news…

Also, an FYI: I have posted a response to Peter Merry’s post on the I-I forums (referenced above). It includes clarifications to some of the questions and comments raised in this thread. Here’s the link:

http://multiplex.integralinstitute.org/Public/cs/forums/permalink/17018/17018/ShowThread.aspx#17018

Cheers!

- Brian

My apologies, I absolutely didn’t mean to imply that debating theory is less important than what I spend my time doing! Just that it is not my core skilll nor my preference (particularly in an electronic forum – my preference is for real-time interaction, ideally in-person; I also prefer dialogue over debate – again, a personal preference and skill issue, not a comment about inherent worth).

Perhaps I’d be better off steering clear of online forums entirely, as I imagine it is a bit frustrating when I begin to engage and then duck out when the questions start flying! I’m sorry if I’ve left a sour taste in your mouth. For what it’s worth, I find a lot of value in the posts folks offer about my writings and talks, and I use posts like yours to guide what I write and speak about in the future. I hope I can address several of your questions in my writings and talks before long.

Cheers!

- Brian

There is no experience without simultaneous intepretation, aka “theory.” They arise together in a developmental holarchy and shape each other. It’s not that experience is pure and the theory is a best guess intepretation. So when Brian emphasizes practice as somehow more “real” and theory as after-the-fact and superfluous it is a bit disingenuous. I notice that the theory is not superflous when it comes to “selling” holacracy, which he seems to do quite well. But for the purpose of analyzing the theory deeply in debate and dialog he bows out due to the excuse that he’s too busy applying it, which is really the more important business of the day.

Now I can see one having a preference for and/or more skills in one or the other. And I can see in any organization utilizing one’s skills and preferences in balance and not requiring everyone to develop all skills equally. But that’s different than trying to justify not engaging in philosophical debate because it’s just not as important as “doing the actual work.”

In fact, the more developed aspects of intellectual cognition have traditionally been what is valued more in executive positions, the ability to “see the big picture,” to organize, plan and execute the business. Hence the higher salaries in line with the level of complexity of the tasks performed. And the “workers” that just follow the plan with less “thinking” are paid less. Even holacratic theory recognizes this within its structure.

Those that “market” and sell the business are differently oriented with different skill sets. But they tend not to be CEOs or executive vice presidents because it does not require the same level of cognitive development. I’d suggest that perhaps Brian, while being the good salesmen, is not as good a CEO if he cannot handle a rigourous defense of his theory. He seems fine when he is the only one presenting it via interviews or for the purposes of sales, but if he cannot engage in philosophical debate to defend the theory with the excuse that “I’m too busy actually ‘doing’ it,” or that “business is not about the debate of ideas,” then perhaps it’s time for the following? 1) a reevaluation of a business organization’s relationship to society at large via an integral perspective and perhaps 2) a CEO election (not appointment) in his company.

Ah, but who gets to vote on that and what theory are they “sold” on? I’m guessing the highest circle only gets this vote (nothing new there) and are they are sold on the theory of holacracy? And who developed holacratic theory (but won’t defend it)? Case (and system) closed.

Yes, I know, that’s “the way it is” in the business world. But is that the way we want business integrated within socieity in an integral perspective? Is “the way it is” the way it could and should become in our vision? And to what extent are we complicit in enabling “the way it is” by engaging in traditional business practices, just dressed up with new clothes and a new name?

Ok, I’m taking a bit of poetic license here. Holacracy and sociocracy are not the usual way of business. And both have made great strides forward in my opinion. But I still think my questions are legitimate albeit a bit hyperbolic for effect. It’s called rhetoric and it’s my forte.

By the way, I’m wondering if my objections would be considered reasoned and paramount in Brian’s company, were I an employee and/or director? Or even if I’d ever get to be an employee and/or director in the first place with such objections?

Of course both agency and communion can be of the healthy and of the less healthy (and even pathological) kind. The individual holons that make up the social holon have to perform some kind of healthy agency to make the communion real. In Rays example of course the individuals who withdrew themselves because of group pressure have no healthy agency. Also the other extreme happens, f.i. in the corperate world where leaders can have a overdominating agency (often to repress feelings like insecurity or anxiety or out of narcissism) which also is not healthy. This will mean there is a dominating of individual agency over group agency as Andy pointed out. This can have a destructive effect on group agency.

Both unhealthy forms of agency will have negative influence on communion and thus on group agency because real communion between individuals is needed to develop a functioning social holon out of the individual conciousnesses. The individuals need to make contact, commmunicate and relate as real as possible for the social holon to function and thus have agency. If the communion is unhealthy and does not work well, this will hinder the development of the agency of the social holon.

So I don’t believe every group has agency. It is a developmental acquirement that is dependant on the interaction of healthy agency and communion within the group. I also do believe that this agency on the social holon level isn’t just the same as the combined agencies of the individuals. The process of the interaction of both communion and agency brings about a new social agency functioning on a different level than the individual level, but that can be perceived by the individual holon.

When all holons perceive this social agency this of course can optimise the agency on a social level and group development can happen in a faster rate. One can see this happening in therapy groups that work together for a long time or in very good sportsteams. This then in return optimises the individual function, sometimes to a dimension of capability far exceeding his or hers when alone.

First a comment about bouncing back. I have a profound respect for the capacities of everyone on this blog so when Mark ‘attacked’ me I listened. But I’m an old polemical warrior and can pick a pejorative argument a rhetorical mile away and will always call it.

Any collective unleashes processes that are beyond any individual, such is the nature of group dynamics. Group conformity is a powerful factor. Most decisions made in collectives are often non-decisions, that is, a decision not to push for a position – not to speak up. You can see this in action in meetings if you are sufficiently attuned to the sub-textual body language (NLP territory). You can see that someone disagrees but had decided not to say they do. The reasons people decide to conform are complex and it is here I agree with Mark that you cannot separate the individual from the society.

If there is a formula for this it is a kind of bootstring formula, societies create individuals and individuals create society.

Tusar – ahh yes, group souls. Hmmm, I’d ask for proof, otherwise it’s theory without substance, which equals belief and faith – just because Aurobindo says it’s so don’t mean it is, this is argument from authority. In any case Aurobindo is suggesting a location for the agency, the medium of soul realm (subtle). So I guess that Enron, British Tobacco, Halliburton, MacDonalds, WalMart, etc, all have a divine purpose and a group soul?