One is neither swept away by events (ungrounded) nor closed to what is happening (not open). This combination may enable the kind of adaptive, responsive engagement that complex situations often require. 3.5 Distinction from Flow States Grounded presence should be distinguished from the flow state described by Csikszentmihalyi (1990). Flow is characterized by complete absorption in activity, loss of selfconsciousness, and merging of action and awareness. While flow is a valuable state, it differs System 3: Grounded Presence 9 from grounded presence in a crucial respect: flow involves reduced meta-awareness, while grounded presence is defined by enhanced meta-awareness. In flow, one loses track of oneself; in grounded presence, one is distinctly aware of oneself as part of the situation. Flow is optimal for well-practiced activities with clear goals and immediate feedback; grounded presence may be optimal for complex, ambiguous situations requiring adaptive response. Flow is absorbed; grounded presence is both engaged and witnessing. Both states have value; they serve different functions and may be accessed through different means. 3.6 Embodied, Embedded, Enacted, Extended Grounded presence is not proposed as a disembodied mental state but as an embodied, embedded, enacted, and extended mode of engagement. Contemporary cognitive science recognizes that cognition is not confined to the brain but is embodied (shaped by bodily structure and sensation), embedded (situated in social, cultural, and environmental context), enacted (emerging through action and engagement), and extended (distributed across brain, body, and environment)—the 4E framework (Newen et al., 2018; Thompson, 2007; Gallagher, 2017). System 3 may exemplify all four dimensions. It is embodied: grounded presence involves felt sense, bodily knowing, and somatic awareness that cannot be reduced to mental representation (Gendlin, 1978; Merleau-Ponty, 1945/1962). The "grounded" in grounded presence refers precisely to this bodily rootedness—presence that is anchored in the living body, not floating in abstract thought. It is embedded: grounded presence is always situated. The leader is embedded in organizational culture, relational networks, historical context, and physical environment. System 3 does not transcend this embeddedness but attunes to it more fully. There is no view from nowhere; grounded presence is always presence here, in this situation, with these people, in this moment. It is enacted: cognition in System 3 emerges through engagement. Looking, feeling, and micro-acting are not passive reception but active participation in bringing forth meaning (Varela et al., 1991; Noë, 2004). The leader in grounded presence does not merely observe situations but engages with them, and through this engagement, understanding emerges. System 3: Grounded Presence 16 The phenomenology of micro-acting is exploratory rather than decisive. One tries something and notices what happens. The outcome is not judged as success or failure but as information. This creates a learning loop: look, feel, act (small), notice, adjust, repeat (Weick, 1995). 5.4 The Shift and Reorganization Sometimes grounded presence is accompanied by a shift—a discontinuous change in how a situation is perceived or understood. One moment, the person is in the old pattern; the next moment, they are not. The shift is not constructed; it happens. It is not decided; it arrives. Leaders often describe such moments: "Something clicked." "I suddenly saw it differently." "Everything fell into place." These descriptions point to a reorganization that was not produced by thinking but emerged through grounded presence (Miller & C'de Baca, 2001). It is important to note that such shifts are not guaranteed; grounded presence creates conditions that make shifts more possible, but it does not produce them mechanically. 5.5 Meta-Awareness Throughout Throughout these phenomenological features—looking, feeling, micro-acting, shifting—meta-awareness is present. One is aware of looking while looking, aware of feeling while feeling, aware of acting while acting. This meta-awareness does not interrupt the engagement; it accompanies it. Meta-awareness provides a kind of witnessing quality to experience. Events are not merely happening; they are being noticed as happening. This noticing creates a space— however small—between stimulus and response, between experience and reaction. In that space, choice becomes possible (Frankl, 1969). System 3: Grounded Presence 17 6. The Attunement Challenge A critical but under-recognized phenomenon accompanies grounded presence: the challenge of attunement. When insights arise, when shifts occur, when new possibilities become visible—there remains the challenge of integrating these into ongoing life and action. 6.1 The Gap Between Insight and Integration There are two movements in grounded presence experience. The first is the insight or shift itself—the new seeing, the reorganization, the emergence of possibility. The second is attunement—accepting, trusting, aligning with, and living from what has been seen. Many people experience the first movement but struggle with the second. They have the insight but cannot hold it. They see the new possibility but revert to the old pattern. This gap between insight and integration is where much of the difficulty of personal and leadership development occurs (Kegan & Lahey, 2009; Matta, 2025a). 6.2 Why Attunement Is Difficult Several factors make attunement challenging. First, System 1 reassertion: automatic patterns are deeply ingrained, and even after a genuine insight, System 1 continues to produce the old reactions (Wood & Rünger, 2016). Second, System 2 interrogation: the analytical mind does not easily accept what it did not construct. Third, identity disruption: insights sometimes change not only what a person thinks but who they understand themselves to be (Ibarra, 2015). Fourth, cultural conditioning: contemporary culture privileges effort, analysis, and construction; insights that arrive without apparent effort feel suspicious. 6.3 Attunement Through Continued Presence Attunement is supported by continued grounded presence. Rather than treating an insight as a finished product to be implemented, one continues to look, feel, and engage with it. The insight is held lightly, tested through micro-action, and refined through ongoing engagement. This continued presence protects insights from both System 1 reassertion and System 2 interrogation. System 3: Grounded Presence 18 7. Grounded Presence and Authentic Self-Knowledge One of the most significant implications of grounded presence concerns the nature of self-knowledge. Within the dual-process framework, self-knowledge is typically understood as the product of reflection—System 2 examining and constructing narratives about oneself (Wilson, 2002). But grounded presence suggests a different kind of self-knowledge: one that emerges through relation rather than construction. 7.1 The Limits of Constructed Self-Knowledge When leaders engage in reflective practices, they are encouraged to clarify their needs, purpose, and values. However, reflective articulation faces a fundamental limitation: what emerges through reflection may be contrived rather than authentic. The problem is that System 2 reflection cannot reliably distinguish between authentic and contrived self-knowledge (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). 7.2 Grounded Presence and Authentic Self-Knowledge Grounded presence offers a different pathway to self-knowledge. Through looking, feeling, and micro-acting, one engages with experience directly rather than constructing narratives about it. In this engagement, what genuinely matters can become visible—not as the conclusion of an argument but as something recognized, felt, and known through direct acquaintance (Gendlin, 1978). 7.3 The Role of Non-Judgment Access to authentic self-knowledge through grounded presence requires non-judgment. If one approaches self-inquiry with the aim of finding the right answer or achieving a better self-image, System 2 remains dominant and grounded presence cannot fully operate (Bishop et al., 2004). Non-judgment creates conditions for authentic emergence by suspending the evaluative framework that would otherwise filter and distort self-knowledge. System 3: Grounded Presence 19 8. Mindfulness as Access to Grounded Presence If grounded presence cannot be produced through System 1 or System 2 processing, how is it accessed? This paper proposes that mindfulness—understood in its contemporary operational sense as attention to the present moment without judgment (Kabat-Zinn, 1990; Bishop et al., 2004)—provides the primary mechanism of access. 8.1 Mindfulness as Cultivation of Meta-Awareness Mindfulness practice cultivates precisely the meta-awareness that characterizes grounded presence. Through sustained practice, one develops the capacity to notice one's own mental processes—thoughts, emotions, reactions—while they are occurring. This noticing is the foundation of System 3 (Lutz et al., 2008, 2015). The contemplative traditions from which contemporary mindfulness derives have long recognized this capacity, offering sophisticated phenomenological maps of awareness and its cultivation (Dunne, 2015; Gethin, 2011). 8.2 Integration with Micro-Action While traditional mindfulness emphasizes stillness and non-action, grounded presence includes micro-acting. This integration is crucial for leadership applications. The leader in grounded presence is not withdrawn from action but engaged with it—experimentally, responsively, and with full awareness. 8.3 Degrees of Access Access to grounded presence is not binary. There are degrees of presence, and correspondingly, degrees of meta-awareness and responsiveness. This suggests that grounded presence can be cultivated. While dramatic insights may be rare, the capacity to access grounded presence in ordinary situations can be developed through regular practice (Vago & Silbersweig, 2012). System 3: Grounded Presence 20 9. Grounded Presence in Leadership The implications of grounded presence for leadership are significant. If the analysis presented in this paper is correct, then leadership theory and practice may have underexplored a mode of engagement that can substantially enhance leadership effectiveness. 9.1 A Complementary Dimension Leadership development has traditionally focused on System 1 interventions (training better habits, developing intuition) and System 2 interventions (teaching analytical frameworks, promoting reflection). Grounded presence represents a complementary dimension—one that does not replace the other systems but works alongside them. 9.2 Simultaneity: S1+S3 and S2+S3 A crucial feature of grounded presence is that it can operate simultaneously with System 1 and System 2. S1+S3: A leader may react automatically while maintaining meta-awareness of the reaction, creating a choice point. S2+S3: A leader may deliberate analytically while remaining present to the felt quality of the deliberation, providing input that pure analysis would miss. 9.3 Deliberate Choice as Alternative to Decision-Making Grounded presence may enable deliberate choice—a mode of response that differs from analytical decision-making. Where decision-making implies analytical weighing of options, deliberate choice emerges from clarity that arises in presence. Many situations that seem to require decision may actually be better approached through deliberate choice. 9.4 Non-Action as Leadership Response Grounded presence makes non-action available as a genuine leadership response. Nonaction is not passivity or avoidance; it is a deliberate choice made from a grounded assessment that action is not currently needed or that premature action would be harmful (Heifetz, 1994; see also Matta, 2025a, on pause and return capacity as conditions for non-action). 9.5 Leadership with AI as Sense-Making Partner The integration of AI as cognitive extension creates new possibilities for leadership. As discussed earlier, AI may function as tool, assistant, collaborator, or sense-making partner. The System 3: Grounded Presence 21 sense-making partner model may be most compatible with grounded presence, as it positions AI as supporting human reflection and insight rather than replacing human judgment. However, the effectiveness of AI partnership depends on grounded presence. Without meta-awareness, leaders may fall prey to automation bias—over-relying on AI recommendations while under-utilizing their own contextual judgment (Parasuraman & Manzey, 2010). Grounded presence may serve as a safeguard, maintaining the critical evaluation capacity that effective human-AI collaboration requires (Jarrahi, 2018). The most effective AI-augmented leadership may combine AI's cognitive power with human grounded presence: using AI as a sense-making partner to extend analysis while maintaining meta-awareness of its limitations; using AI to generate options while attending to the felt sense of those options; using AI to accelerate thinking while preserving the capacity to pause and look deeply. 9.6 Adaptive Challenges Heifetz's (1994) distinction between technical and adaptive challenges illuminates the value of grounded presence. Technical challenges can be solved with existing knowledge; adaptive challenges require changes in values, beliefs, or behavior—they often require the insight and reorganization that grounded presence enables. System 3: Grounded Presence 22 10. Implications for Leadership Development If grounded presence is a significant dimension of effective leadership, then leadership development must be expanded to include its cultivation. 10.1 Beyond Competency Models Competency-based leadership development focuses on building skills that leaders can deploy (Boyatzis, 1982). While competencies remain important, grounded presence suggests they are not sufficient. Leadership development should include "presence development"— cultivation of the meta-awareness, looking, feeling, and micro-acting that characterize System 3. Matta (2025a) develops this distinction as a shift from competency development to orientation development, proposing the Personal Leadership Compass as a heuristic for cultivating self-orientation during action. 10.2 Integrating Contemplative Practice Contemplative practices should be integrated into leadership development—not as stress reduction, but as cultivation of meta-awareness and presence (Reb & Atkins, 2015). The key is framing these practices correctly: as development of a leadership capacity. Matta (2025a) articulates mindfulness not as stress reduction but as an epistemic condition enabling authentic self-knowledge and inner transformation—conditions essential for accessing grounded presence. 10.3 Cultivating Deliberate Choice Leadership development can specifically cultivate the capacity for deliberate choice— response that emerges from presence rather than analysis. The aim is not to eliminate analytical decision-making but to expand the repertoire of response. 10.4 Developing AI Partnership Skills As AI becomes increasingly available as a cognitive partner, leadership development must include training in effective AI partnership—learning to use AI as a sense-making partner while maintaining grounded presence, recognizing what AI can and cannot provide, and guarding against automation bias through sustained meta-awareness. 10.5 Legitimizing Non-Action System 3: Grounded Presence 23 Leadership development should explicitly legitimize non-action as a response option. This counters the action bias prevalent in organizational cultures—the assumption that leaders should always be doing something. System 3: Grounded Presence 24 11. Testable Propositions This paper has developed grounded presence as a theoretical framework. To advance from theory to empirical investigation, the following propositions are offered to guide future research: 11.1 Distinctiveness Propositions Proposition 1: Grounded presence is phenomenologically distinct from both automatic processing (System 1) and deliberate processing (System 2), as evidenced by first-person reports and microphenomenological investigation. Proposition 2: Grounded presence is neurally distinct from both automatic and deliberate processing, involving characteristic patterns of activation in regions associated with meta-awareness (anterior prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex) and interoception (insula). Proposition 3: Grounded presence differs from flow states in that it involves enhanced rather than reduced meta-awareness, as measurable through self-report and behavioral indicators. 11.2 Trainability Propositions Proposition 4: Access to grounded presence can be increased through contemplative training, as evidenced by changes in self-reported meta-awareness, behavioral measures, and neural markers. Proposition 5: Individual differences in dispositional mindfulness predict baseline capacity for grounded presence. 11.3 Leadership Outcome Propositions Proposition 6: Leaders with greater access to grounded presence demonstrate better performance on adaptive challenges (as distinguished from technical challenges). Proposition 7: Leaders with greater access to grounded presence report and exhibit greater capacity for deliberate choice (as distinguished from analytical decision-making). Proposition 8: Leaders with greater access to grounded presence demonstrate more effective integration of AI tools into their practice, as evidenced by reduced automation bias System 3: Grounded Presence 25 (specifically, higher rates of appropriate rejection of flawed AI recommendations, greater frequency of critical questioning of AI outputs, and more accurate calibration between AIassisted and independent judgments) and greater critical evaluation of AI-generated content. 11.4 Process Propositions Proposition 9: Grounded presence can operate simultaneously with System 1 and System 2 processing, as evidenced by behavioral and neural measures of concurrent activation. Proposition 10: Deliberate choice (emerging from grounded presence) and analytical decision-making are associated with different phenomenological qualities, time courses, and outcomes in complex leadership situations. Specifically, deliberate choice is predicted to show shorter deliberation times in high-complexity situations, higher post-choice confidence without increased post-choice rationalization, and qualitatively different verbal reports emphasizing clarity and fit rather than weighing and calculation. System 3: Grounded Presence 32 Ibarra, H. (2015). Act like a leader, think like a leader. Harvard Business Review Press. Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons, 61(4), 577–586. Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living. Delacorte Press. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Keats, J. (1970). Letter to George and Tom Keats, 21 December 1817. In R. Gittings (Ed.), Letters of John Keats. Oxford University Press. Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change. Harvard Business Press. Klein, G. (2009). Streetlights and shadows. MIT Press. Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2009). The aha! moment: The cognitive neuroscience of insight. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(4), 210–216. Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2014). The cognitive neuroscience of insight. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 71–93. Lazar, S. W., Kerr, C. E., Wasserman, R. H., Gray, J. R., Greve, D. N., Treadway, M. T., ... & Fischl, B. (2005). Meditation experience is associated with increased cortical thickness. Neuroreport, 16(17), 1893–1897. Lutz, A., Slagter, H. A., Dunne, J. D., & Davidson, R. J. (2008). Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(4), 163–169. Lutz, A., Jha, A. P., Dunne, J. D., & Saron, C. D. (2015). Investigating the phenomenological matrix of mindfulness-related practices from a neurocognitive perspective. American Psychologist, 70(7), 632–658. Matta, D. (2025a). The personal leadership compass: A heuristic for self-orientation in decisionmaking and action [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17979210 Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1945) Miller, W. R., & C'de Baca, J. (2001). Quantum change. Guilford Press. Newen, A., De Bruin, L., & Gallagher, S. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition. Oxford University Press. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259. Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. MIT Press. Parasuraman, R., & Manzey, D. H. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52(3), 381–410. Petitmengin, C. (2006). Describing one's subjective experience in the second person. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 5(3–4), 229–269. Petitmengin, C., Remillieux, A., Cahour, B., & Carter-Thomas, S. (2013). A gap in Nisbett and Wilson's findings? A first-person access to our cognitive processes. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(2), 654–669. Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation– augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210. Reb, J., & Atkins, P. W. B. (Eds.). (2015). Mindfulness in organizations. Cambridge University Press. System 3: Grounded Presence 33 Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U. Berrett-Koehler. Schooler, J. W. (2002). Re-representing consciousness: Dissociations between experience and metaconsciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(8), 339–344. Schooler, J. W., Smallwood, J., Christoff, K., Handy, T. C., Reichle, E. D., & Sayette, M. A. (2011). Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(7), 319–326. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge. Yale University Press. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life. Harvard University Press. Vago, D. R., & Silbersweig, D. A. (2012). Self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-transcendence (SART). Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 296. Van Dam, N. T., van Vugt, M. K., Vago, D. R., Schmalzl, L., Saron, C. D., Olendzki, A., ... & Meyer, D. E. (2018). Mind the hype: A critical evaluation and prescriptive agenda for research on mindfulness and meditation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(1), 36–61. Varela, F. J., & Shear, J. (1999). First-person methodologies. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(2– 3), 1–14. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind. MIT Press. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage. Wilson, T. D. (2002). Strangers to ourselves. Harvard University Press. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Blackwell. Wood, W., & Rünger, D. (2016). Psychology of habit. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 289–314.