working with values: software of the mind...and effective structuring, operation and integration in...

Working with Values: Software of the Mind

A Systematic and Practical Account of Purpose, Value and Obligation

in Organizations and Society.

Warren Kinston

The Original Reference Text as used by Consultants inSIGMA:

THE CENTRE FOR TRANSDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE

Chapter 12 extracted with permission from:

For more information: http://www.thee-online.com

detressa neeb sah krow siht fo rohtua eht sa deifitnedi eb ot notsniK nerraW fo thgir ehTby him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism, review or academic studies, no part of the main text may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,

.srehsilbup eht fo noissimrep roirp eht tuohtiw ,esiwrehto ro gnidrocer ,gniypocotohp rof deipocotohp dna desu yleerf eb yam secirtaM-retsaM dna seirtne yrassolG ,revewoH

educational purposes subject to acknowledgement of the author.

This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not by way of trade or otherwise be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

© Warren Kinston 1995

V.1.0 first published 1995 in hardback by The SIGMA Centre(Chapter drafts progressively published between 1986 and 1994.)

ISBN: 1 874726 02 7

Originally published and distributed byThe SIGMA Centre

London, UK.

Printed on acid-free paper by Reedprint, Windsor, U.K.Index compiled by Indexing Specialists, Hove, U.K.

Cover design and illustration by Chris Price: the figures (from left to right)represent religion, philosophy, law, government, natural science,

social science, business, finance and the imagination.

Values permeate all activity. But values cannot bedeveloped or pursued by the activities of animals orcomputers. Values can only be realized by entitieswhich have a distinct social existence. Because socialexistence is itself, at root, defined by values, realizing values expresses identity (cf. Ch.s 4, 5 & 7).

The simplest entity which realizes values is a personas a social being.

However a person acting alone cannot achieve verymuch. So any significant endeavour is joint, involvingmany people and requiring the formation of an artificialsocial being. Such entities, the drivers of value realization in modern societies, are referred to variously as bodies, organizations, legal individuals orcollective actors. Like a person, they need a degree ofautonomy.

Autonomous functioning of a joint endeavour is notstraightforward. The people and the work to be doneneed to be organized. So artificial social beings must becreated and maintained in a way which enables suchorganization.

The organization of work and the definition of auto -nomous artificial entities and their endeavours demandboth freedom and control. Without freedom, nothingof value will develop. Without control, the resultscould well be chaotic and harmful. So the four lowerlevel groupings — purposes, directions, drives andfunctioning described as ‘building blocks’ in Ch. 10 —must be operated by more complex purpose derivativesthat can both control them and be controlled.

In this chapter, we shall first consider the three typesof endeavour-based entity which require and manifestautonomy: these are defined by the pentads. Then weshall briefly note the nature of the two distinct types ofsocietal guardian which regulate the exercise of auto -nomous power and express sovereignty: these aredeter mined by the hexads. Finally, we shall consider thesocial order within which membership occurs: this isthe heptad. The social order enables sovereignty andautonomy because it alone enables a person to exist as asocial being, exercising universal human capacities forfreedom, participation and responsibility.

G-5: AUTONOMY

Nature. Work ensures functioning (G-4) and sus-tains an endeavour (G-5). Put another way: functioningexists because of endeavours. Given the social implica-tions of endeavours, an identifiable entity must be established which can be held responsible for this functioning. The social entity which embodies theendeavour must be capable of developing and owningits own functioning, including its drives, directions andpurposes.

To organize all the work and people involved in aneffective way, an endeavour requires autonomy. It canbe imagined as a complex artificial person created toinvolve and organize people to do something of value.Such an entity can endure beyond changes in the peopleinitially involved.

In other words, endeavours can take on a life of theirown by being set up to exist as independent agents withtheir own distinct identity. Autonomous endeavours,like the people who constitute them, are expected tooperate responsibly.

We took for granted earlier that the building blocksdid not exist in isolation, but were found within organizations or other social bodies like regulatoryauthorities or popular movements. The issue is howsuch things can be allowed autonomy given the diversityand conflict which is generated by values, and the needfor some form of social control over their impact.

The effort to organize an endeavour demands recog-nition that people are both unique individuals who wantto do things which accord with their own particular values (loyalties, aspirations, needs, interests &c), andalso participants in a society which must evolve andmaintain common values. The inherent potential forconflict can only be removed by finding a general con -sensus. In a general consensus, each person finds thatthey individually endorse what others individuallyendorse, and therefore what society as a whole values.So a consensus allows the individual and the group to bereconciled without obliterating the identity of either.

In precisely the same way, the justification for organizations pursuing their own ends in their own

407

Chapter 12: Realizing Values — Autonomy

Chapter 12

Realizing Values: The Controlling Conceptions

way must be that they serve society in some way andare, at the highest level at least, in accord with its values.

The requirement for enduring endeavours to be builton consensus is met by integrating an additional (fifth)level of purpose to create pentads. Three pentads arepossible, and they correspond to the three ways thatautonomy is manifested and embodied in distinctivetypes of endeavour. Dominating each pentad are thethree forms of value which can be described as quin -tessentially social: social values, value systems, ultimatevalues (cf. Master-Table 31: Ch. 10). The three em -bodiments of autonomy support the three fundamentaldimensions of realizing values: their development, theirpreservation, and their pursuit. In this way, the inerad-icable social tension between continuity and change canbe managed.

Autonomy is needed for successful endeavours.Endeavours must be self-sufficient, self-developing andpurpose-based. Above all, it must be possible for theendeavour to fail or collapse — otherwise it is depen-dent rather than autonomous. The function of autonomyis, perhaps paradoxically, to ensure that work serves thevalues of both society and individual people.

Because of a consensus, defined endeavours can har-ness both personal and social energies effectively, canorganize work and the people doing it, and can be undertheir own control. To do this, they necessarily develop,order and implement the building blocks in a way thatis appropriate to their nature. In turn, as we shall see,autonomy must operate within the bounds of sover-eignty and must be in accord with membership of the

social order in that society.

Types. There are three pentads and therefore threedistinct types of autonomy and autonomous endeavour.In descending order, these are: movements (G-53); author-ities (G-52); and enterprises (G-51). Executive-led enter-prises manifest autonomy in relation to activities andtheir tangible results. These have been discussed a greatdeal throughout this book and are what is generallythought of when the term ‘organization’ is used.Authorities have been referred to mainly in relation tothe design of ethical arrangements (Ch.s 8 & 9). Theyare relatively small bodies set up to preserve values byestablishing the significance of certain values or rules inparticular situations independent of vested interests orgovernmental pressures. Popular movements, men-tioned previously in passing (mainly in Ch. 10) arelarge, minimally organized collections of people whoseek to introduce new values into society.

In examining these manifestations of autonomy, theaim once again is not to be comprehensive, but rather toshow how their nature is allied to the process of realizing values, and illuminated by the present frame-work of purpose. This is not just a theoretical conceit:an understanding of these endeavours in terms of levelsof purpose seems to be essential for their responsibleand effective structuring, operation and integration in society.

The autonomy pentads are represented diagram -matically in Fig. 12.1 and their properties are sum -marized in Master-Table 37. To provide a quickoverview before a more detailed examination, the three

408


Figure 12.1: The pentadic grouping which defines endeavours.Three embodiments of autonomy enabling endeavours to be consensually organized.

Tim

Stamp

embodiments are now defined and introduced.

G-53: Movements are autonomous endeavourswhich seek to transform all or part of society throughvoluntary collective action. Their function is to developand establish new values of fundamental importance tosociety. Examples include: the workers’ movement, thewomen’s movement, anti-war movements, the psychoanalytic movement, revolutionary and millen -arian movements. Such entities operate in the culturalarena, engaging with political, religious, economic andother issues of the day. They tend to spread across societies. Movements command the emotional powerof ideas whose time has come, and promise fulfilmentof personal ideals and identity. People constituting themovement’s grass roots are consciously committed tothe new values and freely put time and effort into supporting these. Participation requires a minimum offormality, but to spread the word and generate spon -taneous collective action, the movement does requiresome structure. The basic organizational element is aninformal but highly purposeful group of people whocould be said to constitute a cell. Cells operate largelyautonomously within loose networks, and have an egalitarian ethos. Sometimes a movement organizationwill form in an attempt to define a cell structure andprovide rudimentary coordination, but there is greatdifficulty keeping track of cells. The movement’s membership and the proliferation of its cells tends toincrease and diminish in an unpredictable and relativelyuncontrollable fashion. Cell activities are oriented toembedding and spreading the movement and its values.Movements achieve their ends by influencing authori-ties and government, and by spawning and shaping awide variety of organizations. If the movement is suc-cessful, culture itself is altered and the movement’sideas and values come to be taken for granted by mostpeople in society.

G-52: Authorities are autonomous endeavourswhich seek to stabilize society by clarifying, modulatingand asserting its values. Their function is to preservesocial values and authorize their application to parti -cular situations. To do this, they must recognize valuepressures from many sources including new valuesemerging from popular movements. Authorities arecommonly set up by statute: e.g. the Monopolies andMergers Commission, The Radio Authority, and theParole Board in the UK. Non-statutory authorities likethe Advertising Standards Authority or Press Com -plaints Commission in the UK may be set up by a profession or an industry. (These are sometimes called‘self-regulatory organizations’ or SRO’s). As the examples illustrate, authorities operate with specificfunctions in specific areas, employing the procedural

and regulatory power that goes with officially repre-senting, protecting and asserting society’s values. Manydo nothing until a matter or complaint within theirremit is brought before them; while others may beauthorized to supervise or review in order to pre-emptdeviations from acceptable standards. In all cases, theauthority decides, adjudicates, reviews, and/or advisesin terms of a particular situation. The authority is struc-tured as a council (sometimes operating via smallersub-committees) which is supported by a relativelysmall or even minimal secretariat. Work within theauthority tends to be specialized or technical, and so itrequires capable and socially concerned people withsound judgement, whose own gain is primarily furtherprestige and respect. If an authority is effective, it keepsgovernment from becoming inappropriately involved indecisions taken in specific situations. This prevents cluttering of the political arena and diffusion of politicaldebate. Independent authorities also benefit indivi dualsby lessening the likelihood of petty tyranny by self-important bureaucrats, and by keeping disputes out ofthe courts. Authorities must seek to balance the powerof individuals and organizations: on the one hand pro-tecting people against unbridled arrogance or officious -ness of private and public bodies; and on the other handprotecting organizations against malicious, misguidedor pedantic personal complaints.

G-51: Enterprises are autonomous endeavours,typical organizations, which efficiently meet evolvingneeds in society. The function of an enterprise is to pursue social values through activities which generatetangible benefits for itself. The over-riding concern isto ensure its activities are appropriate, effective andefficient. Such organizations can be established by anyperson or association. They may seek to generate avision for society, to benefit members of the asso -ciation, to develop ideas for reform, or to producegoods or provide services, or some combination ofthese (cf. Master-Tables 35 & 36: Ch. 11). The right toassociate and launch an enterprise is a most tangibleexpression of freedom in society. Enterprises, if con -stituted formally, are legal individuals fully entitled topursue their own interests. They are capable of mount-ing large scale operations and need to use their ownjudgements and values in making decisions. Their management requires the joint efforts of a governingbody, top officers, and many staff. The number of staffin an enterprise may extend from a handful to over ahundred thousand. Despite being predicated on auto -nomy, the basic feature of their internal structure(when numbers are large) is the hierarchical controlprovided by accountability relationships betweensharply defined roles. This must be designed to meetthe apparently contradictory demands for both per-

409


sonal expertise and initiative and corporate com -petence and performance. The type of work anddomain of endeavour is (or ought to be) the personalchoice of a participant, but money and perquisites provide an inescapable incentive to accept a role withina particular organization in that domain. Althoughother factors also affect joining (e.g. future prospects,trusted colleagues &c.), participation can be pragmatic.If the surrounding culture permits, a person can rathereasily switch commitment to another enterprise, oftena competitor. An enterprise must generate sufficientachievement in its own terms to thrive. Its successdepends on harnessing people to its vision and obtain-ing social resources for its mission.

Properties

The three autonomous types of endeavour seemrather different because of the way that their commonproperties are handled. Even from the brief overview, itis evident that each operates in its own social arena, isorganized differently, affects participants differently,views people in a characteristic way, handles authorityand leadership differently, and generates a distinct typeof output. Each tends to be subject to a characteristicform of criticism. Above all, each organization needs tohandle its autonomy and dependence on society differently.

Autonomy implies a degree of privacy: so theseendeavours exclude unauthorized outsiders from theirdeliberations and decision-processes. However, theymust also link into society to harness people, to obtainresources and to be permitted to exist. In order to reconcile these opposing demands, each form of endea -vour manifests a compartmentalization of special duties androles — with five compartments in each case. It turns outthat these five compartments are appropriately definedin terms of the inherent five levels of purpose. In eachcase, wider society occupies the topmost or contextualcompartment. However, each is then constituted dis-tinctively by its lower four compartments, each ofwhich is assigned characteristic forms of authority.

Compartmentalization. The notion of designingorganization, even business enterprises, is relativelynew. Such design essentially revolves around clarityabout work (roles and duties) within certain distinctparts or compartments of the entity (e.g. shareholdersor the board in a firm). Research has revealed that thiscompartmentalization is based on the (internal) levelsof purpose which constitute the endeavour. As usual,the qualities of corresponding internal levels are similar, so the compartments show certain similaritiesacross the three types of endeavour. Without the present framework, the notion of design is hardly

credible because neither the necessity for compart-ments nor their unique work is immediately apparent.

Each type of autonomous endeavour must include acontextual level of purpose in which its own highestaims and society’s values coincide — because this is thebasis of the ‘license to function’ within wider society.So the fifth (top) level of purpose in any organizationmust be designed to achieve a general consensus. Everyoneinside and out must explicitly recognize that theendeavour’s autonomy is provided in return for servinga real social need. Only the universally valid andrevered ultimate values (L-7) can provide a license formovements which aim to transform society. Authoritiesare mandated by distinctive principles or theories(value systems) widely held in society (L-6); and enter-prises can only vigorously pursue their ends if they recognizably embody and further social values (L-5). Toreiterate: in each case, these highest values must be aliveand held both by those specifically associated with theendeavour and by wider society generally. Becauseinsiders of all endeavours are also part of wider society,the compartment here is wider society in all three cases.

Moving down now to the next two internal levels:The fourth level in each case is concerned with pro -viding the relatively unchanging essential rationale for theendeavour. This rationale is used to define and to structure the work, and also to sustain and maintainconsensus amongst participants. By contrast, the thirdlevel in each case requires a choice to be made fromamong a range of equally valid alternative values.Selection here is sensitive and controversial because it isdriven by the need to reconcile different views andensure necessary political support for the work. Ideas and‘isms’ (L-6) define movements, and social values (L-5)steer them politically. Authorities are defined andstructured in accord with recognized social needs(L-5), and politically steered by their terms of referencei.e. principal objects (L-4). Principal objects (L-4) pro-vide the rationale for enterprises, while their internalpriorities (L-3) recognize stakeholder interests and soprovide political steering.

Finally, moving to the lowest two internal levels andcompartments: The second level in each case is con-cerned with providing a direction and maximizing theimpact of the endeavour, while the first (lowest) level ineach case is concerned to ensure that it appropriatelyadapts to the immediate situation and handles obstaclesand opportunities. Movements depend for their impacton activities defined by principal objects (L-4); whileinternal priorities (L-3) need to be chosen to ensure themovement is appropriately responding to current issuesin society. Authorities are effective through their internal priorities (L-3) which broadly endorse (or

410


oppose) values and value pressures of different groupsor bodies in society. However they must determinetheir decision, judgement or proposal, i.e. strategicobjectives (L-2), in a way that is appropriate to theimmediate situation. Enterprises choose strategicobjectives (L-2) with the aim of maximizing theirimpact; and they define tactical objectives (L-1) to handle all exigencies and produce the desired resultwith the available resources.

With or without conscious design, decisions aboutpurposes at each level are of great significance. In prac-tice, such decisions demand specialized and complexwork. This is why distinct work compartments areneeded. Very specific attitudes and capabilities arerequired if the work of each compartment is to be donewell. This is why different people are attracted to thedifferent types of endeavour and the different compart-ments within them. It is also the source of tensionsbetween compartments.

The five compartments in any autonomous endea -vour can be divided into the two upper ones (‘the brainof the entity’) which provide its rationale, enable internal and external consensus, and establish it as anenduring endeavour; and the three lower levels (‘theheart of the entity’) which produce results by dealingwith evolving realities politically, strategically and adap-tively.1

Specifying Duties. In each type of autonomousendeavour, a degree of separateness exists between thecompartments — because the type of purpose andwork in dealing with that purpose is so distinctive.Many instances of dysfunction are due to a failure torecognize or to manage this separation. The con -sequence is then an undesirable disconnection or anintrusive over-involvement between compartments. Ameans for integrating or inter-connecting the contribu-tions of the compartments is evidently necessary.

Business enterprises are most accessible to externalconsultant advisors and investigators, and sympatheticto a redefinition of duties and new arrangements whichseem to be more appropriate, effective and efficient.Participants in movements, by contrast, are inherentlyresistant to any outsider exerting such influence.Authorities are so politically sensitive and bound bycustom and procedure that it is difficult to test out newideas and assess their effect.

Inter-connection of the five discrete compartmentsand integration of their output can be fostered by clarifying the unique work of each compartment andensuring that the principal duties in the different com-partments (i.e. the social roles) interlock synergis -tically. In defining the duties or work role of

compartments, it is natural to start from the origin ofeach in a particular level of purpose. Each compart-ment necessarily has a unique core responsibility orduty in regard to purposes at that level; but if the com-partments are to function as a synergistic system, eachmust also have rights (i.e. influence or authority) as wellas duties in regard to purposes handled primarily bycompartments defined by the other four levels. Allthese duties must mesh together coherently. So the lev-els framework can be used as a scaffold to specify dutiesin a systematic way and to clarify the kind and degree ofauthority or influence each compartment exerts on thevarious types of purposes which constitute the endeav-our.

The main focus of the present account is a clarifica-tion of the work to be done in terms of duties, influ-ences and an indication of the sort of tasks that flowfrom these.

A logical matrix pattern of influence emerged foreach form of endeavour. In each case, the rows are thelevels of purpose themselves which together character-ize the autonomous endeavour; and the columns are thecompartments corresponding to those levels, each ofwhich defines a key body and its required role. Each cellof the matrix contains a term which attempts to capturethe essence of the influence to be exerted by that com-partment over purposes at that level. A diagonal patternresults which is the basis for developing synergy, resolv-ing value conflicts, and ensuring choices are ethical.The three matrices are laid out in Master-Table 38 toenable the types of endeavour to be compared.

Insiders and Outsiders. We have already distin-guished the external compartment, wider society, fromthe four internal compartments. A division is alsoneeded within the internal compartments. In principle,immediate issues and situations can only be handled bydecisions on internal priorities and below (i.e. L-3 toL-1). So the compartments associated with these levelscontain the insiders of the organization. (Hairlines areused to mark off the insider compartments in Master-Table 38.) The insider compartments may be termedthe endeavour proper because people generally view thesecompartments as being the endeavour. However this isinaccurate: these compartments only run the endeavour.

A movement, for example, is dependent on a singlecompartment, the grass roots. For an authority, in siderscover two compartments, corresponding to the counciland its secretariat. An enterprise requires three insidercompartments which are occupied by the governing,top officer and executant bodies.

Wider society is inevitably involved with autono -mous endeavours without being committed to any of

411


them. Between wider society and the fully committedinsiders, there are higher level compartments which arecommitted within limits. These intermediary compart-ments decide the need for the endeavour and determineits definition. They support the endeavour and its continuing existence but remain somewhat distantfrom its immediate day-to-day concerns and activities.As might be expected, tensions develop in all typesbetween the insiders and these higher compartments.

G-53: A Movement

Nature. Movements, often referred to as social orpopular movements, highlight the significance of ultimate values by taking their influence one stagebeyond convictions, ideals and visions to define themanifestation of a collective will. Movements swirlthrough societies fostering nothing short of rebellion tothe status quo, and seeking to mobilize people en masse.Groups and networks of people with similar intenseconvictions appear spontaneously and all are agreedabout the need for social transformation. Movementsemerge from and merge with existing culture. Even ifthey seem to run contrary to popular values, they couldnot exist if they did not find a natural resonance withinmost people.

So this type of endeavour seeks to transform society,even if it appears to originate from a delimited domain.Although popular movements inevitably have a politicaldimension, the stakes played for are far higher. Theirfunction is to develop and establish certain new valueswhich are felt to be of fundamental importance for thewell-being of society and everyone within it.

A movement is not simply spontaneous large scaleaction like demonstrations, though such things mayaccompany one. Nor is a movement to be equated withorganizations which forward it, though these invariablyspring up. Nor yet are they political structures embody-ing an ideology, though these are a common con -sequence. Movements are rather a form of collectiveorganization, a body of distinct individuals, spon -taneous yet unified in its purpose, and capable of alter-ing a society radically. Social movements are a paradox:the collective-as-actor or community-as-individual.1

Religious movements and, in recent times, politicalmovements typically hope to refashion man and societyvirtually in their entirety. But even relatively focusedmovements, like the psychoanalytic movement and thesystems movement, at some stage imagine or imply thateveryone and all society must change. Over time,movements may in fact succeed in producing such atransformation. The Solidarity movement, whichspread far beyond the confines of Poland, was central tothe political and civil regeneration of that country and

its spirit contributed to the collapse of the larger Sovietempire. The depth psychology movement has spread farbeyond the confines of psychoanalytic therapy to alterfor ever the way people understand inner moti vationand personal relationships whatever the social setting.

Movements are diffusely defined and can overlapeach other. For example, the self-help movement over-laps the new-age movement which overlaps the greenmovement which overlaps the feminist movement. Putanother way, a movement may have many shades ofemphasis: the Solidarity movement, for example, hasbeen viewed as a worker’s movement, a nationalistmovement, and a democratic movement .

Development. New movements emerge when avacuum in values is felt. Revolutionary movementsthrive on poverty, oppression and alienation. In suchconditions, people will naturally strive for somethingbetter. Religious movements spontaneously emergewhen the organized or official religion is losing its holdon people, and a process of invigorating spiritual re -generation and renewal is needed. Similarly, the emer-gence and flowering of dynamic psychotherapies thiscentury was a reaction to the failure of old modes ofrelating under changing social and political conditions.In this last case, what used to be regarded as sensibleconventions in regard to sexuality and the expression offeelings came to be generally perceived as rankhypocrisy.

Movements are constantly in flux, growing anddeveloping or subsiding and disappearing for complexreasons. Often they proceed in jerks. Some event orperson captures the general imagination and leads people to become acutely aware of the gap between themyth that ultimate values are active in society and thereality of their neglect. This triggers a bout of intensemobilization of people and a contagious exhilaratingatmosphere. The birth of Solidarity, for example, tookplace in a few short weeks during the strikes of August1981. As more and more people join, the movementcomes to the attention of public authorities and thenews media, if permitted, begin reporting spon -taneously the latest manifestations.

If the values of successful movements eventuallyenter the mainstream of cultural life, the movementmay dissipate or become assimilated into a wider move-ment. The statistics movement (see Ex. 12.1) becamepart of empirical science. Other movements, like millennial movements, may rapidly peak, attempt revolution, perhaps repeatedly, and then become marginalized leaving a small sect or community as aresidue. Other movements, after a brief burst of fierceidealism, continue with a low profile for many years:

412


for example, the modern systems movement.

The Statistics Movement: Nowadays, we take censuses,social research, epidemiological and demographic studies, and opinion polls for granted. They seem essen-tial to inform us about ourselves. However, prior to the17th century, the systematic collection and analysis offacts about social life was not valued. The transition tookplace through the endeavours of a statistics movement.This movement drew on current values and trends withinindividualism, utilitarianism, Puritanism, empirical science,and the importance of mathematics, and was stimulatedby political, military, economic and social needs. Publichealth, education and crime came to be of particular significance as statistics linked itself to an ideology ofimprovement. Statistics became a buzzword in the1820s, with an etymology related to statist (= politician,statesman) and a vague meaning. Zealots, like Babbage,described and counted the most meaningless things andset up statistical societies whose principal objects were:Âto collect, arrange, and publish, facts...with a view to theimprovement of mankindÊ. Slowly values like brevity,objectivity, relevance and quantification became domi-nant; and these and others have permeated society farmore widely than we might think. For example, our notionof ÂnormalÊ has changed. Originally normal meant theopposite of pathological, but after the 1820Ês it came tomean typical or average. Human nature was less studiedto clarify virtue and excellence, and more viewed as anexercise in empirical inquiry. Current factual accountswere given precedence, even seemed more real, thanideas and ideals which alone have the power to shapethe way reality evolves. Ex. 12.12

The Brain of the Movement. The general con -sensus for any movement is to be found in characteristicultimate values which are recognized in society generally.However, its essential rationale is provided by certainspecific beliefs or ideologies. Together, these two levelsform the convictions which provide a stable foundationfor the movement. The ultimate values engender unionand foster attempts to spread the word across societies.For example, some in the women’s movement havemade attempts, not always welcome, to breach tribalbarriers and engage women in societies where appar-ently inferior and brutal treatment is part of the custom.

The independence movement generated by Gandhiin India was based on a philosophy of peaceful persua-sion and non-violence; whereas independence move-ments elsewhere have been built around a philosophy ofMarxism and militancy. Movements easily generate dis-tinctive ideological splits or internal condensations:worker or labour movements, for example, have developed communist, socialist, or social democrattendencies in different countries. When such splitsoccur within one country the base of the movement isweakened, and it becomes less effective.

Existing convictions in society naturally affect move-ments. Anti-war movements, for example, tend to berejected or proscribed where war is glorified. Similarly,the feminist movement which depends on convictionsabout justice and equality does not catch fire in societieswhere egalitarianism is alien.

Movements tap into a latent utopianism in people.The core convictions are associated with the feeling thatno change is beyond the bounds of possibility. As aresult, people become active within the movement withno appreciation of what the realities of success are orhow their desired values might be worked through inpractice. A recent account of the handling of money andmonetary transactions in a text of New Age economicsseemed to assume that greed, fraud and fear will bethings of the past.3

The Heart of the Movement. All movements tapinto current social values — the need for personal security, the need for food, the need for work &c —because these play a large part in inducing people tonotice it and join. For political support to be spon -taneously forth coming, the movement must targeteveryday ordinary personal and communal needs. Con -victions within the movement can only become realwhen understood in terms of such social needs.Exploration and discussion of the ideas can then occurunselfconsciously in arguments and gossip about every-day life. Social values ensure that movements are part ofthe society that is to be transformed, and not alien orexternal to it.

Movements maximize impact by generating activitiesand organizations whose principal objects are dedicatedto forwarding or embodying the new ideals. As a general rule, as long as the ideology is adhered to,movement activists tend to feel free to ignore socialrules and are liable to do anything that furthers themovement. The wish to retain general support restrainsexcesses. Usually the most urgent object is to increasethe popular base, but this may be difficult to achieve ifsocial values have not been effectively evoked or if judi-cial and other authorities are opposed to the new ideas.

Movement activities, whether based on increasingmembership or promoting the values, demand a degreeof organization. Management is too strong a term toapply to a movement, because any organizing of activi-ties must take account of the fact that all participation isvoluntary and spontaneous. The activities serving amovement vary somewhat according to its nature.Millenarian movements which reject the present society as evil may take an active or even revolutionaryapproach by organizing demonstrations, rallies,marches, sit-ins, petitions, civil disobedience or violentconfrontations. By contrast, millenarian movements

413


which are messianic may organize people to gather passively, note signs of impending doom, perform rituals, withdraw from daily life, engage in fasts, andawait social transformation through divine intervention.

The success of any movement in terms of wider society can be assessed by the incorporation of its valuesin the climate of thought: which means things like newattitudes, new beliefs, new interests, new preferences,and new activities. In this process, the values mustbecome incorporated within society’s guardian institu-tions: which means things like new laws, new socialpolicies, new political parties, new magazines, new reli-gious sects, and new academic disciplines.

In addition, successful movements generate interestsand attitudes that support a multiplicity of organiza-tions. These are not necessarily part of the movement,but they are evidence of its hold on people. Modernpolitical movements tend to generate organizations ofall types, especially ideological, sectional, evangelicaland reforming bodies. Many movements spawn cus-tomer-centred organizations as well. The new- age movement, for example, has generated tens ofthousands of businesses: health groups, training organizations, therapy institutes, martial arts teaching,fitness centres, dance events, arts organizations, publishing houses, book-shops, festivals, clothes firms,health food shops, whole-food restaurants, alternativetechnology projects, ethical investment societies, andso on.

The pressures and opportunities of the momentmust be tactically handled by the movement. In otherwords, its priorities are not chosen primarily to recon-cile different interest groups or to accord with therationale of the movement. Instead, they must be appro-priately adapted to the immediate pressures and oppor-tunities. In determining foci for action, expedience isessential. For example, if a government is about todecide on a major arms purchase, those in a peacemovement may feel it the right time to mount rallies toprovoke media coverage and to stimulate people to re-consider their values and bring pressure on the govern-ment. Sometimes it may be preferable to do nothing.For example, the peace movement was prominent in itsopposition to intervention in the gulf war with Iraq, butwas conspicuously silent in relation to interventions inthe civil war in Bosnia and Somalia.

Priorities, being values, need to conform to themovement’s higher values as well. So those in a non-vio-lent movement prefer to be overcome by force ratherthan use violent tactics. In this way, they paradoxicallyaffirm the value of the movement in their moment ofdefeat. Similarly, the women’s movement may employwomen for an activity even if available men are better

suited to the task. Such choices would be inappropriatein conventional enterprises. The urge to place principleover practicality is why movement activists on govern-ing bodies or in executive posts can be so irritating.

The Politics of Being Green: The green movement ideo -logy abhors the factionalism, procedural regulation, personal leadership and compromise essential to successin modern day party politics. So Greens in the UK,Germany and elsewhere have had difficulty in allowinga party machine to develop and function properly. TheGerman Greens were split between the ÂRealosÊ who rec-ognized the need for party politics, and the ÂFundisÊ whosaw any compromise as fatally corrupting. The point isthat a political party may emerge from the ideology of amovement and attract many of its members, but the twoare not the same. The movement, if it is to succeed, muststay true to the nature of movements · ideally leaderless,spontaneous and egalitarian. By the same logic, a politi-cal party, if it is to succeed, must be true to the nature ofpolitical parties · ideally charismatically led and well-disciplined. The Green movement has successfullychanged the way the world thinks, and has certainly in -fluenced the policies of mainstream political partiesalthough not to the degree desired by its participants.

Ex. 12.2

The practicalities of social life during or followingthe successful remodelling of society by the movementare not the proper responsibility of the movement.Strategic and tactical objectives lie outside the realm ofvalue choices which define its work. So the success orfailure of any particular social policy or political partyor any other enterprise spawned by the movement isnot in itself a reflection on the movement.

People are irreversibly changed by participation in amovement, even if it collapses and society itself doesnot change significantly. So movements foster tribalismand the formation of sub-cultures which control language, dress, manners, friendships, and activities.People deeply committed to a movement may wish tolive together within a neighbourhood, often form associations, and may segregate into factions withinexisting organizations.

Organizing the Movement. Values are intangiblepossessions which only come into existence when people freely and unself-consciously own them.Ultimate values which are the source of consensus arepurely experiential and imaginative, and value systems(ideology, beliefs, principles) which provide distinctive-ness are in this situation a personal matter. So move-ments lack sharp, socially controlled boundaries andthey readily absorb all who instinctively feel part ofthem. Such people are known as the ‘grass roots’. Asmore and more people are inspired by the movement,it slowly gathers force and becomes a diffuse but

414


recognizable social body capable of generating change.

Any movement is first and last a grass roots pheno -menon. So it must be built on the equality of all members. Nevertheless, unless there is a certain degreeof differentiation and a minimum amount of organiza-tion, the movement cannot get started, cannot spread,and cannot produce change. Movements which attemptto avoid all organization usually have an anarchist ormystical ideology and invariably fail. The Spanish peasant revolts in the early 20th Century showed awildfire contagion of ideas, even among the illiterate,an effortless and apparently spontaneous unanimity ofaction and the deep conviction that an apocalypticutopian change was inevitable — yet they collapsedunder routine police control.4

Resistance movements in occupied countries clearlyreveal the use of informal organization, because parti -cipation is proscribed and members are hunted downand punished, often by death. Too much organizationmakes such movements vulnerable. Separate cells,informal networks of communication, spontaneoussupport, and deep convictions are essential for thespread of resistance activities and the survival of its members.

It is essential to recognize that the conventional dis-ciplined organization suited to a political party, pres-sure group or business is quite inappropriate to amovement. A movement develops a characteristic formof organization which requires its own distinctive styleof management. Its basic entity is the cell, preferably ofbetween 5-30 people.

Cells operate in an intensely personal, idiosyncraticand participatory way. As a result, they may form, fuseand dissolve in a bewildering fashion. Coordinationbetween and within cells is rudimentary because peerpressure and force of personality provide most of thecontrol. The main aim of the cell is to affirm the move-ment’s values. Only consciousness-raising and rathersimple activities are necessary to do this. The setting ofstrategic and tactical objectives is alien to movements,so ideas of efficiency and expertise are unnecessary.Attempts to introduce systems and procedural controlare rejected because they generate undesirable in -equality and feel oppressive and wrong. Cells maydevelop within existing institutions — in the church, inthe professions, in the civil service — but when cellsbecome formalized as associations, they are in danger ofbecoming inward-looking and losing their focus onwider society. Each cell links, at least loosely, with othercells in the hope of achieving territorial coverage. Suchgroups may have labels like: chapter, division, sector.However, cells can and do emerge independently ofthese, overlapping territorially and operating without

links to others.

So movement activists who try to use executive-ledenterprises as their model are likely to cause aggrava-tion and waste their own and others’ time and energy.It is probably natural that the more reflective partici-pants become distressed at the seemingly inevitable dis-array and factionalism, and the time and effort that goesinto managing intense emotions and group processes.Elite activists tend to feel that they can and should con-trol the movement. They are liable to act as if the central organization they create and sustain is synony-mous with the movement as a whole. Despite their talkof equality and autonomy, they coerce and denigrateothers. These and other misunderstandings are illus-trated in Ex. 12.3 which describes an active phase of thewomen’s movement in the USA as reported by awoman academic and sympathizer.

NOW: The National Organization for Women (NOW)was the largest and most prominent organization withinthe womenÊs liberation movement in the USA. When created in 1966, it was conceived as a national actionbody. Although the activists wanted to organize a move-ment, they found themselves initially creating a pressuregroup to change federal policy. They neglected the needfor widespread local membership groups. Slowly theirfocus changed and with it came disagreements. In 1968,the radical New York Chapter split off to become TheFeminists, because it felt that elitists had taken over. At thesame time, the conservatives formed the WomenÊs EquityAction League; and key lawyers split off to form HumanRights for Women. NOW moved offices and its firstemployee was recruited. (By 1973 there were still onlyabout 15 paid staff.) In 1969 several conferences wereheld. These were fraught with dissension, back-biting andname-calling, and were adjudged failures. Only at thisstage, did the inherent diversity of the movement becomeapparent to the leading figures. Agreement to disagreeopened the way for anyone to feel part of the organiza-tion. However, the reality still remained that NOWdoubted the existence of grass roots support. Its leadersfeared that the only outcome of a proposed strike ofwomen on 26th August 1970 would be ridicule. In fact,the strike succeeded · not because of NOW, butbecause ordinary people were ready. As a result, NOWwas flooded with new members. Many were non-politicaland sought to use membership to explore what being awoman in society meant. The old-timers, still seeminglyunaware of the nature of movements, viewed the desirefor personal awareness as a diversion from politicalefforts, and dismissed it as Âa crutch for less developedmindsÊ. In fact, the rap groups which were introducedproved to be a great success for the movement.

Ex. 12.35

The spontaneous character and informality of organization mean that the evolution of movementscannot be determined or even predicted by its leadingfigures. There is no real leader. Only outsiders speak of

415


leaders, thereby showing their misunderstanding of thenature of movement bodies. (Sometimes threatenedpolitical authorities refer to ring-leaders with its pejorative connotations and the implication that followers are docile.) Insiders are typically insistentlyegalitarian. Any attempt to dominate a movementdemands capture of the official authorities, and theintroduction of elitist and repressive measures to con-trol ordinary people. Lenin, for example, made nosecret of his intention to ensure that the revolutionaryorganization (the Party) was distinct from and superiorto the revolutionary movement.6 His Party memberswere to be exclusive, disciplined, professional,absolutely loyal and totally obedient to their centralizedleadership. In this way, Marxist-Leninist ideology andParty officials, not ultimate values, became the finalarbiter; and the masses that supported the revolu -tionary movement were betrayed and oppressed.

Because each level of value within a movement is sodifferent in nature, each tends to be handled by peoplein different social roles. Ideally, all should appear to beexerting leadership because leadership of a movementis diffuse and can never be properly assigned or defined.Even when a movement identifies one person as itsoriginator or central and inspiring figure — Lenin forthe Russian revolution, Freud for the psychoanalyticmovement, Martin Luther King in the civil rightsmovement — it is not true to say that this person leadsthe movement. No one person or group can claim fullresponsibility for the movement’s direction and suc-cess. Nor can any one person or small group control themovement to any substantial degree. This is one of thekey ways that a movement body differs from an enter-

prise organization.

Organizing a movement requires a great deal of voluntary effort. The two prime tasks are building popular support and influencing the authorities. Topursue these, work needs to be done articulating,explaining, promoting, popularizing and documentingthe significance of the movement. Activities that epito-mize and spread the movement must be generated, andmovement values must be brought into everyday lifewherever possible.

Five distinct compartments, corresponding to fivesocial roles or types of participation, can be identified inregard to this work: one (as usual) is outside the move-ment and four are within. Each is based in one of thefive constituent levels of value. The external role is thatof wider society which generally recognizes and affirmsthose ultimate values on which the movement is basedand where consensus is possible. The internal roles arethe elites — the intellectuals and the advocates; and theactivists — the organizers and the grass-roots. Theintellectuals are ideologues who systematize and affirmthe ideas and ideology of the movement. The advocatesmanage the interface between the movement and widersociety by linking movement values to present socialneeds. The organizers stimulate and manage movementactivities to swell, strengthen and further the move-ment. Finally, the grass roots con stitute and resource themovement and so shape its priorities. Above all, theygive it a priority in their own life. Although no-one in amovement is superior to those at the grass roots, thosein roles in the higher com partments have the potentialto make a greater impact.

416


Table 12.1: The necessary inter-relation of compartmental duties in a movement. The role ofeach compartment is defined by its column with the core duty in bold type. This matrix is the basis for synergy andeffectiveness. Note that wider society, though a contextual compartment, plays a significant role in any movement.Only the grass roots are true insiders.

Compartment WiderLevel Society Intellectuals Advocates Organizers Grass Roots

7: Ultimate Affirm Support Promote Reflect on AssumeValues

6: Value Endorse Affirm Support Promote Reflect onSystems

5: Social Debate Endorse Affirm Support PromoteValues

4: Principal Challenge Debate Endorse Affirm SupportObjects

3: Internal · Challenge Debate Endorse Affirm

Priorities

Each of the compartmental roles develops and sus-tains values at all levels. Each role’s core responsibility— core in the sense that without it the movement isfatally weakened — lies in its defining level. This dutyis to affirm the value in each case. But certain respon -sibilities at higher or lower levels are also important. Tomaximize synergy, lower level compartments must inturn support, promote, reflect on and assume these affirmedvalues; and higher level compartments must in turnendorse, debate and challenge the value. A matrix in whichthe rows are the levels of value and the columns are thecompartments or social roles clarifies and orders theseduties: see Table 12.1 (and cf. Master-Table 38). Thecore duties form the main diagonal, and the subsidiaryduties form parallel diagonals.

The matrix suggests greater discipline and order thana movement often seems to show. Because the duties ofmembers of movements feel essential and natural tothose involved, there seems to be little distinctionbetween describing what people actually do and whatthey should do. In practice, these duties are largelyoperated (or distorted or neglected) spontaneously.Nevertheless, it is likely that greater self-awarenesscould prevent or limit gross mistakes such as thosemade by NOW in the women’s movement (Ex. 12.3).Awareness would surely help prevent the intrusion ofapproaches designed to enable the lobbying of politi-cians or the running of a profitable business.

The matrix does not imply that movement roles arehierarchically-ordered in terms of power and control. Ifanything, the compartments form a reverse hierarchy.A movement arises in the grass roots and succeeds orfails in terms of its captivation of the imagination ofordinary people and the efforts of its organizers. Peopleto fill all higher level roles can be found from amongstthese. So we will start the account of movement dutiesat the base level and work upwards.

Grass roots participants must have a consciouscommitment to certain values and beliefs within themovement and be prepared to participate activelywithin it. This is not to say they must be committed full-time, but they must join a cell or group identified withthe movement and they must willingly participate inmovement activities. A movement is not a vague spiritbut a definitive endeavour: its success depends on activemembers who offer more than simply benign approvalof the movement’s ideals.

The grass roots are not a mass to be referred to contemptuously as rank-and-file, mob, lumpen-pro -letariat or fodder. Each is a distinctive individual: con-cerned, excited, involved, proud, interested, andcommitted to the movement. Each participant is anindependent force in society pressing hard for social

change. Each looks for appropriate opportunities toaffirm and apply the movement’s values in their deci-sions. Such decisions determine the emphasis and focusof the movement at any moment in time. There is arecognition that change requires individual wills to coalesce as a collective will. This demands unity. Soeach participant is expected to support the efforts oforganizers to set up cooperative efforts and to bring themovement and its values to wider public attention. Thisis unproblematic because everyone involved in a move-ment is convinced of its exceptional importance andfeels the eyes of others upon them. So each gives freelyof their time and energy to activities which forward themovement.

Each participant naturally promotes the need for newsocial values because, once these are widely and freelyadopted, they powerfully influence priorities used inorganizations and institutions which are not part of themovement. Each participant spontaneously reflects onthe ideas of the movement, reading relevant literature,keeping up with developments, and discussing anddebating progress in ideological terms. As a result, eachparticipant talks about the movement in the same language of principles, ideas and needs as organizers orelites. However small the contribution that each personmakes to the movement, it is recognized as exemplary,a model for others and a message to society.

Movements may not succeed, but when, like Solida -rity, they do, it becomes evident that ordinary men andwomen are not subject to material necessity, driven byselfishness only, or constrained by historical laws.Ordinary people, it seems, assume the existence of arealm of ultimate values — of truth, justice, peace andother forms of absolute goodness — and each personpossesses the capability to tap into these values to shapetheir own history and to redefine their own society. Bykeeping in mind inspiring and exhilarating ultimate values, people can avoid being overwhelmed by frustra-tion and being demoralized by repeated setbacks.

Organizers are the main activists or militants of themovement. They emerge from the grass roots and aredriven partly by a deep dedication to the ideals of themovement, and partly by a rage at the way that socialreality reveals that espoused ultimate values are flouted.In most chapters of NOW (Ex. 12.3), for example, thenumber engaged in recruiting people to join the move-ment or in organizing relevant activities was about40-50 out of 400.

The work to be done here is to organize a cell or network of cells and manage their activities. Organizersemerge on the basis of background, personality and theavailability of time, rather than as a result of any exper-tise. Their most important qualities are social skills and

417


enthusiasm. Organizers use their voluntary groups todo a wide variety of things without any of the usualmanagement tools and with minimum financial support.

A great deal of organizing work is needed, but it isunremunerated and unrecognized. So maintaining cellcohesion, momentum, and activity is exhausting. Organ -izers in NOW tended to burn out after a few years.

The organizer’s over-riding task is mobilization: theprincipal objects are to spread the movement and tobring its values to the forefront of popular conscious-ness. The organizer must affirm these objects, and thegrass roots must rally around. On this joint effort, theimpact of the whole movement depends. Spreading andfurthering the movement involves subsidiary objectslike: forming ever more cells of grass roots members,linking cells with each other, arranging rallies, conven-ing meetings and conferences, organizing relevant services, and writing and publishing news-sheets. Any -thing may be done which is consistent with the move-ment’s ideology. Ideally, organizers recognize that theyhave no power to start anything that grass roots members are not prepared to accept as natural andappropriate. Within movement organizations, thegreater the spontaneity, the more successful the activity.This means that organizers should endorse spontaneouspreferences and situational priorities of the grass rootscomprising the cell.

Bringing the movement to wider society means thatorganizers must support the new social values andoppose existing unjust values through devising andarranging things like protests, press releases, streetmarches, public debates, campaigns, or symbolic activities (like draft card burning or local strikes). Ifsocial values are not sensitively handled, such politicalactivities may not be acceptable to the grass roots andmay be condemned or blocked by the authorities.Organizers must reconcile the aspirations of the move-ment with the actual possibilities for action in society asit exists. If certain bounds are over-stepped, memberswill drift away, social support will be lost, and theauthorities will turn against the movement rather thantracking it more or less sympathetically.

Organizers unfailingly promote the movement’s ideasand, if these have been welded into an ideology, mayallow themselves to be systematically indoctrinated. Inturn, they help the grass roots learn about the move-ment and reflect on its underpinning ideas. However, touse the ideology effectively and ensure that society’ssanction is not lost, organizers need to make an effortto reflect on the underlying ultimate values. Only in thisway, can they keep working within the spirit of theirmovement and harness energies released by relatedmovements.

Advocates for the movement seek to manage thepolitical interface between grass roots activities andwider society. To those not involved, a movement,being a form of rebellion, seems initially puzzling andunnatural, even threatening. So it is essential that somepeople take on the task of explaining, in an easily under-standable way, why the movement has emerged, what itmeans for people and society, and why the old ordermust be replaced. Advocates are primarily concernedto explain the historical roots of the movement, to publicize its achievements and to affirm that it addressesreal social needs. They seek to persuade people to rejectthe old order by arguing that the proposed socialchanges will bring benefits to all. Some movementactivities may be particularly distressing or confusing tooutsiders. Advocates must explain these and endorse theneed for activism in general. Advocates must also support the movement’s ideology positively, explainingthese beliefs persuasively to the general public inaddresses, magazine articles and televised debates.Advocates also speak to the grass roots, interpretingwider social reactions and communicating the achieve-ments and problems of the movement.

Advocates promote the ultimate values of the move-ment, perceiving that the public is always open to hearing about the way these are failing to operate insociety. Those people who can communicate the idealsand visionary aspects of the movement most clearly andinspiringly are charismatic and are liable to be treated ascelebrities or gurus. Advocates, in their writings andpublic lectures, debate the shifting priorities of themovement as set by the grass roots. Heavily committedand involved as they are, charismatic advocates tend towant to push the movement in a particular direction. Asa result, advocates tend to fight amongst themselves andform factions.

The better advocates encourage many to flock to themovement and come to gain the respect of the authori-ties. In political movements, such advocates gravitate topolitical leadership positions or find themselves innegotiating roles. Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel even-tually became Presidents of their countries. Petra Kellywas the big international star of the German greens,winning sympathy even from Germans who found herideas silly or dangerous. However, such prominence isnot egalitarian and tends to be viewed with suspicion bythe grass roots. In their eyes, the advocate’s task remainsto popularize and support the movement faithfully as itevolves, and not to seek to direct, control or negotiate.Petra Kelly, for example, was voted off the Party exec-utive for 1983-84 despite what she had achieved in get-ting Greens elected to the Bundestag in 1983.

418


Intellectuals in the movement have a duty todevelop and systematize the ideas, beliefs and themes ofthe movement so as to form a coherent ideology. Sucha doctrine can be elaborated, improved, studied andtaught. Alternatively intellectuals may introduce andadapt a pre-existing ideology for the movement.Intellectuals emerge from the general public as well asfrom more likely sources which include academics,churchmen, lawyers and politicians.

The prime duty of intellectuals is to affirm a valuesystem for the movement. Without this contributionfrom intellectuals, the convictions on which the move-ment depends tend to lack solidity and shape. A dearthof clear ideas and understandable principles gives thegrass roots great difficulty in becoming self-aware andleads to the movement becoming amorphous and ill-defined in the public view. If such a situation develops,organizers lack a clear justification for their activities;and advocates sound less compelling. In other words,the more coherently, consistently and clearly a set ofbeliefs or theoretical framework is expressed, thegreater the potential force of the movement.

Naturally, intellectuals support the ultimate values.Mannheim emphasized the significance of the ‘sociallyunattached intelligentsia’ like novelists, dramatists andactors, who are not tied into secure positions andincomes which induce conformity to the status quo.7

Such people can often contribute artistic creationswhich capture and evoke the spirit of the movement.Intellectuals are also the only group that can effectivelyendorse the new social values. They are not only capableof developing new approaches to social issues using themovement’s ideology as the basis, but they also have theknowledge and skills to penetrate the authorities andgovernment, exposing their weaknesses and influen cingtheir output in favour of the movement. They may alsocontribute in a practical way by debating movementactivities in their lectures, pamphlets and books, andreflecting on the likelihood of successful social change.Because they take a cerebral perspective and tend to bedisconnected from mass action, intellectuals alone havethe capacity to challenge the shifting priorities of themovement as determined by the grass roots.

Intellectuals frequently trace the origin and evolu-tion of movement ideas and put them in historical perspective. In this process, intellectuals sometimesseem to over-value their own role. Governments andauthorities are eventually compelled to deal with athriving movement, and they do so in part by putting itsintellectuals in positions of power. In other words, theestablishment treats them as able to speak for the move-ment and they collude out of hope, pride, ignorance orself-interest. Sharp-eyed academic observers have

recognized how intellectuals (much like themselves)betray their principles and integrity. Slowly theybecome a professional oligarchy, lose contact with thegrass roots, use power for their own ends, and abandontheir commitment.8 Minor reforms may occur, butinstitutionalization and bureaucratization dissipate popular pressures for transformation.

Wider society forms the context for the move-ment and is its explicit target. Support and tolerancefrom people outside the movement are essential for anysuccess. Existing authorities and organizations judge thestrength and significance of the movement and decidehow to respond in the light of their own vision. Theessential duty of society is to recognize and affirm (orrepudiate and reject) the ultimate values which are theessential justification of the movement. Above all, evilmust be prevented. The appalling Catholic Inquisition,for example, developed in part to deal with a religiousmovement which was at its root anti-life.9

The next requirement is that the beliefs and ideo -logies used to structure and sustain the movement arenot just tolerated but positively endorsed. Rejection ofkey ideas or the ideology as a whole means that themovement is unlikely to thrive. For example, neo- fascist movements and communist movements areoften intensely detested or even banned in countriesjust liberated from repressive regimes underpinned bythese ideologies, just as democratic movements werepreviously suppressed by those regimes.

Elites may work to get bills introduced in the legis -lature not because they expect them to pass into law,but because this forces discussion and conditions peopleto the values of the movement. Court cases may beinstituted or reports commissioned for similar reasons.Such activities only work if they are reported in themedia. So it seems that wider society has a duty todebate the social needs or problems which sparked themovement. After all, perhaps the movement does havea contribution to make to the community. Debateshould occur within the political arena where the prosand cons and implications and consequences can befreely argued. If movements are to flourish, societyrequires arrangements allowing free association, freecommunication and free publication.

As for the activities of a movement, wider societyusually challenges them. The activities are not so muchviewed as unacceptable as unnecessary or extreme.Demonstrations and rallies do, inevitably, cause disrup-tion. The challenge is expressed both publicly in themedia and in parliament, and privately in everyday conversations at home and at work. In this way, allmembers of the public can engage with the movementand can assess its strength and significance. However,

419


420


CULTURE-CHANGEOrganizing a Movement in an Organization

•Culture-change is best handled via a movement with a well-defined ideology which is installed by willingself-indoctrination. The aim is for the alien to become natural and the necessary to become beneficial. The movement usually needs to be instigated and facilitated by the official leadership.

•Staff must become the grass roots. this means that they must have a sense that the present situation is intolerable or dangerous and personally self-damaging. They are helped to change if they can see that a newbeginning is needed based on more enlightened values. It should be evident to all that everyone has tochange, including the people at the top.

•Staff cannot be trained in values. Self-indoctrination depends on genuine participation. Staff must beengaged by allowing them to examine the new ideas and leaving them free to make sense of them from theirperspective and in their situation. Each person must consider what issues new values raise, what changesthey imply, what obstacles exist and what sorts of things need to be done to pursue them. Argument anddebate should be encouraged and constructive opposition openly welcomed. Unless the ideas are struggledwith personally, the needed internalization will never occur.

•In the very act of exploring participatively, the movement develops and new ideas start to become internalized. The rather full documents that often emerge from participative reflection must be summarized, disseminated and discussed widely, rather than being classified, filed and forgotten. A multiplicity of new initiatives must be launched and tracked. Demonstrations of success must be enabled and trumpeted.

•Everyone must be viewed as able to amplify the new ideas by affirming necessary social values, definingprincipal objects and setting priorities in their own area of responsibility. What should not be generated bydiscussions is a simple Âto doÊ list. If staff just define outcomes or tasks, they will be completed and forgotten.The aim of group events is to activate personal aspirations and duties as a way of engaging with the newideas. People can then consider and reshape whatever it is they are intending to do in an indefinite future.

•Champions emerge at all levels during such transitions. These organizers should be fostered andrewarded. A small organization development team should learn about the new ideology and become comfortable with its language and principles so they can act as advocates. An intellectual is also required:possibly an outside consultant.

•When obstacles emerge, they must be directly confronted in a positive non-critical way. The aim is notso much to trouble-shoot or bang heads together as to use the situation to learn, to develop staff and to symbolize the necessity of the new ideas. There is nothing like ignoring overt failure or expediently rejectingvalues to bring culture-change into disrepute.

•Consistency is particularly important because it is an indicator of whether the change is genuine. Duringthe early intense phase of value installation, any other new ideas, policies or projects should be developedto fit with the new culture. As always, expediency and opportunism remain essential · but only within andthrough the new values.

•Senior managers with their control over pay and promotion have an influence which cannot be ignored.Ideally, each should be engaged in a personal development process.

•Even if there is personal benefit from adopting the new values, people find it a struggle. They view thenew ideas through the prism of existing values and subtly misunderstand what is being attempted. They feeldisconcerted and awkward in applying the values and cannot envisage success. Without assistance, theyact in ways which confirm the uselessness of the entire effort. Inevitably some will be unable to adapt. Thesefew need to be replaced by new managers whose record and attitude show that they are positively disposedto the new ideas. Existing induction and training programmes must be reviewed and re-standardized in thelight of the new ideas.

•Continuity is also important, so a regular open and honest review of progress is necessary. At least 2years is required for the benefits of a movement to show. People can only sustain interest and involvement disconnected from immediate tasks over such a long period if they are kept in touch with developments. Sointernal communications about changes which give the same message to all must be developed and keptquite distinct from management briefings.

Box 12.110

the priorities of the movement, the choices of parti -cular cells and the choices made by grass roots mem-bers in their personal lives, remain wholly internal tothe movement and are not a matter for wider society.

In successful movements, the emergence of newsocial values generates widespread sympathy whichencourages people to join and leads the authorities totake the movement’s concerns seriously. Success of themovement hinges on this process because if new ideasbecome popular, then we may say that society itself ischanged. It is then only a matter of time before institu-tions, policies and organizations change to take accountof that popularity.

Movements in Organizations. Because organi-zations and associations contain (secondary) com -munities, it is quite possible to have a movement withinan organization. In the Anglican church, for example,there are distinct movements for and against the ordination of women, evangelical movements, and fundamentalist movements. These have all the qualitiesof the popular movements just described and are stimulated by related movements in wider society.

Large businesses which want to transform their cultures need to recognize that this can only be fullyachieved through an internal movement. This propo -sition has several important implications. Above all, itmeans that all culture change must be based in un -ambiguous and convincing visions and ideals. Peoplewill only change values and own new values on behalf ofthe organization if these transcend all divisions and areunarguably rooted in what is good — i.e. in ultimatevalues. The use of a movement also puts a sharp limit onthe amount of top-down instruction and education thatis possible or necessary. The movement in an organiza-tion must spread spontaneously among the grass rootsof an organization, just as it does within wider society.Otherwise there is no movement. And if there is nomovement, then there can be no fundamental change.Unlike movements in society, where the government isalmost wholly reactive, a movement within an organization needs to be supported and facilitated bytop management.

Top management can facilitate movements as long astwo apparently contrasting principles are accepted. Thefirst involves recognizing that movements assume people have a dignity, a sense of responsibility, and anenthusiasm for what is good irrespective of their formalposition. The second point is that systematic work onthe culture is essential: otherwise the movement willnot be properly linked to an organization’s vision andimmediate circumstances. Any management event orprocess must simultaneously be based in what the organization is about and must value and respect staff.

In much training and management consultancy, one orboth of these requirements are absent.

To progress the internal movement, the importanceof personal initiative must be kept paramount. Thisdepends largely on rapid communication and easy dis-cussion throughout the organization. In our projectwork, we help orchestrate small and large events with amaximum degree of reflective participation. Seniormanagers are encouraged to permit free expression ofanxieties, disagreements and confusions which areintrinsic to genuine value change. We encouragedevelop ment of large numbers of internal championswho spread the word and act as facilitators. As cham -pions emerge, crusades and campaigns develop, andawareness grows. Slowly the spirit and atmosphere ofthe organization change. Worthwhile business activitycan then be suggested, supported and evaluated byshop-floor staff and middle managers, not simply driven coercively by the board and its top management.(See Box 12.1 for more details.)

Limitation. A movement is potentially the mostpowerful independent force in society, but it is also theleast manageable. So it tends to frighten people.Nevertheless, despite their rebellious quality, move-ments are not necessarily quirky or sensational. Despitetheir utopianism, they are not necessarily unrealistic.An effective movement needs to be handled in a serious, creative and responsible way with its grassroots being patient, dedicated and diligent. However,even a successful and thoughtful movement cannotitself carry out the detailed modifications to societywhich its values demand.

While society changes, social stability must be main-tained. So the extent and pace of the movement’s in -fluence on social institutions needs to be sensitivelytempered. The claims of people in the thrall of a move-ment need to be responded to, interpreted, even curtailed as its significance is digested. These claims,essentially, affirmations of the priority of the move-ment’s values or complaints about decisions which con-flict with those values, need to be authoritativelyhandled. Recourse to courts or parliament is tooexpensive, complicated and time-consuming. It is necessary to set up indepen dent authorities to pre-serve, clarify and modulate society’s current values; andit is to these that we now turn.

G-52: An Authority

Nature. In modern complex societies, special bodies need to be established and assigned autonomyspecifically to protect current and evolving values. Thecommunity and its individual members find their values

421


under threat from two directions: from movementswhich propose new untried values, and from indivi -duals or organizations (including government depart-ments) which seek to ignore customs, ethics orsensitivities. Without breaking the law, some people,perhaps ahead or behind the times, may do things whichmost others feel undesirable or out of keeping. Moreseriously, businesses may engage in potentially exploita-tive, victimizing, offensive or otherwise harmful prac-tices while still apparently within the law.

In any case, it is neither desirable nor possible to haverecourse to the law to determine all rights and wrongs(cf. Ch. 9). Many value-based disputes need to be settled by use of custom and current practice and keptfirmly outside the judicial sphere. Similarly, when theway forward for a government is not clear, independentguidance from a specially constituted public body isoften helpful. Independent authorities are social bodiesdesigned to meet these needs. Sometimes they arecalled regulators, supervisors or tribunals.11

The function of an authority is to preserve existingvalues and to apply them authoritatively to particularsituations. Their essential output is a decision or recommendation. The workings of authorities stabilizesociety because these bodies not only articulate andclarify current values in the course of their work, butalso modulate them in response to social pressure.

Authorities can never be set up through a personalinitiative. They are all dependent for their existenceon instituting bodies which are representative in someway. This body is usually either the government, amembership association or the main organizations inan in dustry. All are legitimated to act by their concernfor the public interest. The instituting body shouldensure that the authority is adequately funded, sensiblystaffed, and properly functioning. To serve the publicinterest, authorities must be seen to be independentin relation both to government and to private enter-prises. Independence refers here to freedom frominterference in their daily work — their policies andactivities — not to who sets them up or how their out-put is handled. Not surprisingly, non-representativetotalitarian and authoritarian regimes ensure all authority is de facto an extension of government. Indemo cratic societies, conflicts of interest or any appear-ance of such conflicts in the membership of authoritiesshould be studiously avoided to maximize confidence intheir performance.

All authorities are themselves specialized represen -tative bodies: ‘specialized’ because they are focused onspecific domains or activities; ‘representative’ becausethey are expected to be devoted to the public interest.So they require a combination of technical expertise or

practical experience together with an acknowledgedfeel for the relevant social values. Expertise expected inthe Charity Commission differs sharply from thatrequired of the Royal Fine Arts Commission which differs again from that of the Securities and InvestmentsBoard. (These and subsequent examples are from theUK, but counterparts exist in other developed coun-tries in many cases, although the labels are highly variable.)

Development. In the absence of specificallydesigned authorities, many disputes enter the politicalarena dragging government ministers and civil servantsinappropriately and inefficiently into things which arebetter left to experienced people to handle. The effectis to clutter political debate and slow down organiza-tional decision-making. So where there are regular andrepeated instances of value-based disputes over routinedecisions or strategies, a distinctive authority needs tobe set up. Almost any area of social life may demandregulation in this way. The only criterion is whether anindividual’s or an organization’s judgements or actionstouches deeply on the public interest. The public inter-est may be activated by the effect of a decision for a single person (e.g. about parole or a tax appeal) or on acommunity matter (e.g. the removal of a public monument or the monopolistic power of a company).

Of course, it is not necessary or desirable to createauthorities at every possible opportunity. Authoritiesshould only be set up in response to (or in expectationof) a flow of socially problematic and politically disrup-tive situations. They often mark the emergence of a newvalue or new social demands or severe communalstresses. Authorities do not evolve easily because theyare either a product of statute or a complex compro-mise of interests. Some authorities have a natural life-span. The New Towns Staff Commission, for example,was set up in 1976 to safeguard the interests of staffaffected by the transfer of housing and related assetsfrom development corporations to District Councils.These transfers, which began in 1978, were completedby 1986 and the authority was subsequently wound up.Other authorities have a far more turbulent history (cf.Ex. 12.4). If their functioning fails to keep pace withsocial changes, they become unable to prevent issuesentering the political arena and seem outdated or out ofstep. This is manifested by the government or privateorganizations persistently refusing to accept their advice.Eventually they are wound up and new authorities areconstituted.

Regulating Racial Discrimination: To advise on racial dis-crimination, the National Committee for CommonwealthImmigrants (NCCI) was set up in 1966 as a non-statutorybody chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury and using

422


a variety of Advisory Panels staffed by experts. In 1968,the Government hurriedly passed an Act designed to dealwith Asians fleeing to the UK from Idi AminÊs Kenya. TheNCCI clashed strongly with the government over the contents of that Act. This led to the Race Relations Act(1968) replacing the NCCI by two statutory bodies: theRace Relations Board (RRB) and the Community RelationsCommission (CRC). The RRB represented the law enforce-ment and compliance aspects of the legislation; and theCRC was expected to promote good community relationsby a variety of means and advise the government onrequest and at will. Racial problems continued and it wasevident that new powers of formal investigation of individual complaints and indirect discrimination wererequired. As a result, a new Race Relations Act (1976)was passed which, among other things, replaced thesetwo bodies with a single Commission for Racial Equality(CRE). Ex. 12.412

Coverage. The typical issue to be addressed by anyauthority is whether a particular decision of a person orfirm, or a particular social outcome (flowing from inde-pendent decisions of many people) accords with cur-rent social values. If it does so, it is right. If it does not,then at the very least this must be noted and pub licized.It is, of course, utterly impossible, and it would begrossly intrusive for an independent body to monitorany or every decision or outcome in social life. Thiswould make a mockery of autonomy in enterprises.Instead, authorities examine particular matters whichself-evidently need to be handled publicly. Then rele-vant bodies in the area note the result and (ideally)modify their behaviour and attitudes accordingly.

Some authorities may initiate their own investiga-tions in response to general public concern as expressedin the media or parliament (e.g. The Royal Fine ArtsCommission, Commission for Racial Equality). Othersmust wait for a referral from a private individual, a government minister, another agency, or some com -bination of these (e.g. tribunals and most complaintsauthorities).

Commonly, the judgement of the authority does notlead to automatic compliance by either governmentor private firms. For example, the Monopolies andMergers Commission recently recommended dismant -ling the anti-competitive practices in the brewery business which disadvantaged publicans and customers.However the minister bowed to the industry lobby andrefused to implement it fully.13 Newspapers commonlycomply in a half-hearted way to rulings by press com-plaints authorities. A gross violation on the front pageof a newspaper may lead to a perfunctory small para-graph of apology published on an inner page severalmonths after the event. Naturally, the persistence ofsuch evasive responses leads to a general dissatisfactionwith the authority (or at least its powers).

Authorities are often involved in balancing the viewsof an individual and an organization. They may authori -tatively uphold an organization’s perspective on prac -tical grounds. For example, almost two-thirds of the1,118 complaints in the Press Complaints CommissionAnnual Report of May 1991 related to the accuracy ofreporting, and many of these were (in the Com mission’sview) ‘an inescapable consequence of the speed at whichnewspapers have to be produced’. On the other hand,where authorities are expected to raise communal stan -dards (e.g. anti-discrimination bodies currently), theymay be able to act vigorously on behalf of individualse.g. carrying the costs of taking organizations to court.

The work of an authority may be performed pri -marily by investigating and reporting (e.g. anti-cartelauthorities), by judging customary handling of cases(e.g. appeals tribunals), by proposing communitychanges (e.g. commissions for aesthetic development),by granting individual applications (e.g. licensingauthorities), by advising governmental authorities (e.g.parole boards), by inspecting socially sensitive busi-nesses (e.g. bank supervisors), by assessing complaints(e.g. press councils), by proposing policy or legislation(e.g. equality boards), by evaluating public com -munications (e.g. censorship authorities), by control-ling a legal status (e.g. registration commissions), bydetermining remuneration in the absence of a workablemarket (e.g. pay review boards for special groups likejudges), by deciding payments for personal disruption(e.g. compensation boards). In most cases, authoritiesare required to perform a mix of these activities: variously adjudicating, inspecting, reviewing, pro -tecting, advising and proposing according to their remitand the particular situation they need to handle.

The Brain of the Authority. Each authority getsits mandate and legitimacy from certain beliefs, usuallyethical rules and principles, that are widely held in society. Here lies the source of the general consensuswhich permits its independent operation. Neither ordinary people nor governments can sensibly turn toor respect an authority if they do not take these under-lying ideas for granted. For example, regulation offinancial practices requires more than a sense that honesty and truthfulness are good things. It demandsconsensus on an ethically-based theory of market oper-ation, contractual obligation and so on. In many indus-tries, the needed philosophy is summed up in an ex plicitcode — a statement of good practice, minimum stan-dards, or code of ethics. Such documents then providethe regulatory authority with a definitive frame of ref-erence. For example, the Press Complaints Com -mission is charged with enforcing a code of practiceframed by the newspaper and periodical industry.

423


Governments cannot establish an authority unless itsphilosophical base or ethical code is publicly welcomed.These ideas appear in consultative papers and com -mission reports, and are eventually codified in the legislation which sets up the statutory authority. So theideas as written into law become the prime source oflegitimacy. In its work, the authority contributes to thepropagation of the beliefs or code while upholding thelaw.

The Possibility of Parole: Parole for prisoners was unthink-able in the early 19th century when the aim was toreduce crime through terror. Nor was it possible in the late19th century when the main idea was to ensure that thepunishment fitted the crime. Parole only became prac -ticable in the 20th century when a theory of training andrehabilitation became acceptable. According to this philosophy, many offenders are unstable and immature(rather than inherently bad) and are harmed by longimprisonment which makes them even less capable ofcontributing to society at release. Such a theory calls fora means to respond to the individual needs and circum-stances of each offender. This in turn demands a sensitivejudgement based on maintaining public safety, recogniz-ing degrees of crime severity, assessing evidence ofremission, and so on. Hence the requirement for anauthority. Ex. 12.5

The essential rationale for each authority and hence itsstructuring flows from current social values. If themedia in a democratic society is to act in the publicinterest, then authorities need to be instituted whichrecognize social needs like censorship, accuracy ofreporting, respect for public decency, responsibleadvertising, control of privacy invasion, and so on.Unlike the underlying philosophy, the relevant valueschange over time. The decision to create an authority isa serious matter for society. They impose direct andindirect costs, are only weakly accountable to the public, and potentially reduce autonomy.

Consider, for example, the value of locally publishednewspapers and their contribution to the character ofsmall communities. In the USA, many of these havebeen taken over by national conglomerates which seekto increase profits by simplifying and economizingthrough use of uniform newspaper formats, centralizedreporting and standardized procedures. In principle, anauthority could be set up to investigate such develop-ments and pronounce upon them, with the view toensuring a degree of local responsiveness and com -munity character. Alternatively, if communities reallyvalue newspapers with local involvement and content(as opposed to self-appointed spokesman claiming theydo), then there will be a market for such newspapers.There is no reason why private business enterprisescannot be set up to exploit it. Their success might evendrive out the conglomerates or force them to rethink.

Such a solution enhances autonomy. In short: the market can be an efficient regulator of social values, andauthorities set up to tell people what is good for themreduces their freedom.

The social need to ensure fairness and equality oftreatment without recourse to the courts leads to theformation of tribunals to resolve disputes. Because distinct social values and technicalities are inherent inany domain, separate tribunal authorities are requiredfor things like employer decisions, rents, compulsorymental health care, taxation decisions, use of data,immigration permits, pensions and social securityallowances. There is also an umbrella authority in theUK, the Council of Tribunals, which checks that all tribunal procedures are fair and appropriate.

Finally, it should be noted that authorities, bothstatutory and self-regulatory, can be usefully bolsteredby carefully framed supportive legislation so that re -course to the courts or the political arena is lessened.Such laws encourage people to respect authorities andto abide by their decisions despite their limited powers.For example: The 1968 Medicine Act and subsequentlegislation buttress The Association of the BritishPharmaceutical Industry’s Prescription Medicine Codeof Practice Authority which deals with complaintsabout promotional campaigns by member firms.

The Heart of the Authority. Authorities needprecisely defined principal objects to meet social needsaccording to the agreed theory or ethical code.However, the idea of an authority is already a politicalstatement, because it is about regulating people. Theestablishment of a gaming board, for instance, makesit clear that gambling is a sensitive public matter andthat the community cannot allow a casino to be set upon the initiative of any individual. It is relatively easy toagree the need for an authority, but it is highly con -troversial to determine precisely its functions, dutiesand powers. For some the control is never enough,while for others regulations seem to entangle personalinitiative in red-tape.

Because authorities attempt to move decisions out ofthe political arena, their objects must be defined so as toensure sufficient political support for the body from thevarious stakeholders. Two interested parties usuallystand out: powerful well-financed organizations in therelevant domain and the diffuse general public. Prin -cipal objects must be carefully defined following opendebate and consultative advice. Poor design can lead tosustained factionalization or an imbalance of emphasiswithin an authority. For example the IndependentBroadcasting Authority (IBA) was responsible forlicensing and regulating television and radio but, inpractice, gave radio little attention. The solution was to

424


set up a separate body for radio in 1991: The RadioAuthority.

If the objects are not sensitively and wisely defined interms of duties and powers, then the authority will beviewed with hostility. Continuing denigration andopposition to its judgements and recommendationseventually renders it ineffective because every issueends up back in the political or judicial arena. In the caseof self-regulatory authorities, the commitment of theindustry or profession to its own code of practice is thekey requirement.

The authority maximizes its impact on society by itschoice of internal priorities i.e. the values it emphasizesin coming to its conclusions. Everyone in the area needsto know what the relevant values are and whether newvalues are gaining ground. So pronouncements aregiven legitimacy and are studied by organizations thatare or may potentially be affected.

Finally, authorities must produce strategic objectiveswhich are appropriately adapted to the circumstances.Strategic objectives are the means whereby the author-ities handle the reality of a particular situation. They arethe essence of the proposals or recommendations.

Pollution Control: The rationale in 1970 for setting up theRoyal Commission on Environmental Pollution was to pro-vide advice, to overview the research position, and toanticipate dangers. The Commission interpreted this remitin terms of reducing damage by Âattending to problems oflong-term importance which may not be receiving ade-quate consideration by other official bodies includingGovernment departmentsÊ. By its own account, Âin reach-ing its conclusions [i.e. strategic recommendations] thecommittee seeks to make a balanced assessment takingaccount of the wider implications for society of any con-trol or preventative measures proposed.Ê The variousReports relate to preoccupations and problems as theyhave emerged in society. The early Reports dealt withgross air and water pollution while later ones deal withnuclear waste and the release of genetically modifiedorganisms. To be accepted, proposals must be timely: the5th Report (1976) suggested setting up a unified pollutioninspectorate but it was not until 1987 after a repeat rec-ommendation in the 11th Report (1985) that the govern-ment acted upon this proposal. Ex. 12.614

Note that the exact details or mechanisms involvedin producing the strategic objectives within the author-ity are irrelevant to its nature. Tactical objectives are tobe found of course or nothing would get done, but theyare not identified with the authority and do not deter-mine its output as in enterprises. In other words, enter-prises have all their work yet to do after strategicobjectives are set, whereas once an authority says whatshould be done, that piece of work is complete.

Members of authorities do not fail in the same way as

employees in enterprises. An authority may have diffi-culty if the requirements on it exceed the resourcesallocated, but this is not the responsibility of insiders.Authority members may make an occasional misjudge-ment, but incompetence of particular individuals doesnot lead to sacking. As in many prestige-based bodies,there is a denial of personal failure. Acknowledgementwould bring disrepute all round. So unsatisfactory per-formers continue in post, but may be replaced whenappointments come round for renewal.

Organizing the Authority. Public authorities areset up by statute, and depend on government for theirexistence. The legislature decides their remit, structureand procedures. Non-statutory authorities, sometimesknown as self-regulatory organizations (SRO’s), are setup by umbrella bodies or membership organizationswithin an industry or profession to protect the generalpublic and to uphold minimum standards. Most pro -fessional membership bodies engage in a degree of self-regulatory activity. Specific self-regulatory authorities,like the Advertising Standards Authority and thePersonal Investment Authority aim to dispense with theneed for a statutory authority.

Authorities are ethical in nature: created to protectsociety and people in accord with social values and ethical codes. Similar ethical issues generate similarbodies in different domains e.g. the need for fairnessgenerates a disparate range of tribunals as noted above.In the same way, independent pay review boards havebeen set up separately for doctors, for nurses, for thearmed services, and for top civil servants: one singleall-encompassing board would not do. Domains whichare inherently ethically significant, like the media, mayrequire a number of regulatory bodies to meet a varietyof social needs e.g. a censorship board, a decency com-mission, an advertising standards council, and a complaints authority. Sometimes related values orsocial domains may be grouped together. For examplethe Registry of Friendly Societies supervises building(savings) societies, credit unions, cooperative societies,benevolent societies, recreational bodies, workingmen’s clubs, housing societies, sickness benefit societiesand many others under 14 separate Acts of Parliament.

When organizing authorities, the assignation of powers is as sensitive as the definition of duties or functions. For example, authorities can either be per-mitted or restricted from prosecuting or from investi-gating on their own initiative. ‘Lack of teeth’ is one ofthe commonest criticisms of authorities, but, whatevercrusaders may argue, effectiveness depends on possess-ing politically acceptable powers, not on wielding draconian power. Authorities can easily be given what-ever powers are thought politically desirable — it just

425


happens that these powers are often minimal. Licensingauthorities, however, almost invariably have extensivepowers. The Radio Authority, for example, can imposeconditions on licensees, give a warning, impose a fine,shorten the license or refuse to renew the license.

Self-regulatory authorities, in contrast, rarely haveor use such extensive powers because they would be indanger of losing the support of their own members, thepeople who directly or indirectly finance and supervisethem. Conflicts of interest are denied by those in theindustry or profession, but until each and all are moreenlightened than at present, it is difficult to see howsuch conflicts can be avoided (cf. Ex. 12.7).

Press Self-Regulation: In recent years, complaints aboutpress behaviour have grown. A formal inquiry in 1990suggested self-regulation was the preferred option.However, in order to be acceptable to the newspaperindustry, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) deliber-ately rejected some of the recommendations of thatinquiry: e.g. with regard to appointments to its Board andon employment of its staff. The industry specifically deniedthe PCC powers to initiate inquiries into press behaviour.Presumably at the behest of the industry, the PCC ex plicitlystated that it should Âpromote ... press freedomÊ and provide a Âdefence ... against improper pressureÊ. As aresult, there was a further government-sponsored inquiryin 1993 which concluded that the PCC was Ânot...aneffective regulatorÊ because it is Âin essence... dominatedby the industry...and...over-favourable to the industry.Ê

Ex. 12.715

Any authority needs to see itself and be seen by others as serving and representing the community. Itsown structure and operations are ordered by social values and become defined as part of a political process.To illustrate and sustain this identity, its structure mustbe relatively inflexible, and its operations must be handled with explicit and fair procedures. The com -position of the authority needs to take account of theneed for a range of experts from within or without toensure technicalities and legalities are well handled. Sointernal authority is multi-focal or polyarchic. Forexample, reports from the Royal Commission onEnvironment Pollution draw on the independent judgements of engineers, biologists, doctors and others. Leadership is formalized and expressed througha chairman who is a recognized public figure or socialleader in the area and primus inter pares within the council. Because, the output is no more than a report,an authority can be structured in a simple way: essen-tially as a council with a supporting secretariat.Calculation of inflation, for example, is based on a formula decided by a special independent statutorybody, the Retail Price Index Advisory Committeewhich reports as needed, usually once every 3-4 years.This body has 21 members on its council and draws on

20-30 civil service staff for the secretariat.

To deal with a large volume of work, the council maysplit itself into committees each authorized to producethe necessary recommendation. For example, to dealwith around 10,000 cases per year, the Parole Board (in1991) had 86 part-time members working in panels of3 or 4, while the secretariat consisted of a dozen admin-istrators headed by a Secretary. The full board met onlytwice yearly. Because authorities are not primarily service-providers, they usually require only a fewadministrative or executive staff to do things likearranging consultation, handling paperwork, develop-ing technical standards, dealing with public or trade orpress inquiries, and organizing publicity for reports anddecisions. Leadership here is provided by someone witha title like secretary, controller, director, or director-general. However, some authorities may have to per-form complex work in clarifying values or theirapplication in a situation, and this may lead to a staff ofa hundred or more. For example, the Monopolies andMergers Commission needs to employ about 150 stafffor its detailed investigations of particular industries.

Conflicts of Interest. The organization of any regulatory body must take conflicts of interest seriously.These can arise in a variety of ways and active preven-tive measures are essential. The independence of anauthority must not be viewed as merely a formal mat-ter or it will fail. The constitution of a statutory author-ity, for example, should ensure that no members of thegovernment are on its council; and the secretariat mustnot be directly answerable to a minister. Such arrange-ments would self-evidently compromise its autonomy.It should be evident to the public that council membersare worthy and not exposed to undue influences.Conflicts of interest or function and personal bias mustbe avoided. Although some authorities naturally call forleadership from among the best within the industry, itis usually unnecessary and unwise, for example, toappoint a chief executive of a television company aschairman of a statutory authority for broadcasting.

Service provision takes the focus off regulation andon to activities which themselves need to be regulated.So when service organizations act as regulators, theincompatibility in outlooks is severe. For example theadministration of monetary policy (handling interestrates, currency management, fund-raising for the government, money supply monitoring &c) is a serviceprovided by a central or reserve bank. In the UK, thisfunction is combined with the supervision of the banking system which has led, perhaps coincidentally,to a range of mishaps, including the largest fraud inbanking history.16

426


Authorities are occasionally used to promote certainvalues, but this may compromise objectivity in a bodyexpected to be unbiased. The danger is that the authority confuses ‘a statute’ (L"-6) with ‘the law’(G"-52) and in pursuit of the statute forgets to takeaccount of custom-based conventions, tenets, rightsand maxims. Promotion of values is then liable toevolve into a moral crusade, and the authority takes onthe profile of a campaigning organization. When thisoccurs, the authority becomes distanced from valuesactually held in society (i.e. L-5 social values) and worksaccording to its own hypothetical standard (i.e. L-6value system) for which general consensus is lacking.The Commission for Racial Equality, for example, has apromotional remit and yet its activities in this directionwere severely criticized by a parliamentary select com-mittee. The committee took the view (which makessense in terms of the present analysis) that promotionalwork should stem from the CRE’s legal and investiga-tive remit and should not proceed quasi-independently.By being partisan, the authority was in danger of losingpublic confidence.17 The Equal OpportunitiesCommission was similarly rebuked by a judge when ittook the government to court for rejecting its advice.Leave to appeal was refused and the Commission wastold to put more effort into pursuing individual cases ofdiscrimination.

Governments may empower existing bodies to regulate by statute, e.g. the Institute of CharteredAccountants officially licenses its members in relationto handling investment, insolvency and company audit.However, membership associations depend on theirmembers, so there is an inherent conflict of interest.The appearance of independence, even if not its reality,is poisoned. On balance, it is generally preferable thatregulation of doctors should be in the hands of a medical council with lay members rather than left to amedical association, that a banking regulator not a fellow banker or association of bankers supervisesbanks, and that an auditing authority not their mem-bership body regulates company auditors. The con -sequences of leaving Lloyds of London to regulate itselfhas been disastrous for Lloyds, for its investors (thenames) and the British insurance industry (cf. Ex. 8.16:Ch.8).

Compartmentalization. As with the other typesof autonomous endeavour, an authority has distinctivecompartments which accord with its component levelsof purpose. These five compartments generate socialroles and duties. The highest compartment again contains wider society which forms the enabling con-text, while four compartments are dedicated to theauthority.

A movement proper was defined by the lowest levelalone, and consisted of the grass roots applying theirvalues and arguing for their immediate use by others.An authority proper is defined by the lowest two com-partments, and consists of the council (the board orgoverning body) and its secretariat (the officials oradministrative staff). The other two compartments arefilled by a formal inquiry which authoritatively estab-lishes that society needs (or does not need) to create (orreform) the authority, and an instituting body whichcan legitimately set up, politically win support for,appropriately fund and willingly accept responsibilityfor performance of the authority.

The role of the body in each compartment mustagain be to work with values at all five levels. Howevereach has a core responsibility based on its defining levelwhich is about making a recommendation. If this work isnot done, the authority malfunctions. Wider society mustrecommend the beliefs and ethical codes about whichthere can be a consensus. Without the general promo-tion of certain key ideas, there will be no urge to iden-tify the need for an authority, to create it, or to takenotice of it. The formal inquiry must recommend thatcertain social values have emerged as needing attention.These values or needs become the rationale for theinquiry’s proposal that an authority should be institutedor re-constituted. The instituting body must recommendcertain principal objects (including duties, powers,structures, resourcing and staffing) which determinethe interface between the authority and wider society.This body is also responsible for appointments to thecouncil. The council must recommend certain values inmaking its decisions. These internal priorities maxi-mize the impact of the authority. Finally, the secretariatmust recommend a detailed appropriate and feasibledecision or way forward, i.e. strategic objectives. Thesecretariat also ensures that everything is done whichmust be done at the mechanical level.

The values recommended within one compartmentneed to mesh with the values used in other compart-ments. To ensure socially-sensitive and politicallyresponsible functioning, bodies within progressivelylower level compartments must act within, then respondto, then uphold, and finally interpret values recom-mended by bodies in higher compartments. Bodieswithin progressively higher level compartments mustalso in turn debate, then examine and finally note the values recommended by bodies in lower compart-ments. Once again a simplified matrix with the valuesas rows and the compartments (bodies or roles) ascolumns clarifies and orders the necessary arrange-ment: see Table 12.2 (and cf. Master-Table 38). Thecore duties form the main diagonal, and the subsidiaryduties form parallel diagonals.

427


Wider society has the primary duty to recommendthe ethical ideas and socially acceptable theories whichenable the formation and proper operation of anauthority. This recommendation emerges from a publicarena where politicians, academics, the judiciary, jour-nalists and others discuss a topic until a consensusemerges about what is right. No formal recommenda-tion is provided, of course, but without this generalconsensus on ideas nothing can be done. For example, acensorship authority, like the British Board of FilmCensors, may be seen as essential to protect adults andchildren from immoral or seditious material. The bodycan only be tolerated and its decisions treated withrespect if the ideas and ethical rules used are widelycommended.

Change in a dominant political or economic ideologynaturally demands a complete overhaul of society’sindependent authorities. However, people fully iden -tified with the new ideas may simply not be available insociety. Russia, for example, wishes to introduce a market economy, but this requires a range of regulatoryauthorities with considerable expertise and financialunderstanding to prevent the fraud and exploitationwhich could bring the whole idea of private enterpriseinto disrepute.

Wider society is also the source of the social valueswhich are used to construct or reconstruct an authority. Its duty here is to debate whether certainsocial values need official recognition and protection. Itis never clear whether there really is a need for theauthority identified by the formal inquiry. For example,the development of the ombudsman office in variouscommercial areas like banking and insurance reflected

the awareness of a need for users to be able to protestagainst mal-administration. Previously, people weresimply expected to tolerate bureaucratic inefficiencyand manipulation. However, new bodies like theombudsmen are expensive, potentially bureaucratic,and often disliked and opposed by the vested interestswho were responsible for the abuse which called theminto existence. As a result, their creation and con tinuingexistence generates active public debate.

Principal objects which define a new authority areinherently controversial — far more so than agreeingthe need for the authority. Any authority seeks to minimize turmoil in the political arena by working privately and independently on value disputes. So onlythose active within the domain fully understand thepossibilities and limitations. Although the public is inno position to query or assess what the experts and existing authorities decide, they can expect some actionby the media and by their pressure groups or mem -bership bodies. So concerned citizens and thosewithin the guardian institutions of society (e.g. jour -nalists, politicians, academics, clergy) should assume aduty to examine its duties, powers, structures and procedures carefully. This is particularly needed priorto their creation or when they seem to be functioningpoorly.

Regulatory authorities report to wider society, oftenannually. Interested people and relevant organizationsought to note the values in use, but the specific decisionsor recommendations are not usually of general interest.In any case, outsiders are not given the detailed evidence by which they can judge the particular choicesor proposals.

428


Table 12.2: The necessary inter-relation of compartmental duties in an authority. The role ofeach compartment is defined by its column with the core duty in bold type. This matrix is the basis for synergy andeffectiveness. Note that wider society is the contextual compartment of the authority again, but that the insider section(on the right) now includes two compartments.

Compartment Wider Formal Instituting

Level Society Inquiry BodyCouncil Secretariat

6: Value Recommend Act within Respond to Uphold InterpretSystems

5: Social Debate Recommend Act within Respond to UpholdValues

4: Principal Examine Debate Recommend Act within Respond toObjects

3: Internal Note Examine Debate Recommend Act withinPriorities

2: Strategic · Note Examine Debate RecommendObjectives

A formal inquiry is a transient body created byrepresentative groups in a particular domain to dealwith an emerging social problem or to handle an existing authority which seems to be failing. Failure maybe evidenced by a scandal in which social values havebeen flagrantly violated or by a ground swell of populardiscontent.

The Securities and Investments Board was set up in1988 following an inquiry by Prof. Gower. This was initiated by the government in 1981, and his Reportswere published in 1984 and 1985. The inquiry was provoked by widespread public alarm at the rise oflarge-scale fraud, insider trading, routine malpracticeand lack of proper financial controls leading to businesscollapses. The Council of the Stock Exchange and existing self-regulatory authorities were widely per-ceived to have failed.18

Establishment of a specific authority, which meansvesting controlling powers in a body outside the politi-cal arena and independent of government, is a majorsocial commitment. So an authority proper cannot eval-uate itself and is not assigned the power to reform itself.The inquiry has the duty to explore and to assesswhether or not certain social needs are currently beingadequately protected.

The core duty here is to recommend social valueswhich form the rationale for instituting and sustainingany authority. These inquiries may be set up as a committee or commission (e.g. the Royal Commissionon the National Health Service), or as a quasi-judicialbody if criminality is an issue (e.g. the Scarman Inquiryinto the Brixton Disorders 10-12 April 1981; theInquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland, 1987). It may beconstituted with a board and secretariat or as a soleinvestigator getting help as required. The inquiry maybe generated by a profession or industry where thereare widespread public allegations of wrong-doing e.g.the internal inquiry into the Lloyds of London multi-billion pound insurance debacle (The Walker Report:An Inquiry into Lloyd’s Syndicate Participations and theLMX Spiral, 1992).

People selected for an inquiry must be capable of anoverview of society as a whole, should appreciate theparticular domain, be respected publicly within thedomain, understand how social control can work, andbe sensitive to the political and value dimension ofsocial life. Inquiries restate and act on the beliefs andprinciples which legitimate social control. In sensingand recommending emerging social needs, the inquiryplaces them in the context of other established socialvalues. In Ex. 12.7, the 1993 Inquiry which recom-mended statutory regulation of the press ‘to ensure thatprivacy which all agree should be respected, is pro-

tected from unjustifiable intrusion’, also wished to contribute to the highest standards of journalism, toenable the press to operate freely, to protect childrenand victims of sexual crime and so on.

Movements spark off and sustain pressure groups,crusading organizations, political parties and otherreform-generating organizations which attempt toinfluence these inquiries. The inquiry is therefore a keyagent for recognizing emerging personal and socialneeds and giving them legitimacy. For example, theEqual Opportunities Commission (set up in 1974) wasa product of the women’s movement which had in -fluenced all political parties. Although it was finally setup by a Labour government drawing on their policystudy group Report ‘Discrimination against Women’(1972), it also gained legitimacy from the Conservativegovernment’s consultative document Equal Oppor -tunities for Men and Women (1973) and the FinerCommittee Report on One Parent Families (1974).

The detailed determination of the duties and powersof an authority is quite distinct from the processwhereby the need for one is recognized. Neverthelessinquiries require the duty to debate these details. Theyneed to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages ofthe present situation, and analyse the existing regula-tory duties and powers. They commonly put forwarddifferent options and possibilities, and suggest newmechanisms, laws or structures without necessarilyrecommending any particular one.

Formal inquiries are usually set up because of a viewthat it is necessary to alter or reinforce values (priori-ties) currently used in practice (if there is no existingauthority) or priorities currently recommended by thecouncil (if there is an authority in existence). If there isno authority, formal inquiries seek to compare whatsociety needs and values with what its relevant organi-zations are doing (cf. Ex. 12.8). If there is an authority,then the inquiry considers whether what the authority’scouncil is affirming as important is socially fitting. Soinquiries have a duty to examine the priorities beingapplied and comparing these with emerging socialneeds and views. In doing so they must note specificdecisions, but they do not re-work or re-assess these.

Health Care Complaints: The Secretary of State for Healthset up a review to examine complaints procedures withinthe National Health Service (NHS) following widespreadpublic dissatisfaction. The committee was chaired by Prof.Alan Wilson, a university vice chancellor, and it includedNHS and lay members. Its report, Being Heard (May1994) identified 9 key principles (social values) such asresponsiveness, cost-effectiveness, accessibility andimpartiality. Through examining evidence from manysources, it was evident that these were not given priorityin practice. It proposed a variety of improvements to be

429


taken up spontaneously by NHS organizations, usingcentral guidance and management oversight, greaterinvolvement of other auditing bodies like the HealthServices Ombudsman and legislative changes to con-tracts for family health services. There was no mention ofa possible ÂNHS complaints authorityÊ. Ex. 12.8

Instituting bodies must provide the politicalinterface with society and be prepared to respond tovalue controversies and scandals. They must engagewhen social events seem to demand an alteration in thebasic working of the authority.

For statutory authorities or when there is statutoryassignation of powers to membership associations likethe Chartered Institute of Accountants, the institutingbody is the government. For non-statutory authorities,the most satisfactory instituting body is an umbrellaorganization consisting of relevant membership asso -ciations.

Regulating Advertising: In 1993, the AdvertisingAssociation consisted of 27 member bodies coveringfirms in advertising, marketing, television, mail-order, thepress, cinema &c. In 1962, this Association, then muchsmaller, set up the Advertising Standards Authority to handle public complaints in terms of a code devised bythe Code of Advertising Practice Committee. The dangerin any such arrangement is that the instituting bodybecomes too captured by its membersÊ interests andunduly limits the self-regulatory powers or the finances ofthe authority. To handle an increase in the scope andactivity of self-regulation and to minimize conflicts of inter-est, a formal inquiry was commissioned by the Office ofFair Trading. As a result, in 1975, the AdvertisingAssociation and the Committee for Advertising Practice(for commercial complaints) handed over institutingresponsibilities to the newly created and properly in -dependent Advertising Standards Board of Finance(ASBOF). Ex. 12.919

The formation of an authority to supervise the presshas been problematic in the UK due to the lack of aproper instituting body: see Ex. 12.7. The PressComplaints Commission was set up by a loose workingtogether of the five main press trade associations,referred to in most documents as ‘the industry’.Following the critical report of the government-spon-sored inquiry in 1993, the industry accepted the needfor an instituting body and handed over financing andthe control of Commission appointments to Pressbof(modelled on ASBOF in Ex. 12.8).

The fact that an authority is a product of an institu -ting body is the primary source of its power and legiti-macy. The core duty of the instituting body is torecommend principal objects for the authority. Thismeans indicating its terms of reference, its powers, itsactivities, the boundaries of its concerns, the way it is to

be structured and staffed, key procedures, and itsresourcing. The authority’s creation is highly politicaland these recommendations get a detailed examinationby all interested parties. After any modifications inresponse to pressures, the final recommendation is putfor endorsement to parliament or to the governingbody of the umbrella organization.

In working out exactly what the authority is to do,the instituting body responds to the relevant value systemin society by drawing up a an ethical code and pro -moting its significance. For example, a committee ofeditors drew up a Code of Practice in which importantideas like accuracy, privacy, misrepresentation, harass-ment, payment for articles and the handling of vulnera-ble groups were addressed.

The instituting body, being representative of thecommunity, must act within its social values. This meansresponding to established changes in the relevant socialenvironment, not pressing for innovation. The UK government had to move to form a Securities andInvestment Board (SIB) to regulate other self-regula-tory bodies because its own deregulation sparked offupheavals and developments within the financial ser-vices community which led to a corresponding need forenhanced investor protection. The government wasresponding to ideas assumed and explained in the formalinquiry (Gower Report, 1984). These stated thatinvestor protection depended upon a high degree ofefficiency in financial markets and that this, in turn,depended on common standards of honesty, com -petence and solvency amongst financial firms.

Instituting bodies remain somewhat distant fromspecific problems and possible solutions or choices,leaving it to the council and officials of the authority topropose and explain them. However, they do have aduty to debate the values being used in particularchoices. If these priorities get too far out of line withthe social values and needs as expressed in public opinion and perceived by the instituting body, then it isliable to view the authority as failing. Self-regulatorybodies will be concerned that this may mean govern-ment intervention. Governments will be concernedabout political embarrassment and public criticism.

Finally, the instituting body needs to examine thedetailed strategic objectives which are the essence ofthe authority’s output. Tribunal decisions, for example,are typically gathered together in an annual report andsubmitted to the originating government departmentfor scrutiny.

The council, the board of the authority, is the leading compartment. Its members come to be seen aspart of ‘the great and the good’ in society. They tend to

430


be distinguished individuals, notable achievers, leadersand opinion-formers from within particular domainsrather than generalists like politicians or clergy. To thewider public they may be obscure, but their honours,careers and achievements mark them out as trust -worthy and deserving of respect. Some council members are chosen as representatives of relevantorganizations. For example, the membership of theMonopolies and Mergers Commission consists of aChairman and 31 members who are leading business-men, members of professions, academics, and tradeunion officials. It has special panels (e.g. on telecommu-nications) with extra individuals who have appro priateexpertise. The Equal Opportunities Commission drawsfrom people who are noted in the field and havebecome distinguished, for example, by their work onindustrial tribunals, in trade unions, and in the law. TheSecurities and Investments Board consists of Chairmen,Chief Executives and Directors of major firms in theworld of finance (banking, insurance, broking, big business).

The council carries prime responsibility because itmakes and defends decisions or proposals which areapplicable to particular situations. These proposals consist of applicable values (i.e. internal priorities) anda desirable outcome (i.e. strategic objectives). The primary duty of the council is to recommend internal priorities and to be sure that the strategic objectives asrecommended by the secretariat are appropriate. Theactual decision will vary according to the circum-stances. But in each case, the council has a respon sibilityto debate possible decisions in value terms and to bringtheir priorities to bear.

The Advertising Standards Authority, for example,has had to deal with complaints of sexism in advertise-ments. In adjudicating, they are aware they must balance the value of ‘promoting equality betweenwomen and men against the public interest in safe-guarding freedom of expression...[while recognizingthat]...freedom of expression is the higher value’. (CaseReport 150, 1987). Prioritizing values like this is moresignificant than the result in any particular case.

The council is the guardian of the ethics and idealsbehind their authority, so it must uphold these in thehandling of people and situations. For example, thecouncil of the Press Complaints Commission specifi-cally ratified the Code of Practice as its primary sourceof guidance in dealing with complaints. Any councilmust nevertheless respond to social values relevant to theissue under consideration. For example, parole of arapist might be handled differently if a spate of recentsimilar parolees had re-offended and generated a publicview that longer internments were desirable.

The council has the self-evident and strict duty to actwithin the authority’s terms of reference irrespective ofmembers’ personal views of what should be done. Instatutory authorities, this means detailed knowledge ofthe Act of Parliament which defines the objects, duties,powers and procedures.

The secretariat are administrative and technicalstaff who understand the value system justifying theauthority and so are able to interpret its meaning andrele vance in particular situations. Such understanding isbased on education and previous socialization. At thetime of writing, the two top staff in the Royal Fine ArtsCommission, for example, have a background in architecture; and the London Regional PassengersCommittee senior secretariat consists of two formerofficers of a similar predecessor body, a voluntarymember of its council who became so interested that heapplied to work for it, a former senior operations manager with London Buses, a trade unionist, an ex-customer relations manager from the Post Office, andan ex-education officer.

The core duty of the secretariat is to recommendappropriate responses to any immediate social chal-lenge within the remit of the authority. To do this, theyensure that there is an investigation, analysis of evi-dence, draft recommendations and so on for the coun-cil to consider. The council imposes its priorities andsense of social values, and debates their papers in termsof whether these are adequately and appropriatelyexpressed. All officials must act within the priorities orcriteria set by council in its general proceedings. Theysimply respond to the principal objects, ensuring that thecouncil is addressing itself to those tasks for which itwas instituted and is acting within the law. Authoritystaff must be sensitive to social values, especially thoseidentified by any formal inquiry, and they have a duty touphold these in their proceedings.

Limitation. Regulatory authorities act as a bufferbetween the people and their government. They ensurevalues are sustained within society, but they are notdesigned to produce specific achievements. Neithermovements nor authorities are vehicles by which people may express themselves in productive activities.They are insufficiently organized, insufficiently con-cerned with practical details, and overly dependent ongeneral agreement to produce a sustained and tangibleimpact. Whether in the design of ideas for changingsociety or in the production of goods and services, afocused commitment is required which is driven by thenotion of meeting felt needs. If individual people are tothrive, they must be able to pursue their own relativelyprivate path within society. If society is to thrive, it

431


needs to release such expressions of autonomy.Enterprises exist for just this purpose.

G-51: An Enterprise

Nature. The term ‘organization’ most immediatelyconjures up the image of a formally-constituted exe -cutive-led enterprise. Organizations which embodymovements or authorities seem arcane, evanescent andother-worldly beside enterprises whose rationaledepends on the expert management and performanceof activities. Such organizations have become the en -vironment in which we work and live. Our daily desiresto eat, sleep, play, and strive in health and happiness arenot so much affected now by the weather or wild animals as by innumerable enterprises. We look less toourselves or to our fellows for products and servicesand more to private or public organizations: the con-struction company that built our house, the retail firmsthat sell us food and clothing, the business that employsus, the school that educates our children, the govern-ment agency that warns of the impending weather, thecharity that provides our community theatre, the campaigning organization that voices our concerns,upon all these and many more we depend.

Although we depend on enterprises and they dependon us, enterprises are essentially self-interested. Thefunction of an enterprise is to pursue values throughactivities which generate tangible benefits for itself. Inother words, this type of autonomous endeavourregards values as a means to an end, its own end.Society, however, views enterprises as the means forincorporating and realizing wider values. This is whyboth movements and authorities seek to influenceenterprises. They can do so rather easily because thepresence of social values within the enterprise pentadforces them to be responsive.

An enterprise must be set up formally, i.e. con -stituted as an organization, when a needed task isbeyond the resources of a single person or a small bandof partners. A task of any significant complexityrequires explicit and public statements of its purposeand value, and demands explicit differentiation of thework into different kinds and levels of responsibility.The resulting body can endure beyond changes in thepeople initially involved. So society views it as a legalindividual: an autonomous social being with its own dis-tinct identity and life.

Unlike movements, enterprises need clearly definedboundaries and must respect existing social values.However, like movements, the insiders need to beviewed as independent responsible individuals and notsimply as agents — even though they enter into a

contract of employment. A side-effect of this paradox isthat a person or sub-group within an organization canuse it to pursue or cloak their own intentions whichmay differ or run counter to stated objects.

So, whether the organization proper consists of just afew people (like some voluntary agencies) or over amillion (like some armies or the UK’s National HealthService), there is a need to weld them together into adistinctive purposeful unity while allowing each personan appropriate degree of autonomy to pursue and ownactivities. It is evident that large enterprises will onlyfunction successfully if everyone cooperates and acceptsa great deal of responsibility.

Enterprises are activity-based organizations in whichpersonal benefit is a central value. The person may bean insider or an outsider. Societies depend on auto -nomous enterprises, and these enterprises depend onautonomous people, you and I, working within them ordealing with them as customers, suppliers etc. So wemust all learn to create, operate and modify enterprisesto meet social needs — which includes using them forpersonal gain and to advantage those groups we support.

Although many organizations are reasonably man-aged internally, their linkage with the values and needsof people, with other organizations and with widersociety generally is often problematic. Firms becomeunresponsive to their shareholders. Shareholders regardownership as financial speculation. Boards provide nocheck on chief executives. Headquarters expandbureau cratically. Managers lose the confidence of theircolleagues and subordinates. Suppliers are exploited.Governing committees proliferate uncontrollably.Custo mer views are ignored in decisions. Communitiesare neglected.

Such organizational problems, often said to becaused by character failings or climates of distrust orpressures of work, may be better explained by ignorance and confusion. Society promotes the use offormal organization for business, for example, but theprecise role of firms in realizing social values is notproperly appreciated. Indeed, many see businesses asinherently monstrous: financially-driven beasts whichdepersonalize people and engage in squalid dealings.

The analytic approach and basic principles of compartmentalization to be offered here apply equallyto all types of organization. However, in modelling howenterprises can and should be operated, the principalfocus will be on service organizations differentiatedinto three broad groups: voluntary or non-profit associ-ations, commercial firms or companies, and govern-mental or public agencies.

432


Development. New enterprises are formed when-ever a social need becomes evident. They are con -stituted as an organization if the activities and resourcesrequired to meet that need are inherently beyond whata sole trader or small partnership can handle. Theenterprise then harnesses people in its service and,almost as a by-product, in the service of communal values related to that need.

Social values and personal needs can never be com-pletely fulfilled, and so opportunities to set up enter-prises are limitless. The social constraints to enterprisesare defined by authorities and the law. Ethical restraintsbeyond these are an expression of the standards of theindividuals involved. Within these limits, there arepractical constraints determined by the interests ofpeople in the activity and the availability of essentialresources (such as trained people, credit, space, cus-tomers &c).

Enterprises are born and die with few survivinglonger than 30-40 years. During their lifetime, theythrive or stagnate. Success or failure is partly a factor ofthe efforts and abilities of those responsible for them,and partly a matter of external largely uncontrollablerealities. Schumpeter referred to the ‘creative destruc-tion’ of capitalism to explain the way that competitionand innovation operated in the business sector. In non-competitive or non-profit arenas, organizations followdifferent life trajectories and may survive for manydecades or even centuries.

The Brain of the Enterprise. The consensual mandate for any enterprise is provided once again bywider society. To gain support from wider society for thepursuit of activities, social values must be identified.Social values are inclusive and integrative in nature, lesscontrolling than ultimate values and value systems, anddirectly oriented to what people in the community feelthey need. These values arise spontaneously or withinmovements and are legitimated or confirmed byauthorities if necessary. An organization’s survivaldepends crucially upon seeking accommodation withexisting social values and on being free to seekresources from the societal environment by appeal tothese values. As emphasized many times before, every-one inside an organization is simultaneously part of thewider community. The relevant personal capabilityhere is awareness and acceptance of the communal netof values, and particularly its emerging needs.

The rationale for creating an enterprise is provided bythe principal objects. The work of defining these andsetting up and maintaining any organization is per-formed by a constituting body. This body consists of people or organizations who associate and committhemselves jointly to seeing that certain activities are

carried out. Because this body can also close down orsell the enterprise, it might be said to be the owner orproprietor. Constitutive duties refer to the requirementto secure a continuing existence and identity for theorganization, including a specific responsibility toresource any executive work or structures created by it.To be successful, the constituting body must containpeople who are imbued with the drive to promote certain values actively and systematically, and who benefit directly from the existence of the enterprise.Constituting bodies are of various types: for example,the membership of voluntary associations, the shareholdersof commercial firms, and the government and legislaturein regard to statutory public agencies.

The Heart of the Enterprise. Decisions on inter-nal priorities control the focus of activities and deter-mine political support, so here is where the organizationhas its political interface with society. The work to bedone is known as governance, and the social form is thegoverning body. Often referred to as a board (or council orauthority or committee), it is the small group of governors (or trustees or councillors or directors) whichmust act corporately. Governors are often drawn fromthe constituting body, and may include top officers oroutsiders with relevant credentials. Governance mediates, interprets, and promotes the wishes of theconstituting body. In order to enable realization of theprincipal objects within the resources available, it mustrecognize practical constraints and pressures from thesocial environment. Setting priorities means grippingcontroversial political issues and so the skills involvedare primarily political. Here, missionary or ideologicalzeal requires to be tempered pragmatically in the lightof irremovable environmental factors and conflictingdemands from the various stakeholders.

The choice of strategic objectives by an enterprise isabout maximizing its impact. Choices must take intoaccount both the complexity and uncertainty of theouter world and the value preferences of the governingbody. This is the work of top officers. Top officer bodiesinclude two roles. The first, often termed the secretary(e.g. company secretary, permanent secretary) isdesigned to assist the governing body in performinggovernance. In business, this role is commonly taken bythe top finance officer. The other role, that of chief executive (also called general manager, managing director or director-general), is designed to controlexecutive work and head up the executants within theenterprise. Sometimes a few key senior staff are speci -fically designated top officers by the governing bodyand formed into a top management team. Top officersneed a degree of political sensitivity, an ability to weighup and synthesize multiple factors intuitively, and the

433


capacity to mobilize and direct the full range of humanfinancial and physical resources within the organization.

Tactical objectives defining particular projects andtasks must enable the organization to adapt appro -priately. This work of deciding and successfully pur suingtasks and projects may be described as executant work. Itresults in the use of resources to produce concretechanges in the external world by a given deadline. Theexecutant body includes all staff working within the orga-nization, executives or managers, and work-force. Topofficers are also executants, and so those people invari-ably have two roles (or three if they are also on the gov-erning body, or four if they are also shareholders ormembers of the constituting body). Executants, like topofficers, need to be individually, not corporately,accountable even though corporate working is neededto manage large organizations. Executants typicallyhave specialized skills, expert knowledge and practicalexperience which form the basis of their employmentcontract. According to their capability, they can copewith tasks of lesser or greater complexity.

Recapitulation. The above arrangements are similar in principle to those for movements and author-ities. But they are designed to provide control overactivities and to ensure that something tangible andsocially worthwhile is produced. As before, there is anexternal level of purpose ensuring the organization canthrive within its social environment. However, there isjust one level of purpose controlling the enterpriseproper. The enterprise proper itself now covers threelevels of purpose. The highest of these orients opera-tions and shapes principal objects by using internal priorities. The remaining two levels of objectivesenable detailed and directed implementation.

In terms of compartments: the governing body canbe viewed as the specialized leading part of the con -stituting body, while the top officer body can be viewedas the specialized leading part of the executant body.Proper interaction of the two leading compartments,each driving and focusing in its own way, is inevitably ofthe greatest importance for organizational integrity andeffectiveness. In businesses, it means that leadership canbe sharply focused and the enterprise can speak with asingle voice.

Irrespective of how or even whether the enterprisecompartments are designed, it is evident that the workof each compartment is essential. If not explicitly pro-vided for, such work will be carried out somewhere —otherwise the enterprise collapses. Despite a consider-able amount of research, not just the responsibilities buteven the number and rationale of compartments are notgenerally appreciated.20

Rational design of duties and authority is preferableto chance or a free-for-all, but this requires that aframework for thinking about these is sufficientlydetailed and meaningful to be applied and used by thepeople involved. A satisfactory framework must pro-mote synergistic interaction between compartments,aid the translation of values into action, and handle conflicts inherent in any social activity.

Organizing the Enterprise. The source of powerin any enterprise is to be found in how well it is organized and managed. Unlike the higher endeavours,failure of organization here spells failure of the enter-prise. Spontaneity, the essence of successful move-ments, now threatens chaos. Enterprise success dependsinstead on everyone knowing what is to be achieved andhow. In that context, everyone involved must show initiative and cooperation. Cooperation means thatchoices and actions by all compartments must some-how mesh. But this is impossible without adequateaccountability relations between and within compart-ments. So control is now hierarchical.

The modern fashion for denying the need for hier -archy amongst managers and minimizing the impor-tance of clear responsibility and authority is just that: afashion and a denial. Hierarchy can degenerate intorigid rules, status preoccupations and the mindless proliferation of levels. However hierarchy itself isunavoidable and, if used properly, helps ensure the efficient and effective running of the enterprise.Accountability is a form of control which enables people to be maximally independent and responsible.In a large organization, hierarchy and accountability donot oppose freedom of action, but rather complementit. They are not optional.21

Our main concern here is with relations betweencompartments. Certain aspects of compartmentaccountability may be laid down in legislation, butmuch is at the discretion of those in the enterprise andcan be relatively easily altered in the service of its mission. Most observers agree that society urgentlyrequires a better understanding of the duties of thecompartments, and of the requisite relations betweenthem. The present account has been tested to ensure itcan be understood and acted upon by responsible people.

In clarifying the authority of the compartments, it isnatural to start from the origin of each in a particularlevel. As originally suggested, each compartment hasthe unique responsibility in relation to purposes at thatlevel. In this case the requirement is more definitivethan to affirm (as in movements) or to recommend (asin authorities). Instead, it is to set the purpose. This

434


means resolutely sticking to that purpose, checking onits pursuit or effects, and, if need be, changing it.Enterprise compartments need this positive powerbecause their output and survival flow from forthrightand timely action.

There is pressure on the three compartments in theenterprise proper to be well organized and managed.The public exposure of failure also fosters the naturalurge for people in the various compartments to worktogether in an integrated way. This means that purposesset at every level of the hierarchy need to mesh. Thiswill only occur if each compartment has some dutiesand corresponding in fluence or authority over higherand lower forms of purpose set by other compart-ments. But this influence is invariably less definitivethan to set the purpose.

A progressive pattern emerged clearly in ourresearch, and a summary of these findings is presentedin matrix form in Table 12.3 (cf. Master-Table 38).

Moving down the compartments: the purpose whichhas been set by the key compartment should be pursuedby the compartment below, then observed by the com-partment below that, then identified with by the compartment below that, and finally acted on by themost distant compartment. Moving up the compart-ments, the purpose which has been set by the key compartment, should be scrutinized and sanctioned (i.e.approved or rejected) by the compartment above, thenowned and supported (or disowned and vetoed) by the

compartment above that, and then reacted to by the mostdistant compartment. This rather simple terminologyseems to catch the flavour of the requisite influence andrights due to each compartment in respect of any particular type of purpose. When each responsibility,stated in this way, is elaborated further in a few key tasksof immediate relevance, the formulations have provedreadily understandable and useable by the peopleinvolved.

The principal characteristics and general duties ofeach compartment can now be examined. Although it isconjectured that compartments in all enterprises arefundamentally similar, variation in the details have beenfound according to the type of organization, particu-larly in the constituting body.22

Wider society needs to develop and set the socialvalues which people may freely pursue via their enter-prises. In business, these social values include consumerneeds and define the market. Setting is perhaps too definite a term, because what the social values are, isnot always clear from the variety of shifting and con-flicting opinions, assertions, complaints, activities andpronouncements. Nevertheless, it is usually very clearwhether or not the enterprise fits with the currentrange of social values. When something very new isbeing attempted, firms usually engage in marketresearch, approach relevant authorities or governmentdepartments for advice or conduct pilot trials to clarifythe value position. If a basic value of the wider society

435


Table 12.3: The necessary inter-relation of compartmental duties in an enterprise. The role ofeach compartment is defined by its column with the core duty in bold type. This matrix is the basis for synergy andeffectiveness. Note that this is the only form of endeavour which can ÂsetÊ purposes, but that this power does not includethe highest level of social value. Top officers and executants are held individually accountable, whereas constitutingand governing bodies are corporately accountable.

*Constituting bodies in commercial firms, voluntary associations and public agencies show great variation in their influence andduties in regard to lower level purposes. See text for further details.

Compartment Wider Constituting Governing Top Officer Executant

Level Society Body* Body Body Body

5: Social Set Pursue Observe Identify with Act onValues

4: Principal Sanction Set Pursue Observe Identify withObjects

3: Internal Own Sanction Set Pursue ObservePriorities

2: Strategic React to Own Sanction Set PursueObjectives

1: Tactical · React to Own Sanction SetObjectives

is violated by an enterprise, people spontaneouslyobject and either the enterprise fails or the governmentor an authority may intervene.

The second duty of wider society is to sanction theprincipal objects of any enterprise. The requirement ofall companies in the UK to register their aims andobjects and to submit names of directors and auditedaccounts annually is a form of oversight and legitima-tion of the principal objects. Indirect and implicit sanction is expressed in acts of recognition (such asacceptance of advertisements by the news media) ordisapproval (such as boycotts), and by people whotransact with or join the organization.

Different elements of wider society vary in their relevance for any particular enterprise. For example, aswell as being most responsive to the values of potentialmembers or those who deal with their members, atrade union will also be concerned with the values ofother trade unions and any political parties or cam-paigning organizations which are broadly supportive.

Wider society knows relatively little of what goes oninside most organizations, and has little direct access tothe setting of internal priorities, strategic or tacticalobjectives because these are largely private matters.Nevertheless, in the last analysis, society must own thevalues (priorities) being used for decisions within theorganizations because those organizations and all withinthem are members of society. So society has certainrights and duties which are exercised via its regulatoryauthorities and law-enforcement agencies.

Strategic decisions of large organizations impact onsociety, and the choices of even small organizations mayaffect local communities. Naturally, people react tothese. Elected representatives regularly support or criticize decisions of private sector bodies on theirbehalf, but anyone can communicate their views to abusiness. Sometimes, as in the case of the Coca ColaCorporation’s decision to alter the recipe of its famousfizzy drink, the extent of public protest leads to a recon-sideration and reversal of the decision. In a small com-munity, where an organization is finding its activitiesunprofitable, local people may mobilize active supportfor the firm to help it stay in business. Tactical objec-tives are not a concern of wider society, except in so faras they reveal a neglect of certain social values or pointto a socially undesirable strategic objective.

Constitutive duties show marked differencesbetween the main groups of service organizations, butstill within the pattern in Table 12.3. The membershipof voluntary associations is characterized by maximumpersonal involvement of each member who may beexpected to contribute to purposes at all levels.

Commercial firms lie at the other extreme with the vastmajority of shareholders having a minimum involve-ment and concerned with just one thing — profit. Thislack of concern with the organization itself seemswrong in principle. For public service agencies, the citizenry uses elected representatives in the legislatureto serve as the constituting body. Because the consti -tuting body is then accountable to the community, citizens ought to make a contribution to constitutivework. However, citizen duties, like shareholder duties,are often neglected.

The focus of constitutive work in all cases is, as thetitle implies, to set principal objects which both bringthe organization into existence and ensure its con -tinuance. There is a particular requirement to provideor obtain a resource base. Implicit, however, is a furtherduty to clarify and pursue the social values which gaverise to those principal objects. In relation to lower-levelpurposes, the constituting body is expected to sanctioninternal priorities, to own the strategic objectives and toreact to tactical objectives.

To explain these duties, the three varieties of enter-prise require separate consideration:

a) In government agencies, the situation is mostcomplex because of the involvement of the public. Thelegislature clarifies the dominant values held by thepublic in order to pursue them by constituting theagency. The principal objects are set within legislationwhich defines the central activities, main structures andmode of resourcing. In this regard, the public con-tributes crucially, if rather indirectly, by voting in thelegislators and paying the taxes and charges whichresource the service. Appointment to governing bodiesis determined according to statute and may be byappointment, nomination or election. Where nomina-tion is controlled by government, there may be placesreserved for people assigned on a representative basis(e.g. from unions, professions, or universities). Thegovernment minister, or sometimes a committee of thelegislature, must sanction internal priorities, and themain strategic objectives must be primarily owned by thegovernment. In the UK National Health Service, forexample, new priorities and strategic plans are scruti-nized by a select committee of Members of Parliament,whose report is debated and may be voted on in parliament. However, citizens should also be involvedin overseeing and legitimizing such decisions and shouldparticipate constructively in consultative procedures.The public needs to keep itself aware, and thereforerequires right of access to governing body meetings orto records of the debates. To help the public, the newsmedia need to take on an informing and campaigningrole. People should discuss developments within local

436


interest or pressure groups so they may effectivelylobby to support or criticize strategies. Tactical objec-tives frequently generate intense reactions: for examplethe local community may protest and so lead itsMember of Parliament to query closure of a small obsolete hospital, although this is within an agreedstrategy to improve quality and reduce costs.

b) In voluntary associations, members arestrongly invested in certain ideals and set objects in theconstitution to pursue these values in a particular way.Members are also actively encouraged to accept gover-nance duties. Under the guidance of the governingbody, all members are expected to become involved inexploring controversial issues, and in scrutinizing andsanctioning internal priorities. Typically, members havea strong sense of ownership of strategic objectives, andmay exert a veto on governing body decisions or insiston a referendum. In addition, members often deli -berately involve themselves in executant work, inquir-ing about and reacting to tactical objectives with greatintensity.

c) In commercial firms, control is more firmly inthe hands of the governing board of directors, partlybecause the shareholders’ concern lies with the produc-tion of profit. Proprietors and partnerships feel veryresponsible for their businesses, but many shareholdersin large firms do not experience themselves as owninganything except the financial worth of their investment.Not surprisingly, they feel virtually no responsibility forthe enterprise. The growth of stock exchanges and theemergence of large institutional investors (pensionfunds, unit trusts) has accelerated this neglect of own-ership responsibilities. A speculative or purely financialmentality is in danger of producing an inappropriateshort-term perspective. This may lead to excessivefluctuations in share price which can weaken a firm’sfinancial position.

The annual general meeting is the focus for exertingconstitutive rights and duties. However, shareholdershave a weak grip in practice even on such matters aswho the directors should be and what remuneration isappropriate for them. In the US, federal and state lawshave tended to disenfranchise shareholders. It wouldseem positively helpful if shareholders sanctionedmajor political decisions in relation to things like environmental pollution given that firms so often claimthat they decide things in the shareholders’ interests.Owner failure is a prime cause of board failure whichhas led to the emergence of the corporate raider as amechanism for shaking out incompetent and self-aggrandizing boards. Inevitably, ‘shareholder associa-tions’ have emerged to remedy shareholder weakness.The present approach suggests that boards of directors

should not seek to block or weaken shareholders’proper control (i.e. to limit their compartment-basedrights and duties). The present framework could be usedto devise a way to help define constructive involvementfrom shareholders, especially institutional investors.23

Governance duties are poorly discharged in business, non-profit and governmental organizationsalike.24 On the one hand, parliaments and judicialauthorities seem to be acutely aware of the need forgovernance. On the other hand, in no other compart-ment are ordinary people either so confused about whatis expected of them, or so unable to adhere to theirrole. Squabbling and rubber-stamping, absence of executive supervision and neglect of duties, unin-formed members and avoided policy issues, these andmany other problems appear almost identically in thesmallest voluntary agency and in the most lofty inter-national body, like the World Bank.

Careful study reveals that governance duties are basically similar across all varieties of enterprise.Govern ing bodies are primarily there to set internal priorities. They must handle crucial controver sies consequent on their central role in the authoritativeallocation of resources. The pressures from the multi-plicity of stakeholders — the constituting body, custo -mers or clients, staff, creditors, government, thecom munity, suppliers and others — must be balancedand a way forward found in the face of uncertainty. Thisdemands judgement and sensitivity, not simply facts andanalysis. In such work, group discussion and group res-olution within the convention of collective respon -sibility appear desirable. Governing bodies depend ulti mately on voting for decision, although they frequently operate most satisfactorily by consensus or(less satisfactorily) by deferring to the chair.Occasionally they refer decisions to a larger representa-tive group of members, but referenda should only besought on constitutional issues. The duty to set priori-ties includes decisions to introduce codes of practice,ethical policies, organizational standards and other con-troversial rules and values.

As well as gripping its prime task, that of settinginternal priorities, the governing body must considerpurposes at other levels. It must observe the social valuesof the various stakeholders by proclaiming these in public and by ensuring that any excessive, that is to saypotentially scandalous or unwise, breach of such values(the communal standards) is promptly remedied. Thegoverning body must also pursue the principal objects byclarifying and interpreting their nature, appointing themost senior officers, agreeing the main executive struc-tures, reviewing top officer performance and resourcesoverall, and proposing changes in the mission for deci-

437


sion by the constituting body. The governing bodyshould sanction strategic objectives and scrutinizedetailed strategies developed in the light of its main priorities or substantive internal priorities. This is oftenproblematic in public agencies and voluntary asso -ciations because it requires joint work with one or moretop officers who are frequently excluded from membership of the governing body. Detailed involve-ment of governors in executant matters, though frequent in practice, is neither logical (according to thismodel), nor in practice particularly effective in termsof time expended and results achieved. Nevertheless,the governing body must own all tactical objectives setby the staff and accept responsibility for their con -sequences. On occasion this may lead to the governingbody vetoing a tactical objective on the grounds that itis socially unacceptable.

The amount of work involved in governance is considerable. Unless it is appropriately and effectivelystructured, prioritized, programmed and monitored,governors rapidly become overwhelmed and ineffec-tive. A potential drain on time and energy stems fromconflict with the constituting body. Shareholder revoltsare not unknown. Where the governing body is a lowertier of government, conflict based on ideological politi-cization of issues may occur. In the UK in the 1980’s, forexample, many left-wing local councils acted as if theywere the opposition to the right-wing national govern-ment rather than bodies whose activities and structureare defined by parliamentary statute.

Although governance duties are similar in all organi-zations, governance structures and procedures — such ashierarchical tiers, member composition, duration ofoffice, powers of delegation, committee structures andstanding orders — are not. Legislation, which variessomewhat from country to country, commonly speci-fies baseline structural and procedural requirements forgoverning bodies on the basis of local experience andconventional wisdom. These laws are usually differentfor charities, public limited companies, private busi-nesses, and so on. However, in all cases, the con stitutingbody typically needs to determine certain crucial mat-ters for itself, and then the governing body needs toelaborate further, detailing arrangements as far as isrequired for its own effective operation. Such non-legalarrangements for governance need to be designed tosupport the particular mission of the organization andthe preferences and views of those involved.

Careful organizational analysis is needed: to clarifysuitable structural forms; to assign various governanceduties within the structure appropriately; to determinea suitable composition of members and (often) non-members with relevant interests or expertise or influ-

ence; and to devise essential procedures and conven-tions. Because organizations vary greatly, much varia tionin the detail of governance is to be found. In general,the more extensive the social role of the organization,the more complex its governance. Universal institu-tions like the major universities or churches obviouslyneed sophisticated arrangements. However, rathersmall membership-centred or charity-based associa-tions may also develop rather complicated governingstructures in order to involve as many members asdeeply as possible.

Top officer duties show no essential differencebetween any of the three varieties of organization. Ineach variety, the location of such work is commonly dis-puted or not clear. In many firms, it may be difficult todetermine whether top officer work is expected of thechairman of the board or of the so-called chief execu-tive officer (or both). Attempts to avoid the problem byhaving the one person fill both roles is still common. Insome voluntary associations, the chairman of the governing body almost completely takes over the topofficer role. In other cases, the most senior executives,having become more identified with the founding idealsthan the governors and members who constitute theassociation, seek to usurp constitutional and governingrights. In public agencies, where top officers are typi-cally excluded from membership of the governingbody, boards and top officers frequently come into con-flict over their respective roles. In the NHS, ministersof state have taken on the top officer role from time totime. Whatever the difficulties and inherent conflicts inthe governing-executing interface, and they are manyand various, their resolution must start from a clear,feasible and distinctive specification for top officerwork that meshes with that for governance.

Top officers, aided and sanctioned by their governingboard, should, above all, be expected to set strategicobjectives and work out detailed feasible strategieswhich they and other executants can implement. Theaim here is for the enterprise to move in an unam -biguous direction and in a way which makes the maximum of impact. On behalf of the governing body,top officers (directly and via delegation to subordinatemanagers) should scrutinize and sanction the tacticalobjectives which flow from strategies and keep the governors in touch with progress and costs. Lookingupwards, top officers must put time and effort into pursuing the internal priorities set by the governingbody. They should help governors both by ensuring thatstrategies align with the governing body’s wishes, andalso by raising and clarifying possible controversialissues and new potential priorities or foci for strategydevelopment.

438


Top officers have a duty to observe the principalobjects as set by the constituting body and interpretedby the governing body. Proclamation of the mission isgenerally recognized as an important aspect of exe -cutive leadership. In addition, top officers enable thegoverning body to pursue the principal objects bychecking that resources are being fully mobilized to thisend, and ensuring that all required activities are beingpursued and no ultra vires activities allowed. Impor -tantly, top officers should accept the constituting body’sideals without question. They need to identify with thesocial values as upheld by the governing body in orderto develop a suitable culture among the executant body,and to ensure that wider society is handled naturally andappropriately. If such identification is not possible forpersonal reasons, resignation or dismissal is necessary.

Top officer duties, as noted earlier, are always asso -ciated with the duties of a senior executant. Failure todistinguish and accept both these sets of responsibilitiesin full is common. For example, our project work in localgovernment revealed many top officers who largelyignored their senior executant role, and con sultancy inthe National Health Service revealed many chief exe -cutives who positively denied their top officer role.

Executant duties centre on task creation and completion. This is only one step, albeit the final step,in the conversion of social values into action. Yet peopleemployed to carry out or execute specific tasks to specific deadlines, here called the executants, havebecome mistakenly synonymous with enterprises. Infact, task activities cannot logically exist on their own.They must derive their immediate rationale from thepriorities (L-3) and strategies (L-2) which specify whatthe organization actually hopes to achieve in the world.But it is the executants, and only they, who can set sen-sible tactical objectives with realistic time-targets.

The proper duties of executants have been exten-sively investigated by many, so comment here can bekept to the minimum.25 However, it is useful to recog-nize that the present model highlights their responsibil-ities in a distinctive way. As well as handling assignedtasks, executants should set tactical objectives as generally required by their post and the situation with-out requiring specific instruction. Because any post orfunctional role is a direct expression of the principalobjects of the organization, an executant must identifywith these to be effective. If identification is not pos -sible, the executant should resign or be dismissed. Theperformance of tasks should be oriented by the need topursue strategic objectives and strategies as developedby top management groups. Executants should also beexpected to observe the priorities of their governingbody, applying them as opportunity allows. Most

impor tantly, the concrete results produced by exe -cutants should ultimately embody or concretize thesocial values which generated the enterprise. Althougha spon taneous conscious focus by executants on valuesis characteristically weak, executants may be expected,wherever possible, to act on social values as genuinelyaffirmed by top officers. For example, when com -munity- or client-participation in planning a service isgenuinely valued, staff should arrange the planningprocess to involve them. Even if such outsiders partici-pate in planning, they are not held formally responsiblefor the results: i.e. executants remain accountable fordecisions.

The emphasis in executant work is about producingresults efficiently while adapting as well as possible tothe exigencies of time and circumstance. This means amixture or synthesis of systematic and responsiveapproaches to work are required. Organizational effortsneed to be put into progressively reducing ambiguity,conflict and uncertainty by systematic analysis, infor-mation-gathering, definition of roles and accountabilityrelationships, specification of methods and directions&c. These systematic frameworks then provide the context for spontaneous, fluid and dynamic responsive-ness whose success is a function of personal aptitudeand attitude.

Closure. The criticism that is usually hurled at formally organized enterprises, whether voluntary,commercial or public, is that they are too self-centredand fail to recognize the needs of other bodies and thecommunity. But their values are not far off those of thesociety within which they operate. Their prime respon-sibility is to the mission as defined by the constitutingbody. Their standards are largely communal standards:they do what everybody else does. If these standards areundesirable, then authorities and laws can be intro-duced. But demanding perfection in an imperfect worldis not advisable. Enterprises are needed to keep societygoing, and they perforce use the values, good and bad,that are prevalent in society.

With enterprises we have come to the final and mosttangible way that autonomy can be embodied. We nowbriefly put joint endeavour in a historical perspectiveand indicate some implications of the analysis.

REVIEWING AUTONOMY

Autonomy is about the capacity to realize what youthink is important i.e. your values. We have noted thethree fundamental embodiments of autonomy. Becausethese embodiments of endeavour exist within society,their autonomous existence requires a consensus oncertain values.

439


All autonomy depends on an openness in social relationships, a belief in the importance of values insociety, the possibility of social change, and the exerciseof freedom. So traditional and repressive societies showa diminution of all associations and joint endeavours,while democratic and progressive societies show a multiplicity. One reason why present efforts do notalways work very well is that large scale autonomousendeavours are so recent — as the following ultra-briefhistorical review clarifies.

The Historical Perspective. Endeavours basedon a group of people forming an independent entitywith a life of its own are not new. But their extent andthe implications for the individual in society haveincreased dramatically over mankind’s social evolution,especially recently. The emergence and dominance ofautonomy in general, and large executive-run organiza-tions in particular, is the feature that overwhelminglymarks Western cultural evolution in the last 100years.26 In this rapid review, I will emphasise the emergence of compartmentalization because this is thepractical notion emphasized by the present framework.

For over 2,000,000 years until about 10,000 BC,people operated as nomads in small family bands andcould depend on informal arrangements. Even today,distinct and enduring social bodies, aside from kinshipand political arrangements, are not to be found in sub-sistence societies preserved by their religion and tradi-tions. Around 10,000 BC, the development of farmingand villages led to surpluses and trading, and encour-aged the systematic division of labour. When towns andcities emerged around 5,000 BC together with thedevelopment of writing and money, movements werefacilitated, authorities gained importance and labour-intensive organizations became essential. Effectiveorganization of civil administration, the military andreligious functions, together with improvements inmaterials technology, enabled the creation of empiresaround 3,000 BC.

Rulers in these ancient civilizations operated on thebasis of divine authority and were bound by traditions,so the acceptability of their endeavours within societywas never an issue. They could therefore merge deci-sions about values with those of action in a way thatwould now seem tyrannical. Reversion to popularwishes would have to await their death. PharaohAkhenaten’s monotheism, for example, was imposedduring his reign and rejected immediately afterwards.Nevertheless precursors of movements — popularmoods, demonstrations, fashions — had an influenceon society however absolutist the ruler. Until a fewhundred years ago, popular movements seem to havebeen largely religious or revolutionary in character.

Rulers viewed movements with suspicion and authori-ties were limited in scope and given little true indepen-dence. Until the invention of printing and theimprovement of transport and communications (16thcentury), it was extremely difficult for a movement tospread very far or for a large-scale enterprise to operatevery effectively.

The earliest joint enterprises were partnershipswhere all were expected to orient the endeavour and toshare in both the work and profits. In England fromearly times, corporate bodies could be set up by RoyalCharter and later by Parliamentary Act, and given thepower to do anything an individual might do. The EastIndian Company, for example, was chartered. How -ever, once formed, the scope of a chartered company’sactivities was unlimited, and this put creditors andmembers at risk. The large trading companies whichdeveloped in the 17th and 18th centuries were notincorporated, and were run by large fluctuating numbers of loosely associated people owning transfer-able shares. Such bodies were also unsatisfactorybecause any person dealing with them could not knowwith whom he was contracting or whom to sue.

The disparate needs for effective legal control, forconcentration of capital, and for managing a large complex work-force became fully apparent with theindustrial era in the mid-19th century. As a result,incorporation of an enterprise became generally avail-able in the form of a limited liability company. Incor -poration resulted in a de facto immortal entity with thelegal capacity to act as a person quite distinct from theactual people who provided the capital. In other words,the disparate needs led to the emergence of full com-partmentalization and formalization of organizationswith an internal differentiation of duties as appropriateto each compartment. Various legal reforms followed,and formally constituted organizations proliferated inthe 20th century as governments in the West fosteredthe establishment of myriads of small and large firms,public agencies and voluntary bodies. All these wererequired by law to be compartmentalized: e.g. althoughdetails varied amongst nations, the process and struc-tures for governing the organization were invariablysharply distinguished from its daily operation.

The increasing power of executive organizations overthe past 150 years, with their need for an educatedenterprising staff, led to the emancipation of men andwomen in a wide variety of areas. The age of enlighten-ment, flowering in the 18th century, had led people tobecame more confident in their own judgements; andthe idea slowly took hold that monarchs and govern-ments had limitations, and that a great deal of social life,as much as possible really, could and should operate

440


autonomously. (This process has not yet run its course,and is still at work today.) The worker’s movementbecame a major force for political change; the depthpsychology generated psychological change; and science altered the nature of work and the role of religion. These three great movements have nowachieved their objectives. But a plethora of other cultural movements are emerging or re-emerging including the ecology movement, the women’s move-ment, the communitarian movement, the rights movement, the New Age movement.

Increasing democratisation, globalization of com -munications, technological innovation, and societalcomplexity has fostered the spread of both movementsand businesses — often across national and culturalboundaries. As a result, sophisticated independent regulatory authorities have become ever more neces-sary. Movements are inherently amateurish and can, toa degree, look after themselves. However, authoritiesneed to engage with business technicalities. It seemsthat their development is lagging behind the prolifera-tion of highly active global organizations naturally dedicated to their own self-interest. For example, at thetime of writing there still seems to be only the mostpatchy and rudimentary appreciation of the need foreffective international regulation of banking, currencyoperations and financial flows. World-wide destabiliza-tion is a real danger. Yet no authority acting alone candetermine or police the system, and no government hasthe required legitimacy. Possibly the UN might create acommission, or a self-regulatory organization spon-sored by the industry could link with governments.

Looking Forward. The historical review endedwith the recognition that present endeavours are globaland their power threatens social stability. Multi-nationalorganizations dominate business and are richer thanmany nations. Movements flow across continents withpotentially frightening ease. Authorities are increas-ingly required to operate beyond the bounds of thenation-state but struggle to do so.

In this difficult situation, the present analysis re -affirms the significance of agreed duties, the need forgeneral consensus, and the central requirement to workwith values. In order to bring clarity into the design andoperation of endeavours, it is essential to understandwhere responsibility and authority lie for choices ofvalue and purpose. This means appreciating that thereare three distinct types of joint endeavour, each definedand structured by a set of five adjacent levels of purpose.

The main message of the analysis is that logical andprecise specifications of work (i.e. duties) are possiblein the discrete compartments generated by the levels of

purpose. However, these duties involve working withvalues: something which most people still find difficultto imagine let alone do reflectively. Even movements,which seem virtually unamenable to design becausethey are solely about values, could be strengthened andmore intelligently handled if all understood the workinvolved.

In seeking improvements by clarifying the work to bedone, it is worth singling out the governing bodies ofenterprises whose notorious malfunction seems to beprimarily based on a mixture of ignorance and con -fusion.

Most research effort has gone into the design ofenterprises, and within this effort most of the focus hasbeen on executant structures and systems. Organi -zation, for many writers, refers only to the organizingof executants and executive work. However, there is anequal necessity to attend to the work and organizationneeded by movements and authorities, and withinenterprises much more thought could go into improv-ing the functioning of constituting bodies, governingbodies, and chief executives (or top officer bodies).Without such attention, ethical and value considera-tions will not receive due attention and social progresswill be disorderly or hindered.

It is proposed that the framework of duties presentedand epitomized in Master-Table 38 is broadly valid as anapproach or set of principles. This means that the suggested duties, structures and processes suggestedneed to be adapted to be appropriate to each socialbody, according to the ethical order of the society andwithin universal standards of the world order. Withinany particular body or endeavour, the compartmentsrequire to be designed and re-designed in accord withcircumstances. Globalization, the information revolu-tion, environmental change, altered activities, growthin scope, new legislation, different people, and culturalshifts may all influence precisely what tasks are performed. A governing body at the top of a multi-national, for example, ought to operate somewhat differently from the governing body of one of itsnational subsidiaries, even though the principles remainthe same.

The analysis also indicates a way forward in assessingthat elusive variable, effectiveness. If effectiveness is thesuccessful achievement of goals, then no less than fivelevels of effectiveness must be considered. Enterprises,for example, need to be judged in the light of theirsocial values, principal objects, internal priorities, andstrategic objectives, as well as tactical objectives.Furthermore, the analysis suggests that each compartmentrequires its own evaluation in the light of its own distinctive duties. Compartments differ sharply, so

441


effectiveness of one may contribute to ineffectiveness ofanother. For example, participation in executant workby a member of a voluntary association may be judgedunequivocally worthwhile by the constituting body,even if achievement is inefficient by executant criteria.

Education for Life. No society, much less theglobal order, will operate properly unless the indivi -duals involved understand what is required and per -mitted. It is amazing that secondary school students andeven university students are given no proper under-standing of endeavours which they can join, withinwhich they will spend so much time and with whichthey must interact. Cells in movements operate ama-teurishly and emotionally, almost by definition. Yetawareness of the nature of movements could amelioratesome of the strains by making the expectations that people have of themselves and each other more realistic.

Authorities have been little studied and little under-stood, even by academics. Yet they have a significantcontribution to make. People need to appreciate theextent and limits of the powers of such authorities inorder to use them properly. This may foster a greatersense of responsibility in industries and professions andlead to more enlightened self-regulatory authorities, solessening the need for expensive and complicated statutory bodies. But professions and industries areoften reluctant to expose themselves. Far too often, theassociation representing the members imagines it canserve as an independent authority irrespective of theconflict of interest.

Finally, in regard to enterprises, education is highlyfocused on executant work. Education for the othercompartments is rudimentary or non-existent, if notpositively misleading. Not one person in a thousandseems to understand the rationale for governing bodies.Yet in the UK alone, over a million people sit on governing boards in organizations of every conceivabletype.

Transition. A person who is an insider of a move-ment is a unique and equal member of a communitywith a responsibility for it in common with all. A person who is an insider of an enterprise is an indepen-dent actor with a precise and distinctive accountability.A person who is an insider of an authority is expectedto represent others in the community. This last mediating role seems to be the least individualized.

The authority is a bridge to cross the gulf between the necessary separateness of people as actors and the necessary unity of people as members of a community.Such mediation is required as the shifting realities ofinner and often irrational feelings which power move-ments confront the hard realities of custom and self-interested intention in the outer world.

Autonomy is the prime channel for focusing andamplifying personal and social power. Movementsunleash the most potent and diffuse combination of personal energies and social forces. Enterprises multiply the power of a single person to achieve some-thing practical to an extraordinary degree. Authoritieshave defined and assigned rights and duties, sometimesof the most powerful kind, to intervene in sharplydelimited areas. Between them, movements, authori-ties and enterprises can alter our personal, social andphysical world beyond recognition.

Consensus-based autonomy serves society in so far asit permits each person to participate fully in the com-munity while protecting their own values. But auto -nomy and a supportive consensus do not in themselvesguarantee that results will be beneficial for society overall. Remember: it is not appropriate or practical forany single person or body to be fully responsible for thewhole of society or for the social order in general. Eachendeavour must energetically and wholeheartedly pur-sue its own inevitably limited mission or failure willresult and no one will benefit. This paradox of self-interest failing to serve society fully cannot be avoidedby central planning. Its resolution must be based on theidea that society has to function as an evolving self-con-sciously self-regulating system. But the dimension ofsocietal (self-)control has not yet been addressed. Itforces itself on our attention once we recognize theextraordinary power that can be released through committed endeavours.

The release of such awesome power demands adegree of regulation. All in society wish to ensure thatorder and stability are maintained, and that there is adegree of fairness in the rules being applied. This meansthat autonomy needs to operate within a commonframework of ethical rules. Provision of that frame-work, the maintenance of order, and responsibility forthe exercise of supreme power in society, implies sovereignty. It is to sovereignty with its potential to permit and regulate the realization of values that wemust now turn.

442


Mas

ter M

atrix

37

Mas

ter-

Pr

oper

ties

of th

e th

ree

embo

dim

ents

of a

uton

omy.

Tabl

e 37

Th

ese

are

need

ed to

ens

ure

that

end

eavo

urs

can

be o

rgan

ized

so

that

wor

k w

ithin

them

ser

ves

wid

er s

ocie

ty a

s w

ell a

s th

e in

divi

dual

peo

ple

invo

lved

.

Auto

nom

y is

bas

ed o

n pe

ntad

s fo

rmed

by

conj

oini

ng fi

ve a

djac

ent t

ypes

of p

urpo

se. S

ee te

xt fo

r det

ails

and

exp

lana

tion.

© W

arr

en K

inst

on 1

992,1

994

Pe

ntad

No.

3

2 1

(L

evel

s)

(Ls

7-3)

(L

s 6-

2)

(Ls

5-1)

Typ

es o

f E

ndea

vour

A M

ove

ment

An A

uth

ori

ty

An E

nte

rpri

se

Fun

ctio

n

To d

evel

op a

nd e

stab

lish

new

val

ues

To p

rese

rve

valu

es a

nd a

pply

them

To

pur

sue

valu

es th

roug

h ac

tiviti

es w

hich

of fu

ndam

enta

l im

port

ance

to s

ocie

ty.

auth

orita

tivel

y to

par

ticul

ar s

ituat

ions

. ge

nera

te ta

ngib

le b

enef

its fo

r its

elf.

Effe

ct o

f Suc

cess

Soci

ety

tran

sfor

ms

itsel

f by

volu

ntar

y So

ciet

y st

abili

zes

itsel

f by

clar

ifyin

g,

Soci

ety

func

tions

by

mee

ting

its e

volv

ing

colle

ctiv

e ac

tion.

m

odul

atin

g an

d as

sert

ing

its v

alue

s. so

cial

nee

ds e

ffect

ivel

y.

Mai

n Cr

itici

sm

To

o ut

opia

n.

Too

rem

ote.

To

o se

lf-ce

ntre

d.

Res

pons

ible

for:

D

eter

min

ing

a w

ay o

f thi

nkin

g fo

r maj

or

Han

dlin

g co

mpl

aint

s, ad

judi

catio

ns, a

dvic

e,

Prod

ucin

g go

ods,

serv

ices

, ide

as fo

r

soci

al is

sues

: cul

tura

l, po

litic

al, e

cono

mic

&c.

su

perv

isio

n, re

view

, pro

tect

ion

&c.

re

form

, ben

efits

for m

embe

rs &

c.

Pow

er S

ourc

e

An

idea

who

se ti

me

has

com

e.

Soci

ety

and

its c

urre

nt v

alue

s. Sy

stem

atic

and

resp

onsi

ve m

anag

emen

t.

Key

Ele

men

t

Auto

nom

ous

cell.

Au

thor

ized

com

mitt

ee.

Acco

unta

ble

role

.

Aut

horit

y

Egal

itaria

n.

Poly

arch

ic.

Hie

rarc

hic.

Lea

ders

hip

D

iffus

ed.

Form

aliz

ed.

Mer

itocr

atic

.

Str

uctu

res

M

ultip

le, d

iver

se, t

rans

ient

. Si

mpl

e, p

roce

dura

l, in

flexi

ble.

Co

mpl

ex, f

unct

iona

l, fle

xibl

e.

Ins

ider

s

Gra

ss ro

ots.

The

coun

cil a

nd it

s se

cret

aria

t. G

over

ning

, top

offi

cer &

exe

cuta

nt b

odie

s.

Rol

e of

Insi

ders

Her

alds

of t

he fu

ture

who

are

D

istin

guis

hed

repr

esen

tativ

es w

ho a

re

Inde

pend

ent a

gent

s w

ho a

re i

n So

ciet

y

unite

d in

the

serv

ice

of v

alue

s. le

gitim

ated

to s

erve

soc

iety

as

it is

. ha

rnes

sed

in th

e se

rvic

e of

a ta

sk.

Inc

entiv

e to

Joi

n

Fulfi

lmen

t of p

erso

nal v

alue

s Pr

estig

e an

d re

spec

t M

oney

and

goo

ds

i.e

. ins

ider

s ca

n do

wha

t the

y w

ant t

o.

i.e. i

nsid

ers

shou

ld d

o w

hat t

hey

ough

t to.

i.e

. ins

ider

s m

ust d

o w

hat t

hey

have

to.

Per

form

ance

Spon

tane

ous

and

ideo

logi

cal.

Prof

essi

onal

and

sou

nd.

Effic

ient

and

dyn

amic

.

G-6: SOVEREIGNTY

Nature. The power that flows from the autonomy ofa single person is indeed limited. However the powerthat flows from that same autonomy embedded andembodied in a group is a function of the number of people, the type of endeavour they launch, and theresources they can mobilize. Such power has the poten-tial to achieve great things and to benefit individuals —but there are always ethical costs and potential dangers.The chief concern of any society is that it may becomevulnerable to subversion from within or invasion fromwithout. If society is over-turned then individual auto -nomy may be lost. It therefore becomes essential to subordinate autonomy to societal integrity.

The ethical cost of autonomy is our main concern. Itderives from the deep reality that nothing that is done iswholly good, and nothing happens without some harm-ful consequences or unexpected side-effects. Ethicalthreat is also rooted in the individualist and partial con-cerns of autonomous endeavours, even movements. Inthe push for achievement, the well-being of the wholeof society has perforce to be a secondary consideration.This too poses ethical problems.

Ethical damage can feed on itself until the fabric ofsociety on which all depend is damaged and even des -troyed. So, the autonomy of powerful ‘legal indivi duals’must be capped by a supreme collective power: thesovereignty of society. Sovereignty, if accepted,implies that all movements, authorities and enterprisesshould properly exist and function within laws andother ethical rules of a particular territorial society orstate. At the same time, sovereignty also protects auto -nomy by using power to define its limits, to assign personal rights, to keep internal or external disruptiveforces at bay and to ensure a sufficiently stable valuecontext. In other words, the exercise and control ofautonomous power demands the exercise of a supremeor sovereign power.

Without autonomy and individual power, it is im -possible to realize values. Without sovereignty andsocial power it is impossible to protect and maintainthat process. All exercise of power, individual andsocial, private and public, must recognize the pre- eminent need for sustenance of the ethical order(G"-71).

As we saw in the analysis of ethical authorities (Ch.9), laws alone are by no means sufficient to sustain asocial order. Other types of ethical rule are essential aswell as rule derivatives culminating in the ethical orderwhich is the source and summation of authority.Sovereignty deals with the entire social order, both itsconcrete, purposive aspects and its abstract, ethical

aspects. Then we said that the ethical order should beembraced willingly. Now we must consider how such awilling embrace can come about. We must also movebeyond (or descend from) the ethical order, to considerthe pursuit of the common good which must deal withtangible and messy realities.

The ethical order was formed by rules of all seventypes. Rules (within L-6) are the ethical tool for under-standing and justifying social values and all activities intheir service. Harnessing rules to support the realiza-tion of values is not a straightforward matter nor something that can be solely and individualisticallydetermined by each endeavour or organization. Theresult would be endless disputes, discord and ultimatelyviolence. The notion of rule by rules requires concep-tualization of a society which possesses sovereignty inthe sense of a unified and supreme will for all to livetogether in a particular way. Such a mysterious entity inturn needs to be concretized and given guardians.These guardians (within G-6) can then legitimatelyexercise and control supreme power. Note that thenotion of guardian here has nothing to do with a vir -tuous and wise elite ruling class as conceived, for example, by Plato in The Republic. I use the term solelyto emphasize that sovereignty needs to be viewed primarily as a custodial matter, and only secondarily asexecutive. It exists to protect and enable autonomy,human development, and the advancement of sharedinterests — not to mobilize and direct people to somepre-specified ideological end.27

Rules are of two distinct types, constitutive and regulative. Constitutive rules define a field, while regulative rules determine what is permitted within thefield. In a similar fashion there are two guardians (orrulers). People who officially make up the society, citizens, are the constituting guardian — without themthere can be no social order; and the government is theregulative or executive guardian — without some formof government laws could not be defined and the socialorder could not be maintained.

The existence of sovereignty is made possible byintegrating an additional sixth level of purpose to createhexadic groupings which enable ethical imposition of values. The sixth level properly legitimates sovereigntyand enables the coercive power that sovereignty un -avoidably entails. In a sovereign society, it is essentialthat everyone and all endeavours are integrated intosociety according to certain ideals and conceptions ofwhat society is and should be. In other words, sover-eignty assumes ethical rules and value systems to whichall adhere. At the heart of ethics lie rights and tenets,which together determine ideologies. So the additionallevel, like the ethical order, provides a quality which to

445

Chapter 12: Realizing Values — Sovereignty

its adherents is unambiguously ethical and to its detractors is unequivocally ideological.

Types. Each hexad defines a distinct requirement ofsovereignty corresponding to the two guardians in society. In descending order, these are: the citizenry(G-62) and the government (G-61). As the French Dec -lara tion of the Rights of Man declared: ‘Sovereigntyresides with the people’. The hexadic arrangementaccords, therefore, with what is generally called ‘popu-lar sovereignty’.28

The nature of sovereignty, government and demo -cracy is too vast a topic to be examined here. My limited aim is to let the levels of purpose perspectivethrow some light on this controversial subject. Myfocus will be mainly on representative democracy withits free and fair elections of politicians, and a citizenrysupported by freedoms of association, information andexpression (as argued for in G"-3: Ch. 9).

A guardian may be defined as that societal entitywhich takes responsibility for the social order, bothconcrete/practical and abstract/ethical. Note that theguardian cannot be responsible for society: the reversewould seem to be closer to the truth. Any societyevolves on the basis of individual actions and externalinfluences. These are largely beyond the guardians’ con-trol. Society, via its deep ethical order and existingsocial order, lies beyond and above its manifestguardians however impressive and powerful they mayseem. Each society, via its membership, needs to evolveappropriate guardian arrangements and suitable ex -

pres sions of sovereignty. (The ultimate supremacy ofmembership is the essence of the heptad as described inthe next section.)

The function of sovereignty is to ensure that a society,its people and their activities are regulated by values.The guardians of sovereignty use valued rules to controlthe exercise of power. They are concerned that values inthe social order should permeate society by influen cingthe values and objectives chosen by individuals. Eachguardian, however, operates this responsibility in a dis-tinctive fashion.

The usual political formulation of ‘the ruler’ and ‘theruled’ does not fit the levels of purpose framework verywell. It misleadingly places the government above thepeople.29 There is always a possibility, however slim,that the citizenry will remove or redesign the govern-ment, and never a possibility that the government willremove or redesign the people. If we ask: who is ruled?The answer is that both guardians are themselves ruled.Any government must operate in accord with the constitution, accepted procedures and laws of the landas laid down by the citizenry, previous governments anditself. The people, both the citizenry and others, aresimilarly ruled: by the law and by the ethical order generally.

Placing the citizenry above the government meansthat all power rules are open to revision by publicdebate in which all can share equally. It provides thepotential for the general interest to prevail over specialinterests which have captured the government. Finally,in the case of a failure of performance, the government

446


Figure 12.2: The hexadic grouping which defines power.Two guardians of sovereignty enabling power to be regulated ethically.

Tim

Stamp

can be peacefully removed and a new one installedwithout a crisis in the system.

We will now consider each guardian in turn from thepresent perspective without going deeply into politicaltheory or examples. The hexads are represented dia-grammatically in Figure 12.2. Differences between theguardians are summarized in Master-Table 39. The differences between the two guardians will be clarifiedby examining the different way that each handles purposes in the five common levels. These five levels ofoverlap can be viewed as defining the political arena.Apart from its ruling guardians, society has otherguardian institutions which need to operate freely in thisarena; and these will be briefly considered.

G-62: The Citizenry

The citizenry, or citizen-body, constitutes society.This is why society’s constitution which defines its formof government is usually decided and altered by refer-endum (or revolution). The citizenry, a term which hasbecome synonymous with democracy, is defined hereto include all those who can vote and hold public office.

The function of the citizenry is to assert the commongood. So the actual situation in society, the concretesocial order, must be scrutinized from a value pers -pective. If the enfranchised citizenry is to be a meaningful guardian, each citizen must be able to hold,check, reflect on, discuss, affirm and debate values andobjectives of all sorts. This is what the political processis about. People who are judged to be unable to parti -cipate responsibly in this way (e.g. young children) maybe deprived of all or part of their citizenship rights andduties. But being able to be a responsible citizen doesnot mean automatically having citizen status.

Citizenship is a political qualification. The citizenry,sometimes known as ‘the people’, is not synonymouswith all people, or all who feel they are members of thesociety. In classical Athens, the proportion of citizenswas tiny. Reasons are invariably found to exclude children and certain special classes from citizenship.Such special classes usually seem obvious to those in thesociety, if possibly unjust to outsiders. History reveals,for example, that slaves, women, prisoners, the mentally ill, resident foreigners and adherents to particular religions have been so classified. Even adultsoutside these classes usually need to have additionalqualifications, typically birth or permanent residence inmodern times, and usually wealth or property in therecent past. Any alteration of these arrangementsreflects a fundamental change in the nature of society,and modifies the constitution of government. In theUK, for instance, a series of reform acts over 100 years

in the 19th and early 20th centuries dramaticallywidened citizenship by removing the need to own land,altering the age of majority, emancipating women, andabolishing religious restrictions on voting and office-holding.

The citizenry see themselves as the essence of thesociety. They are the sovereign power. It is their goodand their interests which are at stake and liable to bedisrupted by remote regulatory authorities, movementsinstigated by non-enfranchised classes, or exploitativefirms. The citizenry is too numerous and amorphous tohandle all the practical work of ruling. The best thatthey can do is express their values and indicate a desirable outcome. Governments are allowed to guardsovereignty and rule on the basis that they will respectthese values and pursue such outcomes on behalf of thecitizenry. The citizenry expects the government to handle all the details and mechanisms essential for societal regulation. Because the citizenry is the higherruler, it must accept responsibility for its government— even if it is ruthless and tyrannical.

Power within the citizenry usually appears un -balanced. But the citizenry needs to be thought of as awhole, whose inner states and outer manifestations shiftaccording to the times. Whatever the extent of theinequalities in practice, the citizenry is deeply pre-occupied with issues of equality. The matter of how farcitizenship should extend has already been noted. But astream of other equality issues demand attention: howfar should justice mean identical portions, treatments,rights or duties? and how far should inequalities basedon merit, birth, need, position, or wealth be tolerated?

In practice, the citizenry seems to view its own con-ventions and will as superior to law and logic. It reactswith intensity when its perspectives are challenged. Ifneed be, the law is changed and logic is ignored.

The citizenry recognizes the importance of absolutesand ultimate values. It expects these to be proclaimedand affirmed, despite the inevitable pragmatism of anygovernment. To lead the citizenry in this way, a sym-bolic head is required. This can be a non-factional head-of-state, a figure-head monarch or church leader. Thetask here is to represent a deep sense of unity of society,to reaffirm the ethical teaching or unifying religion ofsociety, and to uphold each and every citizen’s desire forgood rule.

When unity is a fiction, as in African countries likeZaire and Nigeria where warring tribes were forcedtogether after colonisation, then a citizenry does nottruly exist. As a result, unifying non-governmentalleadership is weak, power is not effectively or ethicallycontrolled, and civil disorder erupts.

447


The commonest criticism of the citizenry is that theydo not take civic virtue and their guardianship dutiesseriously enough: people are uninformed, uninterestedand uninvolved. They only leap into action when some-thing affects their own enterprises and personal interests. The opposite view is that the neglect of poli-tics is entirely appropriate, even beneficial, for mostpeople, because this enables prosperity. Notable support for both views can be easily found: ThomasCarlyle regarded choice of government as the ‘soul ofall social business among men’; while William Blakeheld that ‘if men were wise, the most arbitrary Princescould not hurt them. If they are not wise, the freest gov-ernment is compelled to be a tyranny.’

When governments cease acting lawfully andrespon sibly and the citizenry takes no action, then society is in danger of breaking down and mob rule islikely. Demagogues emerge. By whipping up base emotions, inflaming people with half-truths, populistleaders may coerce government in an unbridled, un -ethical exercise of power which is rarely beneficial forsociety. At the time of writing, rule in Yugoslaviamoved along this catastrophic path. Subsequently thenation disintegrated and civil war erupted.

G-61: The Government

The government regulates society. Any governmentrules primarily by legally releasing and constraining theexercise of power by individual people and their asso -ciations. Any form of government is a set of politicalinstitutions whose function is solely to serve the com-mon good as asserted explicitly by the citizenry. As anabsolute minimum, a government must concentrate ontwo things: the security of the community (external andinternal) and the well-being or prosperity of its mem-bers.

The work of government rule involves the per -formance of complex legislative, executive and judicialfunctions. The government must take all detailedactions, debate and pass laws, set up independent statutory authorities, create and manage needed publicagencies: all with the over-riding aim of guarding sovereignty and protecting and promoting the commongood. Governments who fail to maintain order and foster prosperity are liable to be rejected by the citizenry at the earliest opportunity.

Much political theory concerns the precise details ofgovernance systems and methods for exercising con-trol. For example, it considers the various forms thatgovernment may take e.g. autocracy and monarchy,aristocracy and oligarchy, various forms of democracy.Democratic government is expected to reconcile the

common good with the needs and values of each person. Another dimension concerns the differentapproaches — such as communism, liberalism or con-servatism — to handling the balance between therequirements of the individual and the group.Examination of these various political systems and ideologies lies beyond the scope of this book.30

The political institutions which define governmentrequire people to operate them. The people areselected from the citizenry and so are in some senserepresentative. Selection needs to take place in anacceptable way. For example, by election, by lot (afavourite in Aristotle’s day), by coup (a long-timefavourite in South America), by nomination, byappointment. Because government is a representativeentity, everyone holding government positions (in -cluding officials and the judiciary) needs to see them-selves as servants of society.

A dangerous but common confusion in much writinglies in using the term ‘the state’ as synonymous with‘the government’. This usage blurs the distinctionbetween the government (the part) and society (thewhole). This is wrong logically. It also tends to empha-size the need for the citizenry to give their governmentnot just a monopoly of physical force but a superiorityof judgement and the primary responsibility for society.This is wrong ethically. Nevertheless, an equivalencebetween state and the people can be (and is) upheld inthe case of ‘mobilization regimes’. These regimes aresingle party states unified by a religious or ideologicaldoctrine, legitimated by mass action and supported bythe repression of dissent.

The government, whether elected or not, mustmaintain a monopoly on force because it has to organizethe protection of society from internal and externalsubversion. Too often, this force is used to protectitself. A representative government needs to be pre-occupied with determining what the citizenry want andhow to assist in its provision or production. So govern-ments should seek to deal with unofficial leaders in thecommunity: opinion-formers, religious leaders, in -fluential academics, popular advocates in movements.Such contacts must be distinguished from pressuregroups and vested interests. Without input from peoplegenuinely concerned with society as a whole, govern-ments are in danger of losing touch with what the citizenry needs and wants.

Finding a way forward, however, remains problem-atic. The liberal-democratic system tends to pander towell-organized minority lobbies. In any case, it is oftenvery difficult to know what can be done. So govern-ments often find that they are driven more by eventsand circumstances than by their values and visions.

448


Governments inevitably become pre-occupied withprosperity. Once poverty and hardship engulf membersof society, then demoralization and social disorderthreaten. Governments use wealth, together with honours, as the prime tools both to remove and to create inequalities.

The government views law-making as the highestexpression of its powers. To decide on the need for alaw, to develop a viable law, and to institute it pro -cedurally requires a great deal of detailed and practicalwork. So governments need a pragmatic leader, a primeminister or premier, who can seek consent, handle necessary compromises and adapt to situations.

Governments are typically criticised for being un -responsive and self-serving. This is commonly becausemembers of a sub-group of citizens habitually fills thetop positions within the government. This sub-group isde facto the ruling class — also known as the establish-ment, power elites, or the political class. Any rulingclass will tend, either deliberately or unconsciously, toperpetuate the social order which created it.31

Governments which are absolutist tend to rule bydecree rather than law. Fascism which sees action assuperior to thought — and values are essentiallythought — produces rule by instinct. Such governingideologies are evil in so far as they devalue values andproduce governments which are weakly legitimated bythe citizenry. This issue of legitimation is so funda -mental to the ethical exercise of power that we mustnow consider what light the present levels of purposeanalysis can throw on it.

Legitimation

It is obvious that the two guardians need to interacteffectively if a sovereign society is to thrive. The rela-tion between the citizenry and their government is theissue of political theory and not one which can beaddressed and resolved in a few pages. However, we cangain a useful conceptual perspective on how the twoguardians interlock and some indication of how theymight reinforce each other in practice.

When linkage between the government and the citizenry is poor, social discontent and tension rises andthe regime is described as non-accountable, non-repre-sentative or remote. Effective interaction is most likelyto occur if the citizenry is virtually co-extensive withthe resident population and the government operatesdemocratically.32 Democracy seems to be the concep-tion that best expresses the assertion that the citizenryshould regulate the government and not vice versa.

When the link between government and citizens istight and positive, the two guardians can depend on

each other. When the link is loose or negative, govern-ment tends to be autocratic or corrupt and the citizenryis weakened. People find security in their own efforts,their families and in small communities rather thanattending to society. But if people disenfranchise oralienate themselves in a democracy, then the socialorder can break down. Collapse is particularly likely ifpoverty becomes wide-spread or if sub-populationswith sharply different customs are forced to co-exist.The re-establishment of order invites the impositionof less-representative government: usually military or oligarchic.

The issue here is one of legitimation. How can government be genuinely said to enjoy the support andconfidence of the people? How can its powers ofdetailed regulation and social (i.e. public sector) enter-prise be deemed acceptable? A practical answer emer -ging from the approaches to ethical choice. It revealsthat the legitimacy of any exercise of government (orcitizen) power is based primarily on the need for con -sensus via legal validity, moral justifiability andeffective ness.33 Such a line of analysis is concerned withthe quality of rules, values and objectives being pro-posed. The answer to be given here is concerned withthe relation of the government and citizenry to the var-ious types of value and objective. Focus on the extensiveoverlap of levels of purpose between the two guardiansreveals important and inescapable differences for governing to be satisfactory. In short, legitimacy derivesfrom the two guardians sharing and accepting certainvalue systems, social values, principal objects, internal priorities, and strategic objectives.

These common purposes function in different waysfor each guardian. I will explain this further with simpleexamples below. But at first sight, it is surely obviousthat the government must accept that only the citizenrycan provide ultimate values to regulate sovereignty, andthat the citizenry must accept that only the governmentcan provide tactical objectives to regulate sovereignty. Itis also evident that some commonality of purposes andvalues at the other levels is essential if the governmentis to act on behalf of the citizenry and if the citizenry isto support its government.

Using Values. When the two guardians definethemselves with the same type of purpose or value, theydo so in overtly different ways. These differences arecaptured by the qualities of the internal levels that wehave been regularly considering in previous groupings.We will take each type of purpose in turn indicating thedistinctive perspective generated by each of theguardians.

Ultimate values are the source of supreme and irre-sistible power and they are imposed ethically by the

449


citizenry on themselves and on any government. Todescribe an ultimate value as ethical is almost tauto -logical. To see particular ultimate values as central tosociety is more problematic. It implies that the citizenrydeeply believe that these are fundamental to thehumane or divine regulation of their society. The government has no significant involvement in deter-mining which ultimate values are chosen. So when USPresident John F. Kennedy said that his country would‘pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship,support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to securethe survival and success of liberty’, he was merely echo-ing and affirming the preference of the American peo-ple for liberty as the primary regulating ultimate value.Other societies are different: the ideological ultimatevalue in Japan seems to be harmony; in pre-ChineseTibet it was compassion.

Value systems are a matter of general consensus withinthe citizenry and permit it to exert power. By contrast,ideas are ethically imposed by the government. Ethicalrules and theories of social life (e.g. principles of edu-cation) are only followed and supported on the basis ofa substantial consensus. The reader will recall that theethical order must be embraced willingly by people.Once it is, then the citizenry expects the government tooperate and regulate in accord with its componentrules: that is to say, to impose them. Ideas are far moreserious for governments than for its citizens, because agovernment can only function if it is adheres explicitlyto the ethical order and is prepared to enforce it.Elections to form a government need to be fought onthe basis of ideological commitments which can betranslated into fair laws and implementable social policies. Different parties stand for different ideas andthe citizenry uses majority voting in order to determinewhich of these sustains a sufficient consensus. Even ifthe election is fought on a pragmatic or personalitybasis, any government in power finds itself forced toimpose an ethical orientation via its legislative pro-gramme or drift helplessly on a sea of events, vestedinterests and changeable public moods.

Social values are the essential rationale for the exertionof power by the citizenry and the source of their drivefor sovereignty. These values enable the government torule by general consensus. Ordinary people view socialvalues, their needs and sense of belonging, as the logicalbases for all communal activities including ruling. Sothese communal need-based values are the rationale fortolerating governments at all — especially paying taxesto cover its enormous cost. The government, for itspart, uses shared values as a way of gaining the neces-sary consensus for its choices, social policies and legis-lation. It must ensure that people appreciate that theseactivities aim to meet their real needs.

Principal objects underlie the political support of the citizenry, and define the essential rationale of the govern-ment. The government exists to institute a wide rangeof on-going activities which should be carefully and sensibly designed to meet identified social needs. Thegovernment must organize the workings of the legis -lature, administration and judiciary; create independentauthorities to enforce minimum standards and handlevalue disputes; and set up and run a variety of organiza-tions like the civil service, the armed forces, publicagencies and taxation authorities. The ever- presentdanger is the self-perpetuating growth of a regulatorybureaucracy and public sector which unavoidably stifleautonomy and impoverish the citizens. A wise citizenrysees this clearly, and views every governmental endea -vour as a political issue in terms of its cost, its constrainton freedom, its impact on inequalities and its effect onprivate enterprise.

Internal priorities enable the citizenry to maximize itsimpact, but are used by the government to gain politicalsupport. For example, the public presses for better education or wider access to health care, because itwants to see the social order actually alter in that direc-tion. The government, by contrast, pushes priorities foreducation or health care as a way of garnering supportfor itself and for its whole programme of spending, tax-ation, and social change. In other words, the citizenry ispreoccupied with the effect of its values, whereas thegovernment is preoccupied with developing and bal-ancing the interests of the various stake holders.Governments are well aware that many will oppose apriority because of their beliefs or vested interests. Ifthe government fails to use priorities to find a compro-mise, it becomes wholly ineffective and may even bebrought down. Even the judiciary must consider care-fully the likely social response to values implicit in par-ticular judgements.

Strategic objectives are viewed by the citizenry in termsof whether they are appropriately adapted, while they areused by the government to maximize impact. The citi-zenry wants social needs translated into results whichfit the existing situation — emergency assistance for aflooded community, more choice of cheaper air flights,more flexible housing, employment opportunities inrecession-hit areas. The details of how these outcomesare achieved (i.e. tactical objectives) are not their con-cern. By contrast, the government selects strategicobjectives in order to have the greatest effect and do thebest possible with the funds available for the communityas a whole. This requires considerable systemic analysisand skilled intervention. If housing is a concern, forexample, the government must consider whether thisshould be addressed by one or more of: re-zoning land,providing home loans, altering building regulations,

450


changing taxation on rented properties, and otherdiverse possibilities. Poor choice of strategic objectivescan very easily make matters worse.

Tactical objectives set by the government must beappropriately adapted to circumstances. Precise deadlinesand specific tasks are handled by governmental bodies.Much is pragmatically decided by officials, rather thanby legislators or judges. The citizenry has no significantinvolvement and little awareness of the processes anddetails of official business. When something goes verywrong, an inquiry may indicate exactly what happened.More often, the precise details are obscured becausethey cannot be appreciated in context — or for lessworthy reasons when documents are shredded to prevent embarrassment or to hide corrupt practices.

The Political Arena. The legitimation of govern-ment and the interaction between government and citizens takes place in a conceptual space, the politicalarena. The political arena may be precisely recognizedas the overlap of levels defining the two guardians: L-6through L-2. It is surely no coincidence that this corres -ponds precisely to the levels defining independent regulatory authorities (G-52). Recall that these author-ities were viewed as a way to prevent cluttering of thepolitical arena.

The government, guided by its citizenry, must serveas the guardian of social freedoms in general, especiallyfreedom from fear, while recognizing that freedommust be restricted.

Indeed, individual freedom and its deliberate re -striction for the common good is the deepest issue in politics. The final compromise in each case needs to bedetermined by debate within the political arena.

It is possible to discern specific domains of freedom-related decision-making. Consider, for example, radioand television broadcasting. The influence on society isgreat and the potential for misuse by either individualsor the government is high. So protection is required. Insuch a domain there are a variety of bodies which seethemselves as protecting society’s values. These bodiesinclude private firms, public agencies, regulatoryauthorities, professional associations and listener orviewer groups. Together these can be thought of ascomprising a ‘guardian institution’. Should there be aneed to delimit or extend free communication orexpression via broadcasting, any or all of such bodiesmay well enter the debate. A loose network usuallyexists which, in the face of threat from the governmentor external forces, may lead to the setting up of a formalized or ad hoc association. Nevertheless, theguardian institution is not a specific, autonomous orbounded organization or endeavour which speaks with

one voice. Indeed, dissension within it is the norm and,because it reflects the plurality of interests and attitudesin society, this can be politically beneficial.

We may similarly suggest that freedom of worship isguarded not just by churches but by numerous publicinstitutions, religious bodies and voluntary groups; free -dom under the law is the concern of a wide variety ofbodies associated with the legal system; freedom ofthought is guarded by academia, learned bodies andother wise competing membership organizations; andso on.

The guardian institution seeks to lead the citizenry indebate in its domain and to evolve the necessary valuesand objectives. However, distinctions between free-doms and between guardian institutions are somewhatartificial. The freedoms are highly inter-related and thepolitical arena shows a high degree of inter-penetrationof social bodies and processes. Churchmen not onlyspeak in churches but on television, pronouncing on thebehaviour of the government in any domain. Somechurchmen are in government; and others are in universities. Academics may contribute regularly to popular newspapers and work for particular politicalparties. The press may oppose or support decisions ofthe churches, universities, or monetary authorities:even openly challenge court judgements. A high courtjudge may declare certain religious rituals illegal oradvise governments to legislate.

People and organizations active within the politicalarena are acutely sensitive to the ebb and flow of values.They debate and argue the preferences and needs ofsociety from the distinctive perspective of their institu-tion. In doing so, they engage in a political process andbecome enmeshed in political conflict. When the mediaexamines the ordination of women or the pay of topexecutives or the demands of striking workers, it endsup taking an attitude that is favourable or unfavourableto one or other side of the case. The rejected side can bepresented as unreasonable or illogical by a skilful juxta-position of images and selection of facts. The truly bal-anced assessment does not exist from the viewpoint ofthose involved. Each stakeholder tends to feel that theother’s case has been too favourably handled. As we sawearlier in relation to authorities (G-52), officialinquiries may be used by government when the debatebecomes heated; but their recommendations are alsosubject to the vicissitudes of political debate.

The political arena is a battlefield for competingvalue systems. The stability of any community dependsultimately on the preservation and sensitive modifica-tion of values. So debate needs to be respected anddeveloped if the arena is to serve society well. It is possible to identify a variety of roles specific to levels of

451


purpose in the political arena. These operate acrossdomains, challenging guardian institutions on their ownterritory.

L-6: There are thinkers in universities, think-tanksand politics who seek to defend, challenge and elabo-rate theories, beliefs, or principles in use. L-5:Journalists, policy-analysts and jurists often act as evaluators seeking to determine what the social valuesare and whether they are being pursued in action. L-4:Promoters or sponsors seeking to gain consensus on thevalue of an endeavour or organization are to be found inthe press and among civic-minded foundations. L-3:The media often acts as a factionalizer through pro -viding fora and coalescing groups both for and againstparticular values. Such debates raise public awareness.Opinion pollsters contribute at this level also. L-2:Finally, would-be policy-makers and strategists, oftenin membership associations or reform-generating organizations, publicize and promote their own propos-als for action.

Clearly, both the citizenry and the government benefit from work in the political arena. So both needto protect its existence and operation.

REVIEWING SOVEREIGNTY

Any guardian’s proper concern is to provide a frame-work of rules within which individual people and theirenterprises can function freely without harming thesociety on which everyone depends. Establishing thisorder does not inhibit progress but positively facilitatesit by providing a bedrock of stability and a degree of justice. We have identified the two guardians as the citizenry, a sub-set of the people, and the government,a set of political institutions accepted by the citizenryand filled from among their members. The empiricalcomplexities of sovereignty in practice have hardly beentouched upon.

An idealized fantasy has often wished to fuse thesetwo guardians. In versions of direct democracy, the citizenry’s responsibilities are extended to incorporatethat of the government using the mechanism of the sovereign assembly. If this ever worked in simple tinycity-states, which is doubtful, it is certainly impracticalin modern complex societies. Citizens may well parti -cipate more fully in governmental decisions in thefuture using interactive television and computer-basedmethods for handling referenda and debates. But this islikely to enhance the responsibility and differentiationof the two guardians rather than lead to any confusionbetween them.

For progress, ethical rules are not enough. The citizenry requires that actual conditions should bealtered. The internal structure of the guardians of sovereignty clarifies the fact that the citizenry can fosterpopular movements and actively support regulatoryauthorities, but cannot handle executive-run enter-prises (cf. Master-Fig. 28). Executive work is toodetailed, practical and reality-based for such a diffuseentity. The government, by contrast, can set up in -dependent authorities and executive agencies, but itcannot generate popular movements. Movementsrequire too much inspiration and imply too much trans-formation to be led or even fostered by a government.

The quality of the particular persons in positions ofpower naturally limits the quality of governments andtheir policies. Governments print money and engage inwars. Vast sums are raised in taxes and spent. Decisionsaffecting whole populations are made. Yet equalitymeans that anyone may enter politics. Virtually notraining in political processes, no knowledge of legalrequirements, no understanding of finance and man-agement, no qualification is required — nothing butcitizenship. Social selection for political office operatesin poorly understood ways, but clearly some peoplesucceed because they have a vocation for public life. Insome democratic societies, great wealth has become theroad to high political office. In non-democratic societies, a few tanks and much determination may suffice. In all governments, those who achieve powertend to take advantage of it unconsciously or corruptly.The ethical authorities that keep such power in checkare the citizenry’s hope and responsibility.

Transition. Sovereignty protects the order and stability on which society depends by regulating powerand by exercising supreme power. The mindless orharmful handling of power is a continuing problem.Control by the citizenry of the government should beenlightened or control by the government of the citizenry will be abysmal. This means that the control ofpower and the upholding of the social order must beunder the influence of ultimate values. Not ultimatevalues as words on pieces of paper, but as living forcesin the hearts of everyone to guide awareness, reflectionand action.

Ultimate values imply an equality which recognizesdistinctions. Hence the continuing preoccupation ofpolitical theory with the meaning and extent of equality. Power needs to be wielded ethically by theguardians, but neither the government nor the citizenryis ethical at heart — only individual persons and theethical order and authorities which they embrace.

Sovereignty permits and generates freedoms. If it didnot, the political arena could not work and social life

452


would be intolerable. But sovereignty involves controland, to varying degrees, coercion. If the government isoppressive, there may be redress. But if the citizenry isoppressive through narrow-mindedness, redress ismore difficult.

Society, say some, is a conspiracy against the indivi -dual. It loves not realities and creators, but names andcustoms. It distrusts and harms free spirits. Schopen -hauer and Nietzsche teach that between the individualand the multitude, between individual integrity andsocial requirements, between what is inner and what is

outer, between the realm of inner experience and theworld of social commitment, there is an opposition asdeep as can be imagined. The only hope is that eachindividual person may recognize this apparent opposi-tion and synthesize the dialectic by recognizing theinevitability of social existence and the need for mem-bership of society. In this way, a person can perhapsinfluence a sovereign society, including its current con-stitution and custodians, for its own good.

With this conclusion, we can move to the final heptadic group which defines membership.

453


Mas

ter M

atrix

39

Mas

ter-

Pr

oper

ties

of th

e tw

o gu

ardi

ans

of s

over

eign

ty.

Tabl

e 39

Th

ese

are

requ

ired

to e

nsur

e th

at s

ocie

ty, i

ts m

embe

rs a

nd it

s ac

tiviti

es, a

re re

gula

ted

by v

alue

s.

Each

gua

rdia

n is

a h

exad

form

ed b

y co

mbi

ning

six

adj

acen

t lev

els

of p

urpo

se.

Se

e te

xt fo

r det

ails

and

exp

lana

tion.

© W

arr

en K

inst

on 1

992,1

994

H

exad

No.

2

1

(Lev

els)

(L

s 7-

2)

(Ls

6-1)

Typ

e of

Gua

rdia

n

The C

itizenry

Th

e G

ove

rnm

ent

Nat

ure

To

con

stitu

te a

soc

iety

. To

regu

late

soc

iety

.

(i.

e. th

e co

nstit

utiv

e gu

ardi

an/r

uler

.) (i.

e. th

e ex

ecut

ive

guar

dian

/rul

er.)

Fun

ctio

n

To a

sser

t the

com

mon

goo

d: h

ence

To

ser

ve th

e co

mm

on g

ood:

hen

ce

re

spon

sibl

e fo

r its

gov

ernm

ent.

resp

onsi

ble

for c

olle

ctiv

e de

cisi

ons.

Mem

bers

Peop

le m

eetin

g ag

reed

qua

lific

atio

ns

Repr

esen

tativ

e(s)

obt

aine

d fr

om

e.

g. b

irth,

pro

pert

y, re

side

nce;

th

e ci

tizen

ry in

an

acce

pted

way

but e

xclu

ding

cer

tain

cla

sses

e.

g. b

y el

ectio

n, lo

t, co

up,

e.g.

min

ors,

pris

oner

s, sl

aves

. no

min

atio

n.

Aut

horit

y

Der

ives

from

con

vent

ion

and

Der

ives

from

a c

onst

itutio

n an

d

th

e co

mm

on w

ill.

legi

slat

ion

as s

uppo

rted

by

the

citiz

enry

.

Ide

al

Ci

vic

virt

ue.

Stat

esm

ansh

ip.

Typ

e of

Hea

d

Sym

bolic

e.g

. mon

arch

, hea

d of

Pr

actic

al e

.g. p

rime

min

iste

r,

st

ate,

relig

ious

lead

er.

supr

eme

cour

t jud

ges.

Pre

occu

patio

n

Ends

M

eans

i.e. u

ltim

atel

y em

otio

nal i

ssue

s i.e

. ulti

mat

ely

prac

tical

issu

es

es

peci

ally

equ

ality

. es

peci

ally

sec

urity

and

pro

sper

ity.

Dys

func

tion

D

emag

ogue

ry

Des

potis

m

(m

ob ru

le).

(rul

e by

dec

ree

rath

er th

an la

w).

Crit

icis

ms

U

ninf

orm

ed, u

nint

eres

ted,

uni

nvol

ved.

O

ut-o

f-tou

ch, s

elf-s

ervi

ng, i

ncom

pete

nt.

G-7: MEMBERSHIP

Nature. Power must be controlled and a sovereignsociety must be established for one reason above all:that people, individually, may be free within its limits.The realization of values, the driving force of this structural hierarchy, is at root an expression of free-dom. But freedom without rules or responsibilities ischaotic in practice and unethical in principle.

By integrating the final, seventh level, and creating aheptad, it is possible to construct a purposive entitywhose survival depends on the notion of exercisingfreedom within rules. This is an enduring natural socialgroup: typically a society with a particular social order.

Society needs the social order to be governed by ultimate values if freedom is to be responsible. The pur-posive entity defined by unifying all the levels of pur-pose including ultimate values is active membershipof that society and willing acceptance of its order.Membership, like ultimate values on which it is based,is at root a state of being. In other words, the member-ship state is basic to social existence and societalintegrity. Membership is the pre-condition for develop-ing both personal and communal identity. It is just notpossible for an individual to participate in social life andassume social roles and responsibilities without anexperience of membership. The reverse is also true:society and the social order cannot persist, let alonethrive, without genuine members. The unifying heptadis diagrammatically represented in Fig. 12.3.

Social being is not identical with personhood. To be

human involves other modalities of identity (cf. Master-Tables 11 and 12: Ch. 7). However, membership of asociety and working or functioning within its order isthe basis for developing and handling purposes and values — which is what fulfilment for social being isabout. There is only one heptad and only one state ofmembership which enables the exercise of freedom.On the basis of genuine membership, society candevelop sovereignty and authorize its guardians. They,in turn, enable autonomy with its association-basedendeavours.

When we speak of membership of the social order(G-71), the emphasis is on ownership of values andobjectives in a community. The usual focus, as in theprevious section, is on the nation-state: the terri -torially-defined sovereign society. However, the small-est natural community, a household, and the largest, theworld community, also have their order.

Membership of a well-to-do modern sovereign society is far more problematic than membership of asmall subsistence community with its ties of kinship,neighbourliness and joint efforts to survive. The anony -mity and impersonalization of modernity generates tworequirements. The first (emerging from L-6) is theexistence of a sphere of personal rights that cannot beabrogated or removed by sovereign power and politicalcompromise — hence their label ‘inalienable’. Certaininalienable rights must be freely available for all members of society, not just citizens e.g. the right to ameasure of privacy applies even to children. Withoutsuch rights, it is rather difficult to work with values in

455

Chapter 12: Realizing Values — Membership

Figure 12.3: The heptadic grouping which defines freedom.One state of membership enabling freedom to be exercised imaginatively.

Tim

Stamp

society. So these rights, are not simply about sover-eignty and, not surprisingly, many rulers feel threat-ened by them.

The second feature, paradoxically more difficult tocomprehend in the secularism of modernity, is theready activation of ultimate values (L-7). Ultimate values, alone, enable each person to recognize them-selves in strangers. So they are the basis for bridging differences and overcoming envy, hostility and otherinner destructive forces whose release is so easy.Ultimate values permit the extension of inalienablerights beyond the membership of society e.g. the rightto a fair trial should apply to aliens. Because theyembody and release spirituality, utimate values limit thepotential for destructiveness, the obsession with power,and the intrinsic immorality that goes hand in hand withsovereignty.

Ultimate values being personal, experiential, utterlyopen and unconditioned are the source of freedom anda reservoir of hope. As well as enabling individualityand binding diverse groups in society, they offer theresources of the imagination and will to combat exist-ing ills and injustices. Freedom in this context is theimaginative ability within each person to create andrealize new values, an ability on which every cultureand society depends. Only an imaginative and freesocial being can recognize that ultimate values have created illusory and oppressive structures of belief andcustom. Only an imaginative and free social being canwillingly participate while refusing to be a slave to ideology or community pressures. Such a reflective atti-tude to society depends on inner integrity because itpotentially questions the foundations of personal andsocial identity. We may say that the function of member-ship is to ensure that each person uses and evaluatestheir values.

Qualities. From the analysis so far, we can predictthe contribution of each level to the social order andmembership of it. As in the hexadic grouping, mem-bership of the social order must be: exercised via tactical objectives so as to be appropriately adapted toactual circumstances; exercised via strategic objectivesin a way which maximizes impact; exercised via internalpriorities in order to win political support from key people or sub-groups; exercised via principal objects toprovide an essential rationale for being in society; exer-cised via social values in order to function within the general consensus of the community; and exercised viavalue systems in order to enable intelligible ethical im -position on others. The additional inclusion of ultimatevalues enables membership to be exercised imagina-tively. Including all levels, especially this highest level,enables enlightened functioning. It encourages the

generation and pursuit of truly inspired ideas whichhave the potential to remedy imperfections in societywithout violating it.

Put another way, purposes at each level provide eachmember with levers of power and influence over him-self or herself and over others who are also members ofthat society. This is why their choice in practice entailsrespon sibility. Tactical objectives (L-1) enable the control of work processes. Strategic objectives (L-2)enable the control of outcomes. Internal priorities(L-3) enable control of resource allocation and foci foreffort. Principal objects (L-4) enable control over theidentity of endeavours. Social values (L-5) enable influence on community needs. Value systems enableinfluence on ideas in society (L-6), and ultimate values(L-7) enable influence on the ethical order. All thesepurposes and modes of influence, including their limitations and potentials for dysfunction, should bynow be familiar.

The idea of exercising freedom by choosing andfocusing on ultimate values is not commonly appre -ciated. But the inspirational and spiritual forces asso -ciated with ultimate values are essential to overcomethe thought control and dysfunctional habits producedby socialization. In all religions it is believed that manhas a degree of power over God. In the Judeo-Christiantradition, God is unable to resist true repentance. InHindu traditions, a person can force God’s hand by fasting, sacrifice, prayers and other meditative rituals.In everyday life, it seems true to say that a deep focus onone or other ultimate value will produce results attunedto it. For this reason, great scientists are likely to dedicate themselves to truth rather than liberty, greatartists to beauty rather than compassion, great states-men to justice or freedom rather than truth or beauty.Through such dedication, each in their own way is helping create the future social order.

Civic Virtue. Society, whether people are aware ofit or not, is held together by spiritual forces whose man-ifestation is most likely to emerge when each persondeeply reflects on the meaning of their membership.Membership provides the root of sovereignty, thesource of the common will, and the possibility of free-dom. But to be effective, it depends on the existenceand cultivation of civic virtue.

Civic virtue means taking the notion of a commongood seriously. It means supporting with good grace thenecessary compromises amongst sub-groups. It meansbeing a responsible part of the citizenry and owning thegovernment. It means supporting authority whilerejecting its abuse. It means being prepared to take upsuitable roles in society. It means seeing the need forachievements by others. It means tolerating individual

456


differences and acting with civility to others. It meansopposing violence and terror as a solution. It meanscontemplating and expressing the essential ultimatevalues of any ethical order: peace, fraternity, equality,liberty, justice, truth, and harmony. It means having aprivate life and becoming a rounded person.

Within the maxims of civic virtue lies the secret of adesirable social order. In the civic ideal, we see thepene tration of spirituality into the mundane realms ofsocial life.

Whether a person is a citizen or not is a matter ofmeeting certain formal qualifications. Whether a personis a member or not is a matter of inner attitude. Citizenswho do not manifest civic virtue probably contributeless to society than non-citizens who do. Statesmanshipis the additional membership quality desirable in citizens who hold the highest public offices and towhom the citizenry and others turn for leadership.

These qualities of civic virtue and statesmanship donot necessarily preclude their presence within authori-tarian, nationalist or elitist societies. They do suggest,however, that civic virtue cannot flourish in absolutistor tyrannical societies in which hatred and contemptpermeate the relation between the governing regimeand the populace. In such societies, freedom cannot beeasily exercised and inalienable rights cannot beclaimed. As a result membership is poorly establishedand cohesion is weak. Many people willingly flee suchcountries to seek membership in other more congenialsocial orders.

Closure. With the principles for specifying a socialorder and its membership we have come to the end ofour exploration of the realization of values — an endwhich is also a beginning, because membership entailsthe assumption of certain responsibilities.

Freedom can only be exercised within a society ifeach person recognizes and accepts responsibility flow-ing from their own purposes and values. In order toassign and assume these responsibilities in an appro -priate way, membership (and the experience of inten-tionality itself) must be divided up. This takes us back tothe seven types of purpose (G-1) and the differentiationof the membership state into the seven primal roles.

Because all levels are now combined within the onesingle grouping, there are no internal groups to link.Instead, we need to understand how the internal levelsare inter-connected. This is because freedom andpower require intentionality to flow from one level toanother in particular ways. In other words, our explo-ration now needs to move on in the following chaptersto explore how we can and do use purpose and value tobe free and powerful, and how we can and do partici-pate in organizations and society.

Before doing so, we need to make a brief over-viewof the whole process of realizing values drawing on thefindings presented in Ch. 10 as well as the account inthis chapter. In particular, I wish to clarify some of theemergent properties and patterns of the purpose de -rivatives, especially the perennial dualities which areassociated with each group.

457

Chapter 12: Realizing Values — Membership

REVIEWING THE REALIZATION OF VALUES

We have now concluded an account of the essentialpurpose-based structures and processes. Starting fromthe root building block of value realization — specificresponsibility for a particular purpose — we have progressed to the most abstract conception — a socialbeing defined by membership of a particular socialorder within which values can be realized. Betweenthese we have discovered and examined three morebuilding blocks and two more controlling conceptions.

The four building blocks are: purpose–the elementsof intentionality; direction–the practical guidance ofour activity; drive–the impetus to promote change andovercome opposition to it; and functioning–the sus -tenance of achievement through continual work.

People use and control these building blocks on thebasis of three essential conceptions: autonomy, sover-eignty, and membership. Only by accepting member-ship of a social order, can a person influence it. To do sosafely and ethically, they need sovereignty. This meansconstituting themselves as a citizenry and installing agovernment as the day-to-day custodian. By givingautonomy to enduring identifiable endeavours (i.e.movements, authorities, enterprises), the citizenry andits government can let people achieve things for them-selves and for others.

The distinction between building blocks and control-ling conceptions reflects the difference between thepart and the whole. The building blocks are propertiesof parts. In other words, a part (of an organization, say)can function, can push a drive, can take a direction, andcan hold a purpose. However, only a whole can haveautonomy, sovereignty and membership. The wholeassociated with autonomy is a joint endeavour, thewhole associated with sovereignty is a society, and thewhole associated with membership is a person.

The seven purpose derivatives have been created bygrouping adjacent levels of purpose. In this process, anew structural hierarchy has emerged and has beenlabelled G-1 through to G-7. Levels (groupings) in thisderived hierarchy are very different from each other,reflecting the variety of structures and processesrequired to realize values. The way each grouping con-tributes to the whole process has been progressivelyclarified. Now it can be reviewed briefly. A summary isprovided in Master-Table 40.

The Hierarchy. Membership of the social order is thestarting point for realizing values (G-7). People mustfunction responsibly and this requires the definitionof....

•Purposes which must be held consciously (G-1).People must mean what they say and this means thatthey have to respond to their own inclinations and capabilities. Those who neglect or ignore valuesbecome agents. The responsibility implicit in holding apurpose generates activity which needs constraint. Thisis provided by....

•Directions which must be stated explicitly (G-2).People must propose them, agree to them, and knowwhat they entail. Each person must tolerate restrictionson activities forwarding their own values in order tocooperate with others and so maximize achievement.Directions generate change which is frequentlyopposed. Making headway requires.....

•Drives which must be pushed intensively (G-3).People must recognize that achievement often requireschange in habits and customary values. Each personmust expect to modify their own values and is in turnpermitted to press others to modify theirs. Drives generate achievement whose sustenance requires....

•Functioning to be worked at continuously (G-4).People must not become complacent or mechanical intheir work. Each person must work meaningfully andproductively in the present and invest for the future.Functioning is based on work which requires people tocommit themselves. Organizing a worthwhile endea -vour so it will endure is essential, but this requires.....

•Autonomy to be properly established (G-5). Peoplemust see themselves as participating in three distinctroles: as independent (and unequal) actors in relation toenterprises, as representatives of others in relation toregulatory authorities, and as equal members of societyin relation to movements. Many people must associateto form and manage any substantial endeavour. Soautonomy generates power and the need for its ethicalcontrol. This in turn requires.....

•Sovereignty to be constituted legally (G-6). Peoplemust ensure that supreme power is wielded ethically atall times. Each person must be active as a citizen whileaccepting the existence of government and its limita-tions. Sovereignty demands and generates freedom, butits operation depends on....

•Membership which must be claimed self-consciously(G-7). People exercise membership by activating ultimate values and imaginatively reflecting on thesocial order. Each person must voluntarily make thesociety their own, participating within it despite itsmany imperfections.

Progress and The Dualities. Progress offers acaptivating, or perhaps tantalising, hope for the eradica-tion or reduction of the present sufferings in societies.

458


So realizing values is often about getting progress andeach of the groupings is oriented towards this in a dis-tinctive way.

On the basis of the accounts of the groupings, itseems that membership represents the spirit of pro -gress and sovereignty reveals the forces behindprogress. Moving to the base of the hierarchy, purposesprovide the means for progress and directions its specifications. Between potentiality and actuality, wefind autonomy which enables the organization ofprogress and functioning which is the embodiment orrealization of progress. Finally, drives are a pivot whichenable the modification of progress.

But these are very general statements. Whether anyof the purpose derivatives will actually deliver viableprogress is another matter entirely. Perhaps it would bemore accurate to affirm the converse: that each group-ing offers a unique capability to impede progress andcause positive disruption.

Progress is easier wished for or expected from othersor advised about, than produced. Progress is risky. Soanyone in the hot seat very sensibly aims for progresswhich is compatible with personal survival and survivalof the endeavour.

When realizing values, there is an unavoidable tension between the urge for survival and the desire forprogress. Each structural level embodies a well-recog-nized and distinctive version of that progress-survivalduality as experienced by those involved in the endeav-our. Survival is an ethical imperative, both a stabilizingcore and constraint in value realization. So its represen-tations in the duality feel essential and unavoidable.Progress is merely desirable, a potential for growth andan aspiration. So its representations in the dualitydemand positive generation and their value must berepetitively re-affirmed and re-explained. The variousprogress-survival dualities reflect perennial dilemmasand arguments, and not just amongst social scientistsand philosophers, but also amongst managers andpoliticians.

Below is a brief account of the evolution of theprogress-survival duality (with the key terms itali-cized). I will build upwards on this occasion to show theprogressive resolution of the dialectics much as wasdone for ethical systems in Ch. 6 (cf. Master-Fig 7) andidentity systems in Ch. 7 (cf. Master-Fig. 13).

•Holding purposes (G-1) reveals the tensionbetween the survival need to adapt to urgent pressuresin the situation by being pragmatic, and the demand ofprogress which requires that people generate values andobjectives as necessary guiding principles. Failure toresolve the tension leads to unreliable and patchy

development or collapse of the endeavour through disconnection, rigidity or utopianism. This duality,resolved satisfactorily by each person in their own way,expresses their individuality.

•Stating directions (G-2) reveals the tension betweenindividuality on which creative efforts and personal initiative absolutely depend, and cooperation which mustbe evoked to sustain the group and generate the desiredprogress. Failure to resolve the tension leads to in -coherence which threatens breakdown of the endea -vour, or acrimonious conflict which threatensdisruption of the group. Alternatively, failure resultsfrom herd-like behaviour, endless talk, hesitancy andweak decisions. Resolution of the duality leads to ahabitual modus operandi and stability for the endeavourand group.

•Pushing drives (G-3) reveals the tension betweenthe need for stability to handle external turbulence andshifting values (which is the very meaning and essenceof survival), and the need to generate a vibrant dynamismbased in a positive commitment to the new or modifiedvalues inherent in progress. Failure to resolve the ten-sion leads to stagnation or disruption, both of whichthreaten the endeavour and the group. The resolutionof this duality leads to evolution of the group and theendeavour.

•Working at functioning (G-4) reveals the tensionbetween handling the evolution of any endeavour whichis unavoidable as people, work and situations alter, andgenerating the transformation required for more substan-tial progress which involves a degree of discontinuitywith the past. Failure to resolve the tension leads toover-ambitious changes or becoming trapped in a blindalley. The resolution of the duality leads to consensus onthe endeavour within the group.

•Establishing autonomy (G-5) reveals the tensionbetween consensus, the survival factor for all associatingand organizing, and conflicts which result from strivingfor progress and generating argument about which values and actions are required. Failure to resolve thetension leads to the endeavour tearing itself apart withinternal disagreements, or to the suppression of dis -cussion and avoidance of risks with stagnation and even-tual ossification. Resolution of the duality leads toendeavours and groups becoming the means for themaintenance of society.

•Constituting sovereignty (G-6) reveals the tensionbetween surviving by tolerating the necessary means forruling and implementing collective decisions (eventhough these rest ultimately on coercion), and genera -ting those ends which all desire and which are the ratio-nale for progress. Failure to resolve the tension leads to

459

Chapter 12: Realizing Values — Review

citizens and governments failing to provide or toleratethe means to achieve the ends they claim to want. Orthey pursue ends irrespective of the ethical quality orpractical implications of the means. Resolution of theduality enables genuine participation in the politicalarena.

•Claiming membership (G-7) reveals the tensionbetween participation in the social order despite itsimperfections, without which there would be no society or survival; and generating a dissociation fromthe order, or at least its worst aspects, in order to con-ceive of genuine improvements. To support while criticizing and to criticize while supporting is the essen-tial requirement. Failure to resolve the tension leads tofanaticism or uncritical support of the status quo.Societal development cannot be systematically plannedor formally organized, so the resolution of this dualityis resolved by pragmatism — which takes us back to purpose (G-1).

The Personal vs The Communal. Whether thegoal is progress or maintenance of the status quo, real-izing values is about doing things. This means takingaction oneself and organizing the activities of others.Realizing values is the basis of a person’s participation intheir community or society. Whatever a person’s placeor perspective in society, it is impossible to escape someminimum involvement in each of the groupings in thehierarchy.

This immediately raises the issue of balance betweenindividual wishes, interests or concerns and communalneeds, interests or concerns. In handling any particularvalue, the question that invariably arises is whether thematter can be left to entrepreneurs, organizations orprofessional groups or whether some collective or governmental action is required. We want to allow andfoster uniqueness, privacy, initiative and personal iden-tity. Yet we recognize the need for order, protection ofthe public interest, and common aims.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the various purposive entities formed by combining the levels ofthe purpose interact with this individual-communalduality in distinctive ways. Purpose, direction, func-tioning and membership all demand a simultaneousconsideration of the individual and the collectivedimensions. That is to say, purpose, direction, function-ing and membership cannot exist in society independent of their existence within a person or

organization.

Drives, autonomy and sovereignty are different. Twodistinct (but linked and mutually influenced) forms arefound: one essentially individual and the other essen-tially communal. Drives can either take the form ofexternal community-oriented pressures which aim tochange others and the social context or internal drivesfor self-development (which may leave others un -touched). Some links between these two forms of driveare natural, but the distinction is unavoidable.Autonomy too can lead either to associations and net-works whose formation is personally driven, or to public and official bodies whose formation is driven bythe public interest. Finally, sovereignty is expressed bysocially responsible citizens for whom genuineness isintrinsic, and political leaders who get paid to operatethe levers of power on behalf of the community.

Transition. Social beings, natural and artificial,define purposes and generate the energy for the realiza-tion of values using all derivatives. But the reverse isalso true. Purposes and their derivatives also define andenergize social beings. Purpose enables the realizationof values; and the existence of values generates effortsat realization by defining purposes. Social beings cannotexist without value and purpose; and value and purposecannot exist without social beings.

But does the realization of value really produceprogress? We can say that the realization of values leadsto the evolution of society and its values. Whether ornot this evolution reflects progress objectively-speakingmay be disputed. Ideally, society should become pro-gressively more humane and enlightened, but the valueschosen for realization are absolutely dependent on thecommunity and reflect its maturity. Evaluation of society over the long term is itself a matter of valuesused to conduct that evaluation. No neutral reply cantherefore be given.

A great deal has now been said about purpose andvalue in organizations and social life. Now somethingmore must be said about how people develop and usepurpose in everyday life and at work. The account ofthe structures of intentionality (teleostatics) that hasjust been completed needs to be complemented by anaccount of the forces generated by the use of purposesand values (teleodynamics). In the next chapter, thenature and interplay of these forces will be exploredand a striking pattern revealed. ❆

460


Mas

ter-

Pr

oper

ties

reve

alin

g th

e co

here

nce

of th

e se

ven

grou

ping

s of

pur

pose

s.Ta

ble

40

The

evol

utio

n of

dua

litie

s is

sim

ilar t

o th

at s

how

n in

Mas

ter-

Figu

res

7 an

d 13

. See

Mas

ter-

Figu

re 2

8 fo

r a d

iagr

amm

atic

ove

rvie

w o

f the

gro

ups

in th

e gr

oupi

ngs.

Se

e M

aste

r-Tab

le 2

9 fo

r a s

umm

ary

of im

plic

atio

ns fo

r soc

iety

and

for o

rgan

izat

ions

. See

text

for f

urth

er d

etai

ls a

nd e

xpla

natio

n.

© W

arr

en K

inst

on 1

994

L

Gro

upin

g

The

Proc

ess

of

Pers

onal

Inhe

rent

Dua

lity

(N

os o

f

Func

tion

Prog

ress

G

roup

s)

Focu

s

Real

izin

g Va

lues

Co

mm

itmen

ts

Pr

ogre

ss v

s Su

rviv

al

G

-7

Mem

bers

hip

To

ens

ure

that

eac

h Th

e So

ciet

y:

Each

per

son

mus

t par

ticip

ate

Spiri

t D

isso

ciat

ion

[1

] ne

eded

for

pers

on u

ses

and

The

star

ting

poin

t for

real

izin

g in

a s

ocie

ty d

espi

te it

s m

any

of

vs

Fr

eedo

m

eval

uate

s th

eir v

alue

s. va

lues

– a

n ex

istin

g so

cial

ord

er.

impe

rfec

tions

. pr

ogre

ss

Part

icip

atio

n

G

-6

Sove

reig

nty

To

ens

ure

that

soc

iety

, its

Th

e G

uard

ians

: Ea

ch p

erso

n m

ust b

e ac

tive

Forc

es

Ends

[2

] ne

eded

for

mem

bers

and

thei

r act

iviti

es,

Sust

aini

ng a

n et

hica

l ord

er a

s as

a c

itize

n w

hile

acc

eptin

g a

of

vs

Po

wer

ar

e re

gula

ted

by v

alue

s. a

fram

ewor

k fo

r rea

lizin

g va

lues

. go

vern

men

t with

its

limita

tions

. pr

ogre

ss

Mea

ns

G

-5

Auto

nom

y

To e

nsur

e th

at e

ndea

vour

s O

rgan

izat

ions

: Ea

ch p

erso

n m

ust s

ee th

em-

Org

aniz

atio

n Co

nflic

t

[3]

need

ed fo

r se

rve

the

valu

es o

f bot

h O

rgan

izin

g in

depe

nden

t peo

ple

self

as a

n in

depe

nden

t act

or,

of

vs

En

deav

ours

so

ciet

y an

d in

divi

dual

s. fo

r lar

ge-s

cale

effo

rts.

repr

esen

tativ

e an

d m

embe

r. pr

ogre

ss

Cons

ensu

s

G

-4

Funct

ionin

g

To e

nsur

e th

at v

alue

s ar

e So

cial

Pro

duct

ivity

: Ea

ch p

erso

n m

ust w

ork

Embo

dim

ent

Tran

sfor

mat

ion

[4

] ne

eded

for

expr

esse

d co

here

ntly

and

U

sing

pur

pose

, dire

ctio

n an

d m

eani

ngfu

lly a

nd p

rodu

ctiv

ely,

of

vs

Achi

evem

ent

endu

ringl

y in

act

iviti

es.

driv

e co

here

ntly

and

effe

ctiv

ely.

ne

ver m

echa

nica

lly.

prog

ress

Ev

olut

ion

G

-3

Dri

ve

To e

nsur

e th

at d

esire

d Po

litic

al M

anoe

uvre

s:

Each

per

son

mus

t exp

ect t

o M

odifi

catio

n D

ynam

ism

[5

] ne

eded

for

valu

es a

re in

stal

led

Ove

rcom

ing

the

inev

itabl

e m

odify

thei

r ow

n va

lues

and

of

vs

Chan

ge

desp

ite re

sist

ance

s. op

posi

tion

to c

hang

e.

pres

s ot

hers

to m

odify

thei

rs.

prog

ress

St

abili

ty

G

-2

Direct

ion

To

ens

ure

that

cho

sen

Gro

up R

equi

rem

ents

: Ea

ch p

erso

n m

ust a

ccep

t Sp

ecifi

catio

n Co

oper

atio

n

[6]

need

ed fo

r va

lues

focu

s m

inds

and

En

surin

g gr

oup

valu

es g

uide

re

stric

tions

on

thei

r act

iviti

es

of

vs

Ac

tivity

sh

ape

outc

omes

. in

divi

dual

dec

isio

ns.

to e

nabl

e co

oper

atio

n.

prog

ress

In

divi

dual

ity

G

-1

Purp

ose

To

ens

ure

that

val

ues

can

Prim

al R

oles

: Ea

ch p

erso

n m

ust r

espo

nd

Mea

ns

Prin

cipl

es

[7]

need

ed fo

r be

affi

rmed

, cho

sen

and

Dev

elop

ing

the

pers

onal

tool

s to

thei

r ow

n in

clin

atio

ns a

nd

of

vs

Re

spon

sibi

lity

purs

ued

in a

soc

ial c

onte

xt.

for p

artic

ipat

ing

in s

ocie

ty.

capa

bilit

ies

in s

ocia

l life

. pr

ogre

ss

Prag

mat

ism

G-1

: Pra

gmat

ism

Mas

ter M

atrix

40

NOTES

1. Sociologists have been deeply interested in social move-ments, partly because they so often participate in them. Yetthe literature does not always distinguish movements clearly.Either it veers towards studying movements as totallyunstructured and merged with social trends, social patternsor large scale activities like mobs, fads and panics (Turner,R.H. & Lewis, M.K. Collective Behaviour. Englewood CliffsNJ: Prentice Hall, 1957; Smelser, N.J. Theory of CollectiveBehaviour. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press, 1963), or as structured inthe form of pressure groups, political parties, new churches,regulatory programmes or social policies (Heberle, R. SocialMovements: An Introduction to Political Sociology. New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1951; Cameron, W.B. ModernSocial Movements. New York: Random House, 1966; Barker,Q., New Religious Movements. London: HMSO, 1989), or as anopportunity to understand political change (Oberschall, A.Social Movements: Ideologies, Interests, Identities. New York:Transaction Publ., 1992), political ideologies (Mackenzie,W.J.M. Politics and Social Sciences. Harmondsworth: Penguin,1967; Scott, A. Ideology and New Social Movements. London:Unwin Hyman, 1990) and cultural processes in general(Cohn, N. The Pursuit of the Millennium. London: Secker &Warburg, 1957; Killian, L.M. Social Movements. In:Handbook of Modern Sociology. (Ed. R.E.L. Faris), Chicago:Rand McNally, 1964). The two related movements mostpopular with sociologists have been the labour or workers’movement and the socialist movement — within which andfor which many have worked as intellectuals. More dis -interested studies of movements are relatively rare, but theyseem to be aligned to the concept as presented here(Wilkinson, P. Social Movement. London: Pall Mall Press,1971; Touraine, A., Dubet, F., Wieviorka, M., Strezelecki,J. et al. Solidarity, The Analysis of a Social Movement: Poland,1980-1981. (Transl. D. Denby). London: Editions de laMaison des Sciences de l’Homme and Cambridge UniversityPress, 1983). Whereas sociologists have been preoccupiedwith revolutionary political movements, this book seeks tohelp anyone contribute to any sort of movement. So theemphasis here is on ordinary modern movements like thewomen’s, green or New Age movements in which the readermight well participate or might have to handle in a workcontext.

2. For an account of developments of the movement in the UK,see: Cullen, M.J. The Statistical Movement in Early VictorianBritain: The Foundations of Empirical Social Research. New York:Harvester Press, 1975. For a more general account of theemergence of the use of facts, probability and the concept of‘normal’, see: Hacking, I. The Taming of Chance. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1990.

3. Robertson, J. Future Wealth: New Economics for the 21stCentury. London: Cassell, 1989.

4. With regard to the need for an organization, see: Zald, M.N.& Ash, R. Social movement organizations: Growth, decayand change. Social Forces, 44: 327-340, 1966. For an accountof the Spanish peasant revolts, see: Hobsbawm, E.J. PrimitiveRebels: Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movement in the 19th and20th Centuries. Manchester: Manchester University Press,1959.

5. Details of the women’s movement in the US are taken from:

Freeman, J. The Politics of Women’s Liberation: A Case Study of anEmerging Social Movement and its Relation to the Policy Process.New York: Longman, 1975.

6. Lenin, V.I. What is to be done? In: Selected Works, Vol. 1, Part1, Moscow, 1950. (Transl. from Russian. London: Lawrence& W., 1964.)

7. Mannheim, K. Ideology and Utopia. London: RoutledgeKegan Paul, 1936.

8. See: Michels, R. Political Parties. Glencoe Ill.: Free Press,1949; Gerth, H.H. & Mills, C.W. From Max Weber: Essays inSociology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1946.

9. This example is taken from Section 294 of Eliade, M. AHistory of Religious Ideas. Vol. 2. Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1982. Bogomil missionaries fostered the formation of the Cathar Church whose “ideal was the dis -appearance of humanity, by suicide and by the refusal to havechildren” (p.185). In relation to the Inquisition, Eliade notesthat “the manner in which [these heretics] were annihilatedconstitutes one of the blackest pages in the history of theRoman Church. But the Catholic reaction was justified.”(p.188).

10. See the discussion of culture (G-43: Ch.10); and cf. Kinston,W. Strengthening the Management Culture: Phasing the Trans -formation of Organizations. London: The SIGMA Centre, 1994.

11. Note that an authority may be referred to by a wide varietyof names: as a commission, a committee, a board, a council,an office &c. The title does not clarify whether or not theauthority is statutory or self-regulatory. No title in itselfmakes it clear that the authority is regulatory rather than andepartment of government (e.g. the status of regulators ofprivatized monopolies like Oftel or Ofgas is not obvious) ora public agency (Q: is the grant-maintained NationalConsumer Council an authority or a campaigning body? A:The latter.). Scrutiny of the principal objects and the asso -ciated structures and powers, especially appointments to theboard, is essential to clarify the nature of the body.

12. This account is extracted from a series of three papers in NewCommunity, Vol. 14, Parts 1/2 1987: Peppard, N. TheCommunity Relations Commission 1968-1976: A note onits formation and role. pp.9-11; Lane, D. The Commissionfor Racial Equality: the first five years. pp.12-16 Newsam, P.The Commission for Racial Equality: 1982-1987. pp.17-20.

13. A key recommendation of the Monopolies and MergersCommission’s Report involved reducing the number ofbrewery-owned public houses (The Supply of Beer. London:HMSO, Cmnd. 651, 1989). Tied ownership restricts con-sumer choice of beers and inhibits competitor entry into themarket. The Brewers’ Society, representing the industry,lobbied vigorously against the MMC recommendations(Report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on “The Supplyof Beer”: A Critique. London, 1989). In its Beer Orders laidbefore Parliament in subsequent years, the governmentimposed some restrictions on ownership but significantlyless than the MMC recommendation. To reassure publicopinion, it required a subsequent review of competition byits own Office of Fair Trading. This review was expected tooccur in 1994, but it was cancelled in 1993. The relevantdocuments are: House of Commons Paper #402. Effects ofthe Beer Orders on the Brewing Industry and Consumer. 4thReport of the Proceedings of the Agricultural Committee.

462


Session 1992-1993; House of Commons Paper #870. ThirdSpecial Report: Response by the Government to the 4th Report of theAgricultural Committee. Session 1992-1993.

14. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. A Guideto the Commission and Its Activities. November, 1992.

15. The initial inquiry advocated disbanding the existing PressCouncil and replacing it by a more satisfactory and respon-sive body ‘to give [the industry] one final chance to provethat voluntary self-regulation can be made to work’: HomeOffice. Report of the Committee on Privacy and Related Matters(Chairman: David Calcutt QC) London: HMSO Cmnd.1102, 1990. The Press Complaints Commission First AnnualReport, 1991 summarized its own origins and performance ina self-complimenting way. A further review then took placein 1993 as planned and in the wake of further scandals:Department of National Heritage. Review of Press Self-Regulation. (Sir David Calcutt QC). London: HMSO Cmnd.2135, 1993.

16. A special Report on the role and lapses of the Bank ofEngland is provided in: House of Commons Paper #198.Inquiry into the Supervision of BCCI: The Bingham Report.October, 1992.

17. First Report from the Home Affairs Select Committee on theOperation and Effectiveness of the Commission for Racial Equality,1980-1981. London: HMSO, 1981.

18. Gower, L.C.B. Review of Investor Protection. Part 1. The GowerReport. London: HMSO Cmnd 9125, 1984; and Non-Parliamentary Report of the Department of Trade andIndustry. Review of Investor Protection. Part 2. 1985. Thesereports drew on the recommendations of two other workingparties set up by the Bank of England and the Governmentrespectively to examine similar issues.

19. The relevant documents are: Committee of AdvertisingPractice. The British Code of Advertising Practice. 8th Ed.London, 1988; the account by the Chairman in the AnnualReport of ASBOF, 1975-1976; and The Advertising Association’sAnnual Review, 1992-1993. Details were also obtained by per-sonal communication with the Advertising StandardsAuthority and the Advertising Association.

20. Although legal, economic, political and, especially, sociolog-ical study of organizations has been sustained since the1930s, practical research has been comparatively meagre.Policy studies in business and government, for example, didnot become a serious object of study until the 1960s.Practical organization within the voluntary sector has beenrelatively rarely examined (cf. Harris, M. & Billis, D.Organising Voluntary Agencies: A Guide Through the Literature.London: Bedford Square Press, 1986). Many organizationalstudies geared to the practicalities of managing operate byraising awareness among those involved (e.g. Morgan, G.,Images of Organization. London: Sage, 1986). Relatively feware deliberately design-oriented and these focus almostexclusively on just one compartment, the executive struc-ture (e.g. Jaques, E. A General Theory of Bureaucracy. London:Heinemann, 1976; Galbraith, J.R. Organization Design. NewYork: Addison-Wesley, 1977; Mintzberg, H. The Structuringof Organisations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1979).

Relevant reflections on organizational design are to befound in some governmental commissions of inquiry. Suchcommissions are stimulated by periodic needs to review

legis lation by re-examining the purpose of organizations ofdifferent types and the comparative rights and obligations ofrelevant groups and the community. The resulting reportsfacilitate comparisons of design principles for organizationsbetween different countries (cf. Hoghton, C. de (ed.) TheCompany: Law, Structure and Reform in Eleven Countries. London:Allen & Unwin, 1970). Such accounts generally confirm theoverall picture as one of theoretical confusion.

Current organizational theory tends to treat organizationsas essentially unitary executive things — like ‘hierarchies’,‘cooperatives’ or ‘matrix organizations’ — and it is true thatit is executive work that most needs organizing because thisis where the operation is located. One or more of the othercompartments are sometimes noted, but (to my knowledge)little effort outside the present research has gone into developing an unambiguous and effective model of the integrated working of the whole.

As a result, there is no widely agreed framework whichshapes or indicates what, in principle, to expect of enter-prises, nothing which aids clarification of the duties people(insiders or outsiders) should perform, nor how the mainsocially-recognized compartments should interact. In prac-tice, designing compartments other than the executant bodyand developing inter-relations among compartments arebased almost wholly on a mixture of expediency, intuition,custom and fashion. Self-control by those involved dependslargely on obeying the law, current conventions and personalpreference rather than any real sense of what is required.

21. The limited but important role of hierarchy andaccountability in the total picture is provided in: Kinston, W.op. cit. [10]. A framework for participation in organizationshas been developed which recognizes the claims of theindivi dual and the institution. It derives from an ethicallydesigned hierarchical framework for specifying work andstructuring organizations: Kinston, W. Management Processesand Partici pation in the Ethical Organization. UnpublishedDiscussion Documents, The SIGMA Centre, 1992.

22. For more specific details of duties and tasks, see theAppendix in: Kinston, W. Designing the four compartmentsof organisations: Constituting, governing, top officer andexecutant bodies. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 18: 3-24,1991. Note that the labelling, analysis and understandinghere has moved on slightly from that publication.

23. For a short general essay on the issue of shareholderduties, see: Pennant-Rea, R. Capitalism: Punters or Proprietors.The Economist, May 5th 1990. The situation in the USA isanalysed in: Jacobs, M.T. Short-term America: The Causes ofBusiness Myopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business SchoolPress, 1992.

24. Numerous texts testify to the malfunctioning of boards.Board failure is the commonest cause of business failureaccording to G. Mills in his On the Board. (London: Gower,1981). This clear account by an experienced consultantaccords well with the basic principles provided here.Businessmen regularly complain about boards, saying thingslike: ‘The fact is that we haven’t got in this country enoughpeople to man our boards with the type of people whom wewould love to have, ideally’ (Brown, C.C. & Smith, E.E. TheDirector Looks at His Job. New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1957, p.123). For a brief trenchant view on boards in

463

Chapter 12: Realizing Values — Notes

academic bodies, see: Anthony, R.N. & Herzlinger, R.E.Management Control in Non-profit Organizations (Rev’d Ed.).Homewood, Ill: Richard D. Irwin, 1980, pp.47-48. For theposition in public agencies, see: Nachmias, D. & Greer, A.(eds.) Self-governance in the interpenetrated society. PolicySciences Special Issue, Vol.14, Part 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier,1982.

25. See, for example: Mintzberg, H., The Nature of ManagerialWork. New York: Harper & Row, 1973; and Jaques, E. op. cit.[20].

26. For some classic accounts of the emergence of powerfulexecutive-run organizations, see: Russell, B. Freedom andOrganization. 1814-1914. London: George Allen & Unwin,1934; Berle, A.A. Jr. & Means, G.C. The Modern Corporationand Private Property. London: Macmillan, 1932; Boulding,K.E. The Organizational Revolution. New York: Harper &Row, 1953.

27. Sovereignty, government and citizenship are essential con-cepts within judicial and political studies and their intricaciesand historical evolution will not be deeply explored here.The tendency of societies to move irreversibly to the con -dition of popular sovereignty (which is assumed as requisiteby my analysis) is well argued by David Beetham (TheLegitimation of Power. London: Macmillan, 1991) despite hisreluctance to take an ethical perspective. Beetham pointsour that regimes based on mobilizing people, are rather vulnerable to policy failure and difficult circumstances. Foran explanation of how a modern liberal-democratic nation-state can be sustained and changed, see: Kinston, W. Creatinga Strong Society: A Guide for Social Reformers. London: TheSIGMA Centre, due for publication 1996. The argument ofthat book uses the framework of approaches to ethicalchoice. For a summary of standard ideas oriented to theimportance of the citizenry, see: Heater, D. Citizenship: The

Civic Ideal in World History, Politics and Education. London:Longman, 1990. For a readable account of the value of representative democracy in relation to alternatives, see:Dahl, R.A. Democracy and its Critics. London: Yale UniversityPress, 1989.

28. Quote from the 1793 version. See: Stewart, J.H. ADocumentary Survey of the French Revolution. New York:Macmillan, 1951.

29. Note that the present analysis takes for granted a well- developed, thriving civil society which exists apart fromgovernment and its bureaucracy — in short, the realm ofautonomy (G-5). The absence of this condition in mostThird World countries is one of the main reasons for economic disarray and the replacement of popular sover-eignty by authoritarian regimes. The government in thesecases, for good reasons and bad, becomes the source ofpower and wealth and distances itself from (and exploits) themass of the people.

30. Elsewhere, using a framework of change, I have begun toclarify relationships between the various political ideologiesand forms of government, trying to show how these twoaspects of ruling are linked: Kinston, W. The Hierarchy ofChange. Unpublished Discussion Document, The SIGMACentre, London, 1988.

31. Marx, Lenin, Pareto, Gramsci, Mosca, Michels and othersseem to have taken the rather mundane observation that aminority comes to dominate civic life and social oppor -tunities and used it to generate a conspiracy theory.

32. A wide variety of democratic arrangements are possible: cf.Held, D. Models of Democracy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987.For a robust defence and explanation of representativedemocracy, see: Dahl, R.A. op.cit. [27].

33. Cf. Beetham, D. op.cit. [27]; and Kinston, W. op.cit. [27].

464
