(Reprint from Learning Organizations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow’s Workplace, by Productivity Press 1995)
As I communicate with business leaders around the world, I never cease to be amazed at the faith and courage with which they leap into a new approach to improving their businesses. I am equally shocked at how little understanding they have of how to assess any particular approach and the potential it may offer. Many programs are adopted in the name of Learning Organization, Continuous Improvement, etc. which suggest new improved results and improved work environments. Many of these are really only repackaged or redecorated versions of traditional methods these leaders are seeking to escape. It finally occurred to me that leaders do not have a set of guidelines for assessing whether the method they have chosen has a sound base in its design. This article offers a structure for assess- ing the likelihood of a given approach taking an organization toward or away from becoming more developmental. i.e. more capable of continual evolution toward higher order capacities and results.
There is a common set of principles among most so called “new work designs” that is likely to lead an organization away from becoming more developmental in its approach to work. These principles cause limitations from the outset in many of the same ways that traditional work systems do. The traditional as well as most new designs are rooted in behaviorist philosophy. Behaviorism itself has a limiting set of principles and methods when applied to business environments. Behaviorism is the branch of psychology associated with Pavlov’s work when he discovered that dogs salivated when the feeding bell rang, and with B.F. Skinner and his study of rats in mazes. This legacy offered us a psychology that is based on the study of lower animals. De- spite this, much of this body of work has found application in the workplace. This would be fine if our organizations were operated by rats and chimpanzees.
Exploration of a few of the tenets of work design based on behavioral psychology can help us to understand the limitations of the principles offered and why so much potential cannot be realized through these designs. As a means of contrast, we will examine the principles underlying a Developmental Philosophy—a philosophy that is based on open systems designs and works on the development of whole persons. A Developmental Philosophy starts from seeing people (and businesses) as having open-ended potential to develop themselves and their capacities to do and to be. The tendency however is to become static in our work and our approach to work, especially when we are part of a large system. A Developmental Philosophy leads to work designs that continuously evolve the way of working and expand the potential of value-adding processes as well as the potential of organization members to evolve that potential.
Six Improvement Targets Of Work Design
As a way to compare the different underlying principles, we will compare six universal arenas in which businesses seek to be successful in work design.(Bennett: 1956) The first three, Interaction, Concentration, and Freedom, are related to particular outcomes or results that are sought from a work redesign or design. The second three, Expansion, Identity, and Order, are related to capabilities that must be built among the members of the organization for the work design to be effectively realized.
The expansion of opportunity for individuals to contribute to the organization is one of the ob- jectives of any new work design. It is now widely accepted that employees have been underutilized in most work settings and most new work designs introduce systems in which employees have enormously expanded opportunity to use their skill and knowledge. People are able to develop themselves within the new system and to the full extent of the system. A common example of this is a skill- or knowledge-based pay and progression system which attempts a thorough listing of the skills and/or knowledge, organized into blocks, that are to be developed by the workers. The systems comes along with a system for certification of competence for each block.
A Developmental Philosophy sees the capability of people and their ability to contribute as open-ended. Any specified system of development, such as a Skill Block System, by its very nature provides a barrier to the very development and contribution that is sought from people placed within it. Using a Developmental Philosophy, the design of the work and the development of work system unfolds as development occurs and with this unfolding, each person discovers new potential in self, product offerings, and markets. Each individual is always working from a Developmental Plan with an interactively developed yet self-determined business contribution goal and a unique set of capabilities to be developed. The system that enables this development is not a matrix of cells each with pre-specified skills and knowledge. Rather it is one of guidelines regarding the nature of work arenas which, given the evolving values of stakeholder constituencies, serve as appropriate focus areas for contribution. This approach provides bound- aries that ensure appropriate thrust toward business objectives is maintained even as individual creativity is nourished.
On the surface, these may not seem so dif- ferent. Philosophically however they come from very different paradigms. One sees development as occurring within a system, with the system or model as the starting point of development. The other sees individual development as the means of evolving the system and each person is the starting point of their own development and the evolution of the system. The Behavioral Philosophy of designing a universal set of skills and knowledge through which each individual progresses, tends to homogenize the skills and knowledge of all persons within the system. Skill and knowledge based pay and progression systems or any system with predetermined standards tend to work to limit the possibilities of truly tapping and developing the full potential of people, businesses, and/or markets. Such logic is flawed because the business environment in which people work is very dynamic and changes more rapidly than any prescribed system can al- low for. Pre-defined systems can only be based on yesterday’s ideas of needed skills and knowledge. Open-ended systems provide choice for working on the future.
Leadership in new work designs seeks to have people in the workforce identify with work and activities that are more conducive to increased flexibility, increased skill level, and increased accountability. The primary means in a behavioral-based system is one of establishing role models and of reinforcing behaviors that most closely approximate a desired behavior. Examples from such systems include evaluation procedures that specify desired behaviors, rating and ranking systems that honor those that achieve higher levels of frequency in being appropriate, and reward and recognition programs to single out those individuals or groups who most exemplify desired behaviors.
A Developmental Philosophy eschews role models as the very antithesis of what is needed for success—the unfolding of uniqueness. At- tention is given to helping everyone in the orga- nization increasingly discover their own unique- ness and to embed that uniqueness into the or- ganization, its product offerings, and processes. No energy is put into comparing people as indi- viduals, groups, shifts, or other collectives. Sys- tems or processes that assume people should pursue modeling themselves after someone else are disassembled. There are no “low” and “high” performers, no “difficult people”, no be- havioral-based categories at all. No tests are pro- vided to help people discover what “type” of learner or manager they are. Emphasis is on the uniqueness of each individual and finding more ways for that uniqueness to be embedded into the life and outputs of the organization.
In behavioral-based work designs it is also common to form teams out of crews that can rotate shared assignments. One result of the rotation design and of teams that are based on shared shifts and work functions is that the individuals will tends to become subordinated to the collective or team or organizational will. The will we are speaking of here is that force or motivation that makes each of us unique—that causes us to be drawn to pursue particular interests and causes. It is the source of tenacity, creativity, and diversity. Most businesses have no idea how to maintain individuality while developing teams, so they unintentionally create work designs that effectively obliterate individual identities or essences—often more than traditional work de- signs do.
This collectivizing of will is accomplished through team-building, consensus-building, and by rewards for team and organizationally valued behavior and by condemnation or punishment of undesirable behavior. This subordination of the individual to the whole is fundamental to most team designs where multi-skilling processes seek to gain uniformity and flexibility of performance. Unfortunately, this process is also a source of loss of individuality in terms of questioning of procedures, expression of uniqueness possibilities, and innovation regarding processes of work.
Another example of how this occurs is through the use of one of the numerous typolo- gies for assessing personality style that exist to- day. The Myers-Briggs analysis is one example. These typologies focus on the surface or func- tional aspects of a person, moving people away from exploring their uniqueness as individuals and their own inner processes. The categorizing of students in schools and the classifying of people in workplaces has tended to cause us to see ourselves as static (as being a particular type) rather than as evolving persons. These same pro- cesses tend to cause us to see ourselves as com- mon and definable by externally determined standards. When these assessment models are used in organizations they contribute to a field of external judgments whereby we see people as types—one of a limited number of categories. The life of a person is thus reduced to a box or a rank. These models are the thieves of develop- mental processes.
The philosophical starting point is fundamen- tal different. In one, there is a set of “desirable” behaviors based on profiles of “successful be- haviors”. In the other there is a desire to better unfold the potential of each unique individual. This difference shows up in behavioral based systems when there is an attempt to get individuals to move from identifying themselves with a narrowly defined job to identifying with a whole task. With a developmentally based system, identity is developed not from a job or any other phenomenon that is internal to the organization. Rather it is developed in terms of uniqueness brought about through a connection to something that needs serving beyond the organization itself, and to the way in which the individual and the organization can most uniquely serve. Teams formed with a Developmental Philosophy are organized in ways that integrate all functions in the business with the only meaningful identity—with constituent stakeholders (e.g. customers, communities surrounding the site, the Earth) who invest in them by purchasing their products and providing the resources needed to run their business.
Whether to meet legal and regulatory man- dates or for reasons of human relationships, there is a desire to have processes that provide order to work and to ensure fairness in dealings. In a be- havioral–based work design, order is developed and maintained through standardization, proceduralization, and classification. As mentioned above, people are placed relative to one another within a system and there is an attempt to treat everyone using the same procedures. Additionally, work is standardized and proceduralized in an attempt to ensure adherence to specifications. Over time however, such routinization tends to invite a loss of meaning and creativity in all who engage in the work.
In a Developmental based systems, order is maintained by connecting everyone in the organi- zation to the marketplace and the stakeholders who seek a reciprocal relationship with the com- pany—e.g. investment dollars for a return, public services for a tax base. When each individual is connected in an intimate way with these stake- holder parameters and is involved in designing work to best achieve the collective effect sought by stakeholders, such a system is a very powerful organizer of work and one which every en- trepreneur understands well.
In a behavioral model, as exemplified by a socio-technical system, the ordering emerges from structuring of the organization that is im- posed on the individuals. In a developmental model, the order continually emerges from indi- viduals through their living connection to a dy- namic and evolving environment. One is a “closed system”, that pauses every so often to allow in new information—and then to restructure the standards, procedures, and classification. The other is a “living system” with a constant and immediate lifeline between a sought after value and the work of the employees who are the source of those values being realized.
New work designs are most frequently initi- ated from a desire to have a business that can extend the arenas and time frames over which they can successfully exert influence. This may be stated in terms of increased markets or market share, new customers in new categories, improved relationships with regulatory agencies, or even better relationships with the workforce directly or through their representative unions. In a behavioral model, this freedom is sought through increasing the understanding of the realities with which they must engage through improved ex- changes of information and measurement sys- tems. Examples of this are increased availability of competitive information, customer information, and technological knowledge. All the senses are put to work in the search for better, more current, and more accurate data and information which can be distributed to the organization in a usable form.
Organizational designers are always looking for ways of instilling more degrees of freedom that enable people to conceive of and “go for” the impossible. The limitations that traditional organizations have placed on performance of work have also placed the same limitations of the working of the mind. As a result, people working in traditional organizations tend to apply their creativity to endeavors outside of work. In behav- ioral work redesign, there are attempts to over- come this “tunnel view” by increasing participa- tion. Employees are encouraged to contribute ideas and to become involved in creative solutions to problems. In a developmental model, freedom is seen as coming from the development of other intelligences that are no longer a part of our educational, societal, or professional training. Freedom comes from moving from what Edwin Abbott (1984) calls a “Flatland” or two- dimensional view of the world to a perspective that sees the dynamics of the world from es- calating levels of complexity and significance.
A simple example is understanding that our actions can be understood and even influenced or improved more readily if we explore “what” we are thinking about that causes us to take particularly actions. The thinking behind our actions or words might be described as a different plane of understanding. Exploring further into our think- ing processes we can increase our self managing ability or improve the predictability of our achievements if we can see “how” we are think- ing as well as “what” we are thinking. For ex- ample, many athletes have found they were blocked at improving performance by self-defeat- ing thoughts. In order to change these thoughts they had to have a process for changing how they were thinking. “Visioning” is one such example that has been used to successfully change “ h o w ” one thinks different thoughts, and ultimately has different behaviors. Educating ourselves regard- ing mental processes is foundational to development and improvement—and to a Developmental Philosophy of work design. There are many different schools which offer ways to view the world from different levels of reality. Peter Senge (1990) points to the idea that structure generates pattern which leads to particular events. For example, the way we structure highways generates particular traffic patterns which result in particular events for individuals and groups. In human systems the structure comes from corporate cultures and operating procedures. Nobel Laureate and physicist David Bohm offers a deeper three level system which moves from what we can detect with our senses to that which cannot be sensed. He proposes a first level that he calls an explicate order. This order is the perceived world, based on physical phenomena which are “explicated” or made explicit through our life experience. Behind or beyond this world, however, is an implicate order which is the formative source of power regarding what can and does emerge in the explicate order. Joseph Chilton Pearce, in Evolution’ s End, (1992) uses a metaphor of a hidden projector to clarify this relationship between implicate and explicate order. The hidden projector displays lights on a screen. If we want to see the light show, we look at the screen (explicate-order) and its display, and not at the projector (implicate or- der). To change the images on the screen we must change what is within the projector itself, not what is on the screen. The analogy does not hold exactly in our world since the implicate order cannot be found by walking backstage. It is a “non-localized” order. Bohm then carries the world-view to a third level, by pointing to a vastly more powerful ordering which produces the implicate order—a “supra-implicate order”. Bohm describes this as that which represents the information that guides and organizes the movement of fields or patterns of reality.
Pearce further describes the relationships among these three levels of reality. An explicate order gives rise to our lived experience—that which is in front of us everyday. The implicate order gives rise to our personal consciousness or our inner world experience. The supra-implicate order gives rise to and guides the implicate order. In our projector metaphor, the supra-implicate order is the very source of the projector—creator, power source, and operator.
Each higher level of world-view reduces the restraints we experience in being able to under- stand or come to terms with very complex phe- nomena and the workings of complex systems. The technologies that emerge from a Developmental Philosophy contribute to a capability to understand all the levels of reality that are creating physical world dynamics. This capability provides the base from which we can create more whole solutions to problems and more creative product offerings to the stakeholders of our businesses.
Behavioral Philosophy work designs have incorporated the behavioral tenet that reality is something that is universal for all persons. All reality is seen as observable by the senses and can be experienced directly. This view of reality tends to exclude the inner workings of the mind and emotions and, therefore excludes work hu- man beings can do in regard to management and development of self beyond functional aspects. The sense-based form of reality also tends to make it difficult for us to see the “reality form- ing” processes that go on in our minds—unob- servable by others and ourselves without the de- velopment of the skill to do so. Recent research has demonstrated a “reality” that is highly inter- pretative—one which is at least partially con- structed by the filters and mental models through which we view the world.
Another Nobel Laureate, Ilya Prigogene, de- scribed the experience of reality this way: “Whatever we call reality, it is revealed to us only through the active construction in which we participate.” Without understanding this we are at the mercy of forces we can not see.
We get so accustomed to looking at every- thing with the same set of eyes that we don’t see anything different; we are only looking at the objective world, and all realities look pretty similar. When we have an insight, we say to ourselves, “I never looked at it that way before”, which can be the same as“I was able to take a new perspective and, therefore, see something from a different level.” To continually awaken development of ourselves as persons, we need to continue to shift our perspective or world-view. We have the mental capacity to do that. In a developmental model the inner and outer world views are nurtured and seen as giving the individuals and the organization the ableness to see more possibilities.
New work designs seek to provide for signif- icantly improved communication among and across work groups. With communication there comes a better alignment between individual and organizational goals. These interactions include performance feedback among peers or between levels, task forces between departments, or the collection of additional customer feedback. In a behavioral organization, interactions are designed to improve the ability of individuals and teams to understand how they are viewed by others, and to provide motivation for improvement based on external reflection.
Behavioral based designs seek to create mo- tivation through the use of external or environ- mental reinforcement. Achievement is seen as something people do to maintain inclusion by their peers and superiors. In behavioral psychology, there is no concept of a larger system in which the smaller system exists and with which the smaller system acts reciprocally. As a result of the emphasis on external evaluation, it has be- come increasingly difficult for persons to be ac- curate about appraising their behavior, even in such physical and functional arenas, as whether they are on time for a meeting.
There is a culturally derived, tacit assumption in most organizational settings that human beings can not be self–governing or self–auditing be- cause they can not be objective about themselves. This is partly true, but not innately so. With hu- mans, if this ability is not developed in us from childhood, the capacity to be self-reflecting (self- observing and self-remembering) steadily dimin- ishes. This is particularly true when our primary source of reflection is external (e.g. from others’ interpretation of our actions). It is particularly true if the feedback focuses on elements that tend to pull us away from that which feels intrinsically self-integrating. As humans we have a desire to realize a sense of integrity between our values and our behavior, even when we have to learn the “hard way.” Individuals, through self–governance, can engage in a process of self-reflection and move themselves, over time, toward a pattern of behavior they consider to be more in line with personal higher order values. This cannot be achieved through external manipulation. Only the individual can tell what is uniquely integrating for him/her self . This is a core life exercise in development of self-accountability. The behaviorist model works against creating self-accountable behavior through institutionalizing reinforcement and external feedback to create “other account- ability”.
In our Western education and parenting world there are few processes for building ca- pability and accountability for one’s own reflec- tive processes. One research study found that by early school age children could no longer cor- rectly interpret whether they were performing ac- curately in a research exercise instructing them where to place their arms in relation to their body (Shankman:1990). Moreover, they would defend their answer as accurate even when shown photos of themselves performing inaccurately. However, within a few weeks of being asked to reflect on the accuracy of their response to the same ex- ercise, without any external input, they became increasingly accurate at assess their own performance. Self–observation is a capability that has systematically been eroded in our culture. With practice we can regain it.
In Western culture we have systematically instilled a culture with values that tend to erode self-accountability. First our parents, then our teachers, and now our employers/bosses tell us what to do. Our performance and our grade or rank is determined by others. We are told to what degree our behavior is correct. This is so embed- ded in our way of operating that it is difficult to see how pervasive it is and how much it works against creating self-accountable human beings. (Sanford: 1994)
From a Developmental Philosophy, the foundational element in effective work systems is self-reflecting, self-correcting, self-accountable, and self-evolving behavior. Energy spent on monitoring and attempting to affect the behavior of organizational members or collectives of persons from an external source is energy wasted—energy that could be better put to im- proving the business and the capability of people. The critical element is to increase self governing, self-evolving capability. (Murphy: 1994)
New work systems are based on the hope of producing products and services with the least possible waste, the fewest errors, and with the most effective return or yield from our efforts. In an effort to gain the highest efficiency in the early years of industry, much effort was put into breaking the work down into smaller and smaller units. New work designs have made an attempt to re-aggregate the work into more meaningful units called “whole tasks”. An example of this attempt is seen when a person on a machine will do all the jobs related to the machine including beginning to plan the work itself or maybe even ordering some of the materials that are needed to do the work. All this, however, is structured within what can be managed by a team in the same physical location and usually on the same shift. Work is not redesigned; people who do the work are simply redesignated. The same work and same nature of work is done.
The thinking processes employed for doing the work are not changed. The thinking now only covers a larger number of tasks which are still seen as functionally divided from the work of other functions. The primary mental process that is utilized is one of the elemental mind. An ele- mental view emanates from the paradigm that presumes only parts exist—not wholes—and works to understand phenomena exclusively by reducing wholes into parts. In an elemental view any summary of the whole is seen as accomplished by adding up of the parts. Parts tend to viewed as fixed and unchanging. We describe what they are, not what they could be. Most feedback processes, goal setting, and measurement systems are based on an elemental view of the world. The initiatives to be acted on and mea- sured are studied and implemented in a largely fragmented way. Organizations divide up feed- back forms into each type of behavior, and goals by target areas. This segmentation sounds reasonable, but it leads to the illogical conclusion that there is no difference between a comfortable house and a pile of building materials, or between a frisky mouse and a test tube full of chemicals. The difference, of course, between the molecules in a mouse and those in a test tube full of chemicals is organization. The molecules in a mouse are organized in a precise and complex way, while those in the test tube are just sloshed together. Most leaders realize that it is important to understand how the pieces fit together, at least in their own field; but they are still mostly concerned about the “parts” rather than about the “pattern.” Behavioral philosophy work-designs do not manage to overcome the reductionist view or elemental view of the world inherent in the modern culture and organizational operations.
In behavioral philosophy there is a search for the causes that produce the effects as though cause and effect moves in a linear path. In the physical and non-physical world, the causes for any effect emerge from many interacting elements occurring simultaneously, as well as from the anticipation of events not yet in existence. In order to bring change to an element of a system, we must consider the dynamics of the whole and work in a wholistic way. This systems view en- ables us to design change from an integrated per- spective, but requires that we let go of the security of programs that focus on specific functions, classes of people, and classes of problems. Iso- lated measures must give way to whole systems measures that track the overall progress of the system.
In a Developmental Philosophy, just as there are different levels of reality from which we can gain understanding of the dynamics of the world, there are different types of work to be done. At a minimum, there is the work that improves what already exists. This is different from the work necessary to create a new existence—raw mate- rials, technologies, and product offerings that do not now exist. In traditional organizations and even newer work design systems, these are divided among different functions and levels of the organization. In a developmental organization, all are working on both of these as well as on other types of work, without regard to their level or function.
Assessing Your Work-Design Or Process:
No matter what the work design or improvement program is called—High Commitment etc.—you can tell what potential it has by reflecting on which foundation the design is built. The fundamental differences can be discovered by asking:
- Expansion: Are people expected to expand their contribution and develop their capability from within a pre-set system? This includes a provision for annual re- view or other updating processes. Or, are the work systems designed to evolve as a result of the on-going development and contribution of people?
- Identity: Are people expected to identify with a set of acceptable behaviors that are exemplified by role models, in evaluation systems, and with a work unit who shares a rotating set of tasks ? Or, are people developed for their uniqueness and as an opportunity to contribute their essence to the business?
- Order: Is order maintained by creating increasing numbers of procedures, standards, and classification systems around which people are expected to organize their work and to which they are to match their performance? Or, is order developed through having all members of the organization connected to the generation of synergy, and to the self-organizing, and symbiotic relationships that need to be maintained between the organization and its stakeholders and a mutually desired future?
- Freedom: Do attempts to gain freedom from surprise come from multiplying the data and information across the organization? Or, do they come from enabling people to view reality from different levels of understanding that make complexity and rapid change the source of challenge, creativity, and innovation?
- Interaction: Are interactions and communication sourced from a desire to provide external motivation and reinforcement for organizationally– approved behavior? Or, are they sourced from in- creasing capability to be self-managing and self-evolving in the context of the emerging values of the stakeholders with which the business transacts?
- Concentration: Is work based on using a reductionist view of the world that breaks every whole into its parts to work on it, organize it, and evaluate it? Or, is capability built to work from an understanding of wholes and how different wholes relate to one another?
A Learning Organization Is Not Necessarily A Developmental Organization
Although I would be the last to disparage the pursuit of a Learning Organization—it is moving many people away from the shortcomings of the behavioral era. I do not believe it has a philosoph- ical or technological base that can ensure that it naturally evolves to a developmental approach for the creation of work systems. The triad of interaction, concentration and freedom is not carried out in a Learning Organization in a way that would lead to this result. The technology that springs from a Developmental Philosophy is fundamentally based in the development, not just the use, of intelligences. To be able see life and reality through the ascendancy of different planes of the thinking or mental frameworks, as dis- cussed in the freedom giving element, is fundamental to our becoming different beings and different organizational entities. Otherwise we view everything the same as everything else with no higher ordering influences from which to make sense of the world. If this capability is not developed, the nature of interactions used to move toward self-evolving, self-organizing processes do not have sufficient power for people to transform their world-view or paradigms away from the two-term models with which we view most of the world (e.g. right/wrong, good/bad).
The Systems thinking models normally in Learning Organization processes are drawn from a Cybernetic System framework. This framework was developed for creating artificial intelligence in computers but which has insufficient diversity and complexity to transform human consciousness or even for the understanding of human consciousness (Sanford: 1993). To enable evolution to the levels of spiritual and intellectual capacity needed for a developmental approach, a more extensive step is needed toward building the capability of all the intelligences necessary to understand and utilize transformational and evolutionary systems thinking processes. Learning Organization theory and practice contains the vision, but not yet the science and tech- nology required to actualize the vision.
If organizational leadership continues to be hypnotized by the functional changes that can readily be produced with behavioral models, business enterprises and, therefore, society run a risk of losing the potential of several more gen- erations of workers beyond those we have already lost. As you contemplate this summary, I suggest you consider my words from the level of an individual, a business organization, and at the level of society, or even the Earth. As Joseph Chilton Pearce says in his book Evolution’s End (1992) we lose the freedom that comes from a grander framework for understanding the field of life when we do not develop the capacity of the total brain—maybe even the loss of the human race if he is right (Freedom).
Without the faith that comes from seeing others as capable of being self-reliant, within the context of the whole, we tend to see a need for some of us to teach, judge, and/or reinforce ap- propriate behaviors in others, thus creating a need for more disciplinary means and institutions. With an intellectually developed, self-managing society, even the prison inmates can help evolve the systems that govern them into ones that are developmental. (Interaction)
An undeveloped mental capacity leaves us seeing ourselves, as humans, being something separate from all other living systems. We can not see the essence of the role of each life form and the intricate role it/he/she plays in the web of all life and, thus, too often inadvertently or even intentionally obliterate the physical life or at least the spirit and potential of that life, thereby reduc- ing the possible futures for all (Concentration).
When the above capabilities are insufficiently developed, we ensure the very outcomes we seek will not be realized. In the immediate as well as distant future we lose the innate will human be- ings have to make a difference with their lives through expansion of their contribution and the means of contributions (Expansion).
We foster an entire society which is driven from our lower nature (e.g. defensive and egois- tic), which is exemplified in succumbing to peer pressure rather than drawing from an internal sense of what is right and ethical (Identity).
We diminish the diversity and creativity that results from tapping the uniqueness of each per- son and may even be robbing ourselves of the sacred possibility that each human life brings. When any entity can not walk the path for which it was intended and can not make the difference it uniquely is capable of making, the whole does not become in totality what it could (Order).
These are the outcomes we lose—contribu- tion to the greater scheme of things, the internal response to what is right for all, and the evolution of the whole that comes from the uniqueness of the part.
Abbot, Edwin A. (1984). Flatland: a Romance of Many Dimensions. New American Library: New York.
Bennett, John G. (1956) The dramatic universe:
Vol. II, The Foundations of Moral Philosophy. Coombe Springs Press: Charles Town, WV.
Murphy, Ken (1994). Coaching your Way to a Learning Organization, Learning Organizations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow’s Work- place. San Francisco: New Leader Press
Pearce, Joseph Chilton, (1992) Evolution’s End: Claiming the Potential of our Intelligence. Harper: San Francisco.
Sanford, Carol (1993) Systems: A Hierarchy Of Types. SpringHill Publications: Battle Ground, WA.
Sanford, Carol. (1994) Leadership of Motivation: The Ethics and Practicality of Incentives, Leadership in a New Era. Sterling & Stone: San Francisco.
Senge, Peter. (1990) The Fifth Discipline, The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday: New Y ork.
Shankman, Albert O. D., workshop at the Hi- malayan Institute, April 28, 1990, Honesdale PA.
© 2004 copyright InterOctave Development Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved. For permission please email firstname.lastname@example.org or contact us at www.interoctave.com