Depending on how much press we read, we can come across headlines that follow this pattern on a weakly basis:
XYZ has left his post after only x months due to differences of opinion on the strategy of the organization.
While we know that in most of the cases this is just a bullshit way to say that people didn’t keep promises, didn’t get along, new interests emerged that the new guy was crossing etc., sometimes this is really the reason why the new CEO leaves….and when this happens, it raises the following question:
How did the board decide exactly by this CEO?
Truth is in most cases the board doesn’t have a solid case for selection. Considering experiences, track records and chemistry is not enough; even ideas about strategy are not enough: how can the board decide if these ideas are good? Based on what?
The board MUST have a CONCEPT based on which a strategy maybe built before they start talking to candidates.
This concept should be discussed with the candidate who -if he’s good- can credibly add to it, modify it, etc. If the board hires the candidate, he’d present a strategy that complies with the concept and the board can approve it, or -if it’s a well functioning board- credibly add to it, modify it, etc.
In lack of this the typical schema goes something like this:
“can you increase profitability by 20% in the next 3 years?” “yes!” “how?”
“I see chances of reducing operational costs by introducing the following best practices and to increase revenues by cross selling, better marketing, expanding into new markets, etc.”
The schema is basically kept on the level of cliches which means communications is meaningless, which in turn means nobody knows anything.
Sure: in some industries it’s more difficult to come up with such a concept than in others. Being a 3rd tier supplier in automotive manufacturing SEEMINGLY leaves much less room for new/improved concepts that could serve as a base for strategy than in industries that cry out for new concepts, like media for example.
The common denominator across all industries is that only a handful of players have a concept, the rest operates on cliches….like the headlines they produce.
“Something can be rejected competently only by the one who is at the same time able to defend it perfectly. And something can be advocated competently only by the one who is able to reject it perfectly.” – Andras Laszlo.
Truth is that you don’t need to be authentic to be successful in business; business is overwhelmingly (say 90% ) a mechanical process where authenticity has no place: you buy what works for others, you implement what’s proven (by others), you run things the way you and everybody else learned to run things: you go by the numbers. In the mechanical 90% part nobody is (allowed to be!) authentic.
Then there is that 10% where authenticity makes all the difference. It’s not only about questioning the fundamentals and the conventional: it’s about giving answers to ultimate questions. Not finding! Giving. Creating: seemingly from nothing. Not relying only on the comfortable, lulling support of facts or evidence; having the courage to go all the way, and back: creating and representing the context for those who are busy with the 90% !
Without this effort nobody is authentic!
Without authenticity people in leadership roles are, unwittingly or otherwise, pretentious; they are forced to spend most of their time dealing with the resulting mess.
If you are in a CEO role and you want market leadership, you must dedicate more time to this 10% than to the 90%.
If you sit on a board of a company that’s striving for great things and you are not authentic, you are a liability!
When I clearly state what I want in the right context, it’s straight forward communication.
When I don’t say what I want and I am just selling myself AND I am out of context it’s projecting.
This happens often when people are looking for a job or when they are in a sales position.
Projecting is bad for you!
It leaves a very limited impression. When you make statements about your value system, your top 3 strengths, etc. in a simple networking conversation, without being asked, it is limiting; what you are saying is that you’re good. Like everybody else.
If you bring a topic to unexpected heights you show that you’re good. If you do this neutrally, meaning that your ego is not involved, it shows that you’re great; this is your ticket for setting the context for other topics that maybe of interest to you.
Interviews are not fair. No matter what the context, be it job interviews, management audits, corporate restructuring, pitching for a project, analysis as part of a management consulting initiative, vendor selection, whatever; they are not fair.
Right off the bat interviews create an inquisitive situation, which is absolutely not warranted. Even the most capable managers, specialists sometimes even leaders become less effective in an interview setting; perhaps because everybody knows, even if only intuitively, that they are in an incorrect, unjust situation. Once you are in a situation where you shouldn’t be, you already lost. Even if the outcome will be perceived as “positive” (like you get the job, you don’t get fired, you contribute to the uncovering of the root cause of a problem, etc. etc.), the experience leaves a bitter aftertaste in the mouth of those, who are not built to give up, to accept injustice, to rationalize by adjusting to the majority, to comply by all means, etc.
Interviews polarize between good interviewers and poor interviewers, not between good contributors and poor contributors. Very often a good interviewer is a poor contributor and vice versa.
Have conversations! Even if you find yourself sitting across from a bureaucrat who just wants to get through a checklist as fast as possible, still make an effort to have a conversation! If you are the most experienced present, guide the conversation towards the ideal outcome for everybody.
- Prepare: know what you want out of the conversation. What do you want to find out, points you want to make, etc. Hopefully “to impress” will not be on your list.
- Set the stage: it’s possible that your conversation partners just arrived from a series of meetings, grabbed a coffee 5 minutes before your meeting, had no time even to discuss what they want out of this conversation. If they don’t do it, set the stage yourself. “Why are we here?” may save a lot of time and aggregation.
- Keep an open mind: the conversation may not go the way you planned, some of the points you planned to make may not make sense anymore, etc. Be open and adjust.
- Make it a pleasant experience. Have fun with it! Relax (remember, it’s a conversation, not an interview): smile, think, take your time, make observations, comment, etc. Be in the now!
- Do NOT give standard answers! Why bother? If you interview for a job for example, handle the typical what-are-your-strengths-and-weaknesses type of non-sense with humor and talk about concrete situations, problems, efforts, outcomes
- If they want to put you in a situation that is not worthy of you, (“group interviews” come to mind as an example), politely refuse and share your reasons with them.
On the other side of the fence, when you’re the one leading the interview, always think about this: what kind of experience do I create with this conversation? Is it going to inspire, is it going to unleash creative energies, is it going to create an atmosphere of trust, is it going to make the other person want to help me, to open up to me, to share his thoughts with me? Is she going to leave after the conversation with full of energy, is she going to think back to this experience with positive thoughts, is he going to rave about this conversation to his friends? Is she going to leave with a new perspective, with exciting thoughts and ideas?
Essentially there are only two types of changes, representing two opposing ends of a large spectrum:
Inert change, the direction of which is downwards and controlled change, the direction of which is upwards.
Ironically, as they fall, organizations rationalize their lack of control with what they call change management.
There is no compromise, consensus or management in architecting and leading upward change.
“Tools” for architecting change are
- The concept, which serves as a platform of integration for strategy and leadership must be articulated. Such concept must be based on principles (not in the conventional sense).
- Strategy and organizational design
- Essential (vertical) leadership
Upward change essentially goes against the current (fights convictions), since the environment is falling. The challenges are tremendous and in this context terms like courage, integrity and loyalty regain their original, undistorted meaning.
Upward change is transformative especially when initiated in modern business organizations.
Upward change accomplishes what people experiencing inert change are only dreaming about: synthetic integration between actors of the given system and those of the environment (be it customers, stakeholders, whatever).
Somebody summarized today’s “intellectual milliue” very succinctly like this:
” They read one book, write 10 and talk a 100″. We may call this horizontal perspective.
Horizontal perspective is based on an intellectual inertia that doesn’t challenge the fundamentals. It builds sand castles and packages them as fortresses. From another point of you, it’s purely quantitative: I give you data or information; e.g. this is how it’s done in this industry, it’s applicable to yours; here are the facts about your industry and the top three possible interpretations; research shows that customer preferences are changing; use this methodology, it always works! etc. Also: horizontal perspective is always easy to understand and provides easy solutions. While just because it’s easy doesn’t automatically mean that it’s useful or effective, the idea is that companies are not set up to handle the difficult – no matter how effective or useful it maybe! This is key!
People build careers on horizontal perspectives: they notice a phenomena, prove its existence by numbers, they refer to leading “authors”, associating themselves with the leader, write a book on the subject, they do a ton of presentations or lectures, and then they consult.
The style elements are reminiscent of those of a street hustler: quick, opportunistic, aggressive yet engaging, always appealing to what people want to hear.
Once the book is out they are “focused”: they consistently eat, drink, think, dream and talk the message. It becomes their brand, so to speak. The more aggressive types even fight for the “first mover’s” title: e.g. “I believe I was the first who coined the term paradigm shift.” The messages are typically very simple, often trivial and once they are no longer relevant, these horizontal consultants try to be the first at finding the next message (like the wisdom of the crowd, social media is a disruption factor, don’t tolerate assholes (one of my favourite ones), listen to the customers, etc.), and follow the same pattern; the second time however they already have a leverage: they were the (self proclaimed) first ones before!
Vertical perspective is different. Since it stands “above” the horizontal plane where the actors operate, it is first of all incredibly difficult to grasp. It demands style elements that are opposite to the opportunistic “horizontal” ones.
Vertical perspectives do not try to appeal to everybody; only to those who are predisposed to grasp it.
They don’t try to explain in a way that “Even I can understand”. Their objectivity is immutable thus exerting an upward “pull”, essentially providing what it should: a higher vantage point.
Since the vantage point is difficult to grasp, on a more practical plane such perspectives require discipline, determination and uncompromising courage, since once a higher perspective is reached, how to act is a question of integrity; especially in small things.
Vertical perspectives are permanent and described in absolute term, since their foundation, relative to the “field of operation” is absolute: principles.
Since vertical perspectives are absolute, they are independent of industries, situations, etc. They always apply; so whoever “gives” these perspectives always talks about the same things.
And last but not least: vertical perspectives can not be really “given”. Whoever seeks the perspective, potentially already has it. Support maybe given but that’s it.
Vertical perspectives are typically acquired by writing, not by reading…once in a while at good conversations.
In short: vertical perspective is for those who are serious about doing great things and do not get sidetracked by big things.
Few other industries polarize perceptions about value as much as retained executive search. The industry has been around for over 60 years and is in a constant state of flux; its value is perceived differently by mature and emerging markets, by clients who run multinational corporations, mid and sometimes even small sized companies and of course by executives who inevitably get into contact with search firms.
The search guys themselves represent a broad variety, from top tier global search firms, through successful sector and/or geographical niche players to recruiting companies who are trying to go “upmarket”, or even one man operations. Since barriers of entry are low, the industry attracts both highly professional elite players and opportunistic survivors who just want to “make a quick buck”.
Here we’d like to take a quick look only at one aspect of the executive search business and attempt to provide some perspective to it: pricing.
No matter what market we look at pricing is an “either or issue”: either high or not. High is easier to define, although it varies depending on whether we look at mature, emerging or young markets.
In mature markets high price may mean 200-300K and up (in dollars or euros). In emerging markets high maybe 60-100K +. The high price is typically in proportion to the salary level of the position to be filled.
There are special cases where we talk about prestige rates; these are well known cases where the search fee is $1M or close.
How a search is priced in the “not high” category (good, average, low) is relatively well known and thus not so interesting here.
Pricing is typically determined by the :
- the client
- the search firm
- the market (including level of position in question)
High pricing is fundamentally determined by the client and the search firm and of course: by the search consultant.
What makes the question of high-pricing in search interesting, is that in a way it’s an anomaly. Conventionally, in most industries, price is something that’s being talked down (in context of optimization and other frameworks). Exceptions are areas where perception (premium luxury brands, real estate, etc.) time (wine, vintage furniture, etc.) and real and company related political considerations play a role.
The real anomaly and thus the real interesting phenomena is when the high price is determined by pure principles that bind the client and the search consultant. Pure principles means that no or minimal quantitative considerations are present.
The client and the search consultant connect outside, in a way above the business domain. Not only do they view the principles of supremacy, elitism and control similarly, but because they actualize such principles to a similar degree in themselves, they actually live in a reality determined by such principles. The reality of values is rooted in principles; without operating in such a principle-based reality, articulated values are hollow, and always compromised. Values such as honesty, integrity, fairness, tolerance, etc. are all illusions without the underlying principles. Style elements like empathy, kindness, openness, etc. all lack consistency, and may easily transform to hostility, aggression and stubbornness once conditions change.
People who give meaning to supremacy, elitism and control possess a position of power that is not situational (not rewarded) and they attract others whose orientation is similar, while naturally repelling those, whose orientation points in the opposite direction (opportunistic, populistic, highly rational, but hardly intellectual).
If the client and the search consultant operate in realities that are based on true principles, the hierarchical reality of principles/values/qualities is established, and the price reflects the true quality of the time the engagement demands from the search consultant, the client and the leader who will be attracted into such an organization. Since quality time is priceless, no matter how high the search fee, the price is always nominal and symbological.
There is no leadership in compromising on principles and values and there is of course no leaderhsip in subordinating qualitative to quantitative considerations.
Is it worth talking about illusions?
Illusions are incomplete realities; incomplete in that the essential factor is missing. In other words: they are almost completely substantial. This is why they so dangerous: nobody argues with substance as reality. The word substantial comes from the Latin sub stare: to stand below something. The implication is: the “one standing” only exists relative to what it stands below, without which it is just an illusion.
In business terms: the existence of business functions, components, factors, or business as a whole is only an illusion if it lacks awareness of the essence it depends on. And as we all know the attention span of businesses rarely extends beyond the substantial.
From this context today all businesses are illusory, including the ones that are perceived to be doing fine. This caused a pervasive identity crisis; the identity crisis of companies, organizations and participating people. The right questions are never being asked, leadership is non-existent while it has become an industry (leadership development, consulting, etc.), the confusion about ethics is wide spread and people don’t have the slightest idea about what they are doing besides trying to make some money. From this point of view there isn’t much difference between street hustlers and CEOs: in fact the style elements (world view, thinking, values, speaking, behaviour, etc.) of the two are increasingly becoming the same.
Drawing attention to the areas of Leadership and Organization; Strategy, Identity and Transformation; Communications Protocols and Style Elements as the three main areas where illusions prevail, may trigger thinking that results in essential leadership, which is the prerequisite for the much needed integration on all levels of business, as well as between business and its strategic environment.
LEADERSHIP & ORGANIZATION
- Leadership can not exist in an environment that is subordinated to quantity (and its analogies, like profit, revenue, various KPIs, etc.).
- Leadership and business have no common denominator: one is based on principles, the other is based on money.
- Power is not subordinated to money. Never was, never will be.
- Economics can only be a third grade factor (at best) in an organic organization. The first one is principle the second one is power.
- Money is perceived to be power only by 3rd grade people and below.
- The concept behind the modern term of shared leadership disregards (often denies) the vertical direction of organic organization, and assumes that leadership is a specialized function. This concept is the brainchild of specialists, and it has no foundation from the highest point of view, i.e. from the point of view of principles and integration.
- There is no organization without principle(s) and power. Money is not a principle and it is not power. Consequently there are no organizations today, only businesses. That, which is called an organization today is a pseudo-unity, which has been assembled based on functions and inferior goals (not purpose!), thus the first step in the “realization” of these organizations is infinitely mechanical, and with time, mechanization will proliferate, which results in increasing inferiority.
- It is not the organization that makes (breeds, cultivates, “develops”, etc.) the leaders, and it is especially not –horribile dictu!- the HR department; it is the leader that calls forth organization with the appropriate structure. Leaders exist without happen to be leading an organization but (organic) organizations do not exist without a leader.
- The “concept” of the organization is its highest point. There is only decline from there: operations without leadership therefore are in analogy with decline. Today this applies even to an organic organization. The leader must actively represent the concept, which must be based on principles. Once organization is under way, the leader’s role is to exercise maximum control, i.e. to stop involution, and ensure integration. In short: he must ensure that principles are manifest throughout the organization.
- Leadership is qualitative, and its direction is vertical. Its starting point is the centre and it is oriented upwards: that is for transcendence; transcendence of current states: organizational and individual. In other words it integrates “up”.
- Management is quantitative and its direction is horizontal. It integrates towards the centre. While it is fundamentally quantitative, it does have qualitative elements, which are manifest in the function of (horizontal) integration.
- Leadership, purpose, organization and strategy. These are not silos. No matter what the organization’s function, it is not finance, hr, technology, marketing or any other function that is responsible for leadership, purpose, organization and strategy. It is the leader who, as the main integrator, incorporates leadership, purpose organization and strategy; all in one.
- In polar opposition to business organization there is organic organization. One is mechanical and lifeless the other is powerful and transcendent. From this point of view alone, with the exception of very few, today all organizations are business organizations: business, military, government, academia, religion.
- Artificial organizations are put together because otherwise they would never come to life: they can not have a true purpose; without any connection to principles this is not possible.
- Opposite to the common sentiment, the “evolution” of an organization is not from the parts towards the whole; it is not based on quantitative factors, where complexity is measured by the number of units. The evolution of the organization is rhythmic, in that it starts with the whole, which is the concept and the purpose of the organization, through the parts, leading back to the whole, through an intense effort of integration, following an up-down-up rhythm, whereas the first step towards the realization of the purpose is in the same time the step farthest away from it. This applies only to organic organizations. In modern business organization the first step is the closest to the concept, and the subsequent steps continue leading farther away from it.
- With some compromise data maybe considered as the smallest unit of organization. But an organization does not consist of data or information: it’s not a sum total of data. This view is unacceptable.
- Today both money and information is mishandled, but it’s not enough: money is treated as information and information is treated as money.
- Leadership is intrinsically elitist: it presumes the presence of superiority.
- The inferior rightfully perceives the integrity of the superior as a direct threat to his existence.
- Today the dominant view flat out denies the existence of superiority. Therefore the whole environment is counter-leadership; to say the least.
- With the denial of superiority, degrees of inferiority are being considered as levels of superiority. Naturally this is only pseudo superiority, which can be easily disclosed by its purely quantitative nature. Superiority is qualitative: it has nothing to do with “amounts”, like amount of experience, amount of knowledge, etc.
- Acknowledging/sensing/understanding the superiority of those above us in the true hierarchy indicates that our range of potentials includes superiority. Those who truly deny superiority do so because their “reality” does not contain it. Not potentially, not virtually and certainly not actually.
- The confidence of the inferior individual comes from numbers: there are more of us. In so called moments of truth quantity is rarely present. Such moments crumble the inferior individual; while such moments rarely happen in the life of the inferior individual, superior persons are literally living in continuous moments of truth.
- The small man is practical, opportunistic and vulgar. As they aptly describe him: “he does not care about higher ideals until he fills his stomach”. Even when he feels safe, the realm of the superior is an abstraction for him; he may discuss it between sports, cars or the current TV show, but only briefly and without any effect on him. Numerous small men usurp leadership positions, but they will never be leaders; no organization maybe centered around them.
- The story of the self improvement/self-help book hero is not a heroic story. It’s a repulsive story of senseless mechanical formulas with inferior style elements. Fundamentally there is no difference between a self help book hero and an MBA hero.
- It is laudable if people reach back to the great leaders of the past for leadership advice; it is preposterous however if they, grotesquely, adjust those advices to the inferior conditions of the present, or make it fit their own inferiority. There is no compromise in leadership as upward integration: it is a heroic praxis…
- ….It is even more disgusting if authors usurp the names of great leaders for their own personal name, or as it is commonly called : for building their own personal brand.
- Today, at this moment, each and every organization is so far away from the ideal state as it has never been; nobody is positioned where they should be, nobody is doing what they should be. …and there is no sign of a turnaround.
- Each and every organization today is in an identity crisis. Not because there is confusion about their identity. They simply do not have an identity.
- Each and every organization must be transformed. The required transformation however can not be delivered by so called “transformation consultants”. It must start outside of the corporate setting.
- Today’s leadership does everything in their “power” to maintain an illusion of order to the degree that they seriously believe that the inert fall that they are experiencing is “good change” and they manage it well.
- Lies have never been like this: they are honest. But under the surface of this personable, friendly, upbeat honesty there is a deep identity crisis. Everybody knows they should be doing/thinking/seeing something else. Today “people don’t believe what they know and don’t know what they believe” (Bela Hamvas).
- The other type of lie is the habitual lie. It is so ingrained in the mass that it is almost expected. This is one reason why liars and thieves are not ostracized in the corporate world: who would ostracize them?
- Everything that happens in an illusory setting is an illusion; The bizarre phenomena of corporate training with fireworks, offsite team building exercises, etc. is a testament to this.
- There is no such thing as absolute illusion. This would be a contradiction. Illusion means incomplete reality, which is in analogy with lack of clarity. This is why it is so dangerous.
- The rational mind, which is incapable to look behind facts, inadvertently contributes to the growth of illusion. Such minds desperately need the presence of a force of integration, which can only come from the supra rational realm. They sense this, yet they deny it. Rationally speaking they have no other choice. Thus what makes a rational person great (specialists and integrating specialists), is not the perfection of their rational faculties, but their attitude towards the superior. An intuition that is analogous with faith.
- Leadership has become a reward: not for mediocrity but for inferiority: there is nothing superior about people in leadership roles today.
- Only few people expect superiority from leaders and even they do so only unknowingly. These people are the disappointed ones. For the overwhelming majority, superiority is beyond comprehension: these are the cynical ones. Since in mechanical organizations there is no true path of realization, it’s unavoidable that the disappointed people will become cynical. The cynical ones never become disappointed: that would presuppose the evolution of the organization.
- Supremacy is the foundation of respect. Supremacy, dominance, control: analogous terms. In the presence of true supremacy those, who occupy roles lower on the hierarchy but are predisposed for transcendence, relate to those superior to them, with respect. Superior men, since their range of potentials fully encloses those of the inferior, possess full understanding. However superior men should never accommodate (adjust themselves to) the inferior. The inferior in turn, due to his lack of understanding should never “challenge” the superior. Challenging principles is senseless revolution.
- All books on strategy and leadership on the shelves of the business section in bookstores are worthless. Each and every one of them has the same foundation, propagates the same purpose, has the same style and is written for the same audience: the mass. In fact the mass is their foundation and their purpose. This statement, like all others, is unintelligible from the practical (lower) point of view.
- People’s purpose is not work or work for money (to buy them “freedom” or whatever other purpose it may serve). If you make them believe it is, or you believe it yourself no matter how nice you are to them, what benefits you provide, how creative the work environment you create is, what autonomy you allow, or how much you care: you are lying to them and to yourself.
- Leadership is not chronicled in a resume. Resumes are appropriate for specialists and integrating specialists only. For specialized integrators but especially for the main integrator it is impossible to have a resume. But again: most people occupying roles of the top echelon of leadership are “career leaders”, just usurping power: they are mostly specialists and integrating specialists (at best): they simply don’t belong there.
- The current educational system, including all schools and training programs, are set up exclusively to produce specialists.
STRATEGY, IDENTITY & TRANSFORMATION
- The foundation of strategy can only be one single thing: identity. Without identity there is no strategy.
- A reactive strategy, i.e. one that is determined largely by market conditions, is not a strategy.
- Identity is not to be confused with brand identity. Brand identity is only the style element of identity; the reflection of the core.
- Identity is the reason for an organization to exist. Without identity organizations are just illusions; since they lack essence, they don’t have anything, they don’t think anything, they don’t accomplish anything. Anything they perceive to be having, thinking or accomplishing is just an illusion which easily crumbles at the slightest probe of the intellect.
- The reason why companies are always looking outside, to competitors, the strategic environment, trends, etc., is because they don’t have identity: there is nothing to look at on the inside. An organization with identity transforms the whole strategic environment.
- Some may ask the question: can an existing organization be given an identity? The answer is no. At least not without transforming it first.
- Nobody can ask people to identify with corporate goals: becoming number x in the market, producing superior products, etc; “purposes”, like contributing to the well being of humanity are simply illusions and not to be taken seriously in current settings.
- The more “humanistic” a modern organization’s purpose is, in actuality the more destructive they are to humanity. This especially applies to those, whose mission is openly and obviously just a PR stunt.
- Transformation is only possible if there is one person suitable for transformation, and he is in the right role.
- Elements of transformation are principle, principle based concept, control, power, awareness and a synthesized praxis. These are terms surrounded by complete confusion today. These, and related terms cannot be grasped by mechanic, rational thinking. It requires supra-rational intellect, which presumes a truly spiritual orientation, i.e. supremacy.
- A true leader maybe aware of „strategy schools” but considers them as entertainment only. If you create strategy, you must not be thinking in strategic terms.
- The significance of facts is 3rd grade only; at best.
- Identity is beyond facts. Facts relate to identity as the periphery of the circle to the centre.
COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOLS & STYLE ELEMENTS
- The four actors in almost any organization are, in a hierarchical order, starting at the top: one main integrator, a few specialized integrators, large number of integrating specialists and the specialists. These are the true roles in the organization, the rest are functions. Functions should be centered around roles.
- Each one of the four actors may exist potentially and actually.
- A specialist may never become a main integrator; maximum an integrating specialist.
- The main integrator, the representative of the highest degree of vertical integration, is not a bottom up “career”; it is a mode of existence, just like the other three roles. The only way to maintain the illusion of that everybody is a leader is to completely quantify the definition of leadership, which also automatically voids articulated values of any quality, turning them into illusions.
- The organization should enable people to occupy their role and to actualize and transcend it.
- Once a specialized integrator reaches the next level, he will likely leave the organization; either way his relationship to the main integrator will change substantially.
- If possible, the main integrator should never communicate directly with specialists in a discursive manner.
- Nobody in the organization should make statements about things that are (should be) either obvious or well known to their audience; “we treat employees fairly” is a good example of this: never make such statement, just do it! Another one is: “sales sucks, we must improve it”… and many others.
- The specialized integrators’ development (realization) is insured by the main integrator and/or the great masters; the main integrator’s evolution is ensured only by himself and the great masters. The top echelon does not need education in the conventional sense. The integrating specialists’ and specialists’ education is ensured by schools and training programs. Their realization is insured, indirectly, by the main integrator, through the mediation of specialized integrators.
- Great men are those who are
- aware of their position and role
- oriented upward
- focused on actualizing their potentials
- In a highly organic organization cynicism and sabotage rarely surfaces. If it does, it comes from people who are usurping their role and the corresponding power. If this happens in an organic organization, these people must be immediately eliminated, they can not be “transformed”, i.e. they can’t be lead back to their role and corresponding function. In today’s mechanical, syncretic organizations everybody usurps power, so the whole organization must be transformed; cynicism and sabotage is simply a clear sign of no leadership and a total lack of integration.
- If the main integrator’s realization is not perfect, or near perfect, the weak spots in the organization become apparent. One of the main signs of this is simply the “revolt of the specialists”.
- A person with integrity does not subordinate the superior to the inferior. The lower we go on true the hierarchy, the more compromises we encounter in this regards.
- The superior/elite is present among all four players of the organization. Organic organization is in the sign of superiority.