Replying to LO27752 --
Dear Organlearners,
Fred Nichols < nickols@alt.net > writes on the
Subject: Accounting and Economics. LO27752
>There are lots of possibilities for beefing up the
>checks and balances without relying on anyone's
>innate honesty and integrity.
Greetings dear Fred,
This sentence has profound implications. I think it deserves our careful
contemplation and participation in a LO-dialogue. That is why I have
changed the subject.
Let us compare the following two questions:
(1) Should there be a serious lack of honesty and integrity in an
organisation, how can it be restored?
(2) How can honesty and integrity in an organisation be cultivated?
Question (1) implies that there were better times in the past. It
took me half a century to learn that often these better times were
better only in the sense of:
(1) me assuming that honesty and integrity existed profusely in the
past because of not knowing self what they involve,
(2) me being unable to identify the coverups of breaches in
honesty and integrity, again because of a lack in knowledge.
Consequently the clause in question (1) points to a serious lack
in my own learning whereas question (2) suggests a willingness
which I must have to learn what honesty and integrity involve.
Fred's sentence is so carefully formulated that in what I now want to say,
it might seem as if his opinion is clear. However, he will have to speak
for himself. In my opinion the use of checks and balances points to
question (1) rather than question (2). The reason is that in order to draw
up checks and balances, somebody in the past had to knew a lot of honesty
and integrity of which much had to exist so as to learn about it. This
brings us to the following vital question. Can we self learn authentically
from these checks and balances what honesty and integrity involve?
The older I become, the more I get concerned that "knowledge which live
within a person" should not be confused with "information which exists
outside a person". Knowledge always has a tacit dimension whereas
information usually does not have it. The only exception is quantum
mechanical information concerning precisely what is known as complementary
quantities. The tacit dimension here is better known as Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle (UP).
Perhaps I have to write once again on this UP shortly since it seems to
contradict the essentiality sureness of creativity. The UP works on the
atomic level where it is impossible to work with parts of wholes. On this
level we can work only with wholes (like an electron or proton), wholes of
wholes (like a nucleus or a kernel), wholes of wholes of wholes (like an
atom or simple ion), wholes of wholes of wholes of wholes (like a molecule
or a complex ion), etc. Every whole is imbedded in its field which also
consists of wholes. Smuts called this the wholeness of the whole, but in
terms of "deep wholeness" I rather call it the sureness of the whole.
Each measurement on a whole makes use of the relationship between the
whole and its field. This relationship involves both the "becoming" and
"being" of the whole. The "becoming-being" of the whole unfolds in a
variety of so called complementary quantities like position-momentum and
energy-time. It is as if the "being" of a whole is connected by its
"becoming" to the "being" of a whole in its field. This kind of connection
is extended in the field. Likewise the "becoming" of a whole is connected
by its "being" to the "becoming" of a whole in its field where this
connection is also extended. The art of measurement up to this day is to
interpret the "being" of the whole in terms of the "being" of a whole in
its field. The same applies to its "becoming". The "becoming" of a whole
is reflected through mediation of its "being" in the "becoming" of some
whole in its field. Therefor we cannot reduce both the "being" and
"becoming" of the whole to a "being" of a whole in its field. Should we
try do so, our certainty of the "becoming" will decrease accordingly.
We have a profound example of this complementary nature of atomic wholes
in our languages. It is impossible to convey meaning by sentences
consisting only of either nouns or verbs. We need both nouns as "beings"
and verbs as "becomings" in our sentences. (We may qualify the nouns
further by adjectives and the verbs by adverbs, but this does not change
the essence.) Sentences usually have the structure noun*verb*noun. Such
sentences are declarative, i.e., they are statements. When a sentence has
the structure verb*noun*verb, it is usually a command. For example, kick
(verb) the ball (noun) so that it can move (verb). The same happens in the
binary code (1 or 0) of computer languages. The trend is to identify a
constant (being) with a 1 and an operation (becoming) with a 0.
The checks and balances related to honesty and integrity are merely
information. If I do not have at least tacitly some innate honesty and
integrity, how can I digest the information of these checks and balances
meaningfully? How can I prevent somebody with premeditation misusing these
checks and balances as disinformation to fool me? It is clear to me that I
must have some innate honesty and integrity as well as the innate
knowledge of them to use the information of these checks and balances
wisely.
Fred, you used both the words "checks" and "balances". I think it is
because of your sensitivity to liveness ("becoming-being"). I would have
done the same, thinking of checks as "becomings" (processes) and balances
as "beings" (structures). Perhaps you think the opposite or even
different, but it is for your to say. Nevertheless, this allows me to say
something on the dialogue on statistics initiated by Scott Simmerman. The
hot problem of statistics up to this day is that the data are "beings" and
not also "becomings". As a result we can introduce any "becoming" between
these "beings" so as to give them whatever meaning we like. This,
according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (UP), cannot lead to
greater sureness.
A question which has ransacked my mind for many days now is locked up in
the phrase "have innate honesty and integrity as well as innate knowledge
of them". Are the "innate honesty and integrity" different from the
"innate knowledge of them", are they parts of "innate knowledge", or is
"innate knowledge" a part of them? The reason why I ask this question is
because for me integrity is the outcome of the two essentialities sureness
("identity-categoricity") and wholeness ("unity-associativity") taken
together. This does not imply that integrity is independent from the other
five 7Es (seven essentialities of creativity) liveness, fruitfulness,
spareness, otherness and openness. They rather function as the tacit
dimension of integrity.
Since all the 7Es go for me beyond my knowledge to my creativity on the
pushing side and my other faculties like character, faith and love on the
pulling side, it is also the case for two of them known together as
integrity. I cannot have knowledge of integrity, yet lack integrity in
character, faith or love. I cannot have knowledge of integrity, yet lack
integrity in my creativity. Integrity has to flow through all the
faculties of my spirituality so as to guide its formation. Where it does
not, my spirituality breaks without me knowing it, hence losing its form.
That is why I want to avoid the following manner in restoring honesty and
integrity within an organisation. Fire the bad people and hire good people
in their place. It needs endless surveillance -- policing by Big Brother.
It also adds to a judgemental atmosphere -- people must be tagged as good
or bad. Furthermore, fear for firing forces some people with bad practices
only to behave good for some time while others go even deeper underground
with their bad practices.
In many organisations, small as a family or large as a nation, this
fire/hire manner of restoring becomes a ridiculous exercise. The family
ought not fire a member and perhaps hire another member, although it is
done frequently. The nation cannot fire its bad people, except by
confining them to jails. The nation cannot hire good people, except by
allowing new immigrants. But worst of it all, a family or a nation living
under fear develop all sorts of psychological disorders in their
familyhood or nationhood. We here in South Africa experienced it vividly
during the era of apartheid. Destructive actions erupt foolishly in a
family or a nation living in fear. The hearings before the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission brought massive evidence for this to the light.
Honesty and integrity cannot be cultivated by fear. It is rather the other
way around. The honesty and integrity of a person usually makes that
person fearless to deal with a lack of honesty and integrity in another
person. But how ought that fearless person deal with such a lack?
In my opinion this fearlessness gets wasted when the person with honesty
and integrity try to correct those with a lack of them in a destructive
(offensive) manner. Firstly, it just rises the level of fear in the
organisation higher. Secondly, destructive (offensive) actions illicit
destructive (offensive) reactions. Thirdly, anger at such an unquenchable
situation burns continuously rather than to flare up occasionally and then
to die quickly. Going to sleep with anger and waking up with it for days
is not good for anybody's spirituality.
Even though fearless, these people with much honesty and integrity have to
live in an increasingly negative atmosphere. Many of them begin to focus
on the negative, trying to avoid whatever thing with something negative in
it, even minutely or assumed. The planning of teamwork and actually doing
it becomes impossible, except in some superficial tasks. Worst of all,
many of them begin to focus on perceived enemies outside the organisation
rather than on structures and processes within the organisation which made
it so horrible to live in. Consequently this negative atmosphere makes
them questioning whether it is worth living with honesty and integrity.
Almost daily I come into contact with people who are not aware how this
negativity which they allowed to creep into their spirituality,
jeopardizes their honesty and integrity for which they care so much. When
they operate in a group with a positive atmosphere, they are like Dr
Heckel. But when other members of the group, often only one, also carry
this negativity, they become Frankensteins. Sadly, they are not able to
see this switch in their personalities and to know why it happens, even
though they may be very keen to grow in honesty and integrity. It is even
worse that they do not understand this legacy of apartheid, despite the
burial of apartheid ten years ago.
To keep up with apartheid in those terrible 44 years, wholeness had to be
broken frequently on every walk of life. The fragmented way of doing
anything became "normal". Questioning this "normal" way of doing anything
for its lack of wholeness became "abnormal". Problems caused by a lack of
wholeness could not be solved because their solutions which had to restore
wholeness were considered to be "abnormal". One such a problem was the
ablation of honesty and integrity in our nation. Preaching fire and
brimstone against this ablation from our pulpits did little to stop it.
When the wall of wholeness becomes broken and water flows through it, the
wall has to be repaired rather than shouting against the water coming
through the break. Let us repair the wall.
I think that each of us has sufficient tacit knowledge to begin with
cultivating rather than restoring honesty and integrity. However, even
though it seems to be an oxymoron, this tacit knowledge is not sufficient
to maintain the cultivation of honesty and integrity. To begin an action
and to sustain is not the same thing. We have to begin with this
cultivation, but afterwards we will also have to keep up with it.
To keep up with this cultivation, we will have to articulate our tacit
knowledge into information, despite how difficult it is. Together with
this external information we also acquire innate formal knowledge. The
articulations of each of us will be different while the preciseness of
them will also differ. These differences implicate no errors because
otherness is essential to them. Then, by subjecting these articulations to
the interpretations of fellow learners in the spirit of a LO-dialogue,
wisdom will emerge from the formal knowledge of each of us. This wisdom
(sapient knowledge) is needed to sustain the cultivation of honour and
integrity. It is your wisdom and mine which connects your personal
knowledge and mine into one knowledge so that we cannot speak of
knowledges! It is not and never will be the informations which you and I
produce, event though the whole of academy seems to operate on this
assumption.
I have begun to articulate my tacit knowledge of honour and integrity by
writing that for me integrity is a combination of sureness and wholeness,
two of the 7Es. I also did it a few years ago on our LO-dialogue in which
Winfired Dressler participated with much excitement. Is this a wise
articulation of integrity, now and in the past? No, not if fellow learners
have little understanding of sureness and wholeness. So if I want to
articulate my tacit knowledge of integrity, I will have to sustain it by
helping fellow learners to learn more about sureness and wholeness.
The great danger of my articulations is that they are merely external
information. They cannot be internalised as knowledge by a process which I
call rote learning. They can become at most "inner information" when this
rote learning is perfected. My articulations are intended for something
different. It is to let you fellow learners recognise your own tacit
knowledge in them, whether it is the same or different to mine. However,
recognising your tacit knowledge is not the same as articulating it. Only
when you articulate your tacit knowledge self, does it become more than
tacit knowledge. I have deep respect for fellow learners who try to
articulate their tacit knowledge authentically since I know how difficult
it is to articulate mine for the benefit of other learners.
I often get angry when another person objects to my articulations on a
topic, not in terms of his/her own authentic articulations, but in terms
of a third person's articulations presented as an authority (sureness) on
the topic. Fortunately, it seldom happens in our LO-dialogue. Wholeness in
a LO-dialogue does require a third person for us to have the associativity
pattern of wholeness. But when this third person is not present in that
dialogue, there cannot be wholeness, no matter how much the sureness of
the authority. This third person may rather be misused, as an authority,
to divide the LO-dialogue into two camps. The ensuing lack of wholeness
will be deadly for any further learning of anything which involves
wholeness. This includes integrity in my opinion.
To cultivate the integrity of our LO-dialogue, we will have to cultivate
increasing sureness and increasing wholeness in our LO-dialogue. I think
that this is indeed happening. It makes our LO-dialogue very special -- a
rarity -- an abnormality ;-) Yet special, rare and abnormal ;-) things can
be propagated too. They just need special care -- rare care -- abnormal
care ;-) This kind of care comes through special learning -- rare learning
-- abnormal learning ;-) This is what a Learning Organisation is about.
There are seven primary laws of complexity as I have tried to explain in
part 5 of Constructive Creativity and Leadership. Sureness involves the
Law of Veracity of Complexity (LVC) while wholeness involves the Law of
Pliability of Complexity (LPC). This means, that should integrity involve
both sureness and wholeness as I think it does, it involves both the LVC
and LPC. It means that to sustain integrity in our organisations, we will
have to complexify in both our observations and our accomodations. For
leaders to believe that making observations and accomodations like in the
past will suffice for the future, is to follow a recipe for disaster.
People with integrity cannot have blinkers on (lack of sureness) and keep
a rigid stance (lack of wholeness). I recently studied and interesting
analysis of a major Dutch bank in serious trouble. The bottom line of the
study was that its CEO has to many blinkers on and a stance too rigid. The
study could easily have spelled it out -- the CEO's integrity is under
suspicion. As a consequence workers in that bank and clients dealing with
the bank find it increasingly unpleasant, apart from the rapid decreasing
profits.
Is it possible that the same can happen for an organisation as large as a
nation when its political leaders lack in integrity? When a political
leader act with vice rather than integrity, such a leader should resign
immediately. But often this does not happen because both the majority of
leaders and majority of followers in the nation fear the economy will
become shaken too much. Meanwhile the ship of nationhood becomes rocked so
much that it takes in considerable water, drowing the integrity of many of
its passangers.
What will be an act with vice rather than with integrity? Well, either
sureness or wholeness, but usually both will hit the dust. The leader will
keep very quiet about his breach in wholeness. For example, the leader may
have secretly an extramarital sex relationship. It breaks at least the
wholeness of the leader's family and keeps them in the dark beyond
sureness. When a nation does not respond to such vice, how can a part of
the nation in a lesser organisation of it respond to vice in that
organisation?
You fellow learners may have noted that I wrote very little on honesty
itself, except by dragging it along the hair with integrity. This
contribution will become too long by giving also attention to honesty. I
leave it up to another fellow learner to introduce it in our topic the
cultivation of honesty in our organisations. It definitely not needs to be
as long as mine on cultivating integrity. But it will require searching
deeply into your tacit knowledge and trying to articulate it despite how
difficult it may be. I myself will be very excited to study such an
articulation. Mapping my own tacit knowledge becomes a tedious job. I
think that the same applies for you fellow learners who have to read it.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.