Timothy Wilken, MD
Independent of me, another synergic scientist N. Arthur Coulter,
Jr. had been seeking to develop an ideal system of organization for
human beings. He defined ideal as that system that would maximize both
freedom, and quality of life for all within the system. He was the
author of SYNERGETICS: An Adventure in Human Development.
I discovered him by purchasing his book based on its title from a
science catalog. I was so impressed with his book that I took a chance
and wrote him. We soon developed a long distance friendship.
A
graduate of Harvard Medical School and Professor Emeritus of the
University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Dr. N. Arthur Coulter
is a synergic science pioneer. He began searching for a better way for
humanity over 50 years ago. Coulter had realized
that with the dropping of the Atomic bomb on Japan, humanity had
reached a crossroad. That our weapons were now of such power that they
threatened us all with extinction. He concluded:
“What is needed is nothing less than a major evolution of the human
mind, which would give the rational, humane part of the mind a much
greater control over the emotional part.”
Coming out the Army at the end of 1945, Coulter switched his focus
from Mathematics and entered Harvard Medical School. He said he needed
to learn all he could about the human brain and mind. Thirty years
later, he was Chairman of the Department of Biomedical Engineering at
the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. But whenever he
wasn’t teaching medical students, his focus was on understanding human
thinking and human relationships.
In March of 1983, I traveled from my home on the west coast of
Northern California to meet with Dr. Coulter. From Chapel Hill, we
traveled by car a small private retreat he had built on a lake in
nearby Virginia. It was a beautiful and very quiet place ideal for
thinking and corroboration. He called it Synergia.
The purpose of our meeting was two-fold, first to share our
research findings about human relationships, behavior, and thinking,
and then to design or at least establish criteria for designing a
“conflict-free” organizational system for humankind. As synergic
scientists, we both believed an ideal system would be based on win-win
relationships.
As our discussions began, I felt sure the system would be a form
of capitalism. I had studied theoretical capitalism for a number of
years.
One captitalistic theorist, Andrew J. Galambos
had proposed an advanced capitalistic system which was non-coercive.
Its underlying premise was to eliminate and prohibit loss. Galambos’
proposed system did not insure win-win relationships, but it promised
to eliminate losing relationships. Galambos’ system was a type of
SuperNeutrality. It allowed win-draw, draw-win, draw-draw, or win-win.
It was committed to the protection of property. But, the definition of
property was expanded to include your life, freedom, ideas, and
actions. Galambos’Capitalism was a much more powerful form than exists
today. With its absolute prohibition of injuring others, it can be
thought of as Moral Capitalism. Its tenets included the absolute
protection of property, individual freedom, and total responsibility.
Galambos’s “SuperNeutrality — Moral Capitalism” retained many
of Neutrality — Capitalism’s value systems. In 1983, I shared most of
these values. However, even then I knew there was an even better way
possible. I felt Galambos’s system could be modified into the synergic
system we were seeking. I envisioned the ideal system would be a form
of Synergic Capitalism — win-win capitalism.
As a synergy scientist, Coulter was sensitive to the wholistic
view — a view he associated with theoretical socialism. He felt the
needs of the species were more important than the needs of the
individual. As the Star Trek character Spock said, “The needs of the
many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.”
Unaware of Galambos’s work, Coulter assumed all capitalistic
structures had to be based on win/lose dynamics, and therefore he was
opposed to them on principle. Coulter envisioned a form of Synergic
Socialism — win-win socialism.
Stalemate — Warring Ideologies
Socialism and capitalism are often polarizing words in our culture.
And, Coulter and I also had our hidden assumptions. We discussed the
issues long into that first night. And yet as adaptive and open as
Coulter and I might hope to be, we were starting very far apart.
Over breakfast the next morning, we both shared our concern over the
risk of a stalemate. It seemed our starting premises were exclusionary.
The ideal system couldn’t be both capitalistic and socialistic.
Capitalistic — Socialism or Socialistic — Capitalism? It just didn’t
work.
Above all else Coulter and I were committed to the scientific way.
As scientists, we knew all beliefs were only models of how Nature
works. That all models were only temporary, even the best were
theoretically obsolete on the day they are made. All models would
someday to be replaced with better ones. Newton’s model of Universe
served us well for over two hundred years, but Einstein’s model of
Universe replaced it all the same. Everyday somewhere on the planet a
human being is discovering something new about Nature that will
eventually change all of our opinions. We both agreed that all present
political systems were adversary systems. That all present systems were
and are coercive systems. Our committment to synergy’s win-win
principle required that Coulter and I be apolitical. We could not
endorse any political system. Our interest in theoretical capitalism or
theoretical socialism related only to their underlying patterns of
organization.
We also agreed that finding the ideal organizing strategy for
humankind was important if not critical. Neither of us wanted a
statemate. We both committed to openly considering the other’s point of
view, and further pledged a willingness to modify our positions based
on the power of each other’s arguments. But after hours of discussion,
I still believed the ideal system would be a form of synergic
capitalism, and Coulter believed it must be some form of synergic
socialism.
Korzybski’s General Semantics
We decided to formalize our discussions by utilizing the
powerful communication science — General Semantics. Alfred Korzybski
originated General Semantics to take the misunderstanding out of
communication. He is quoted as saying:
“There can be no disagreements only misunderstandings. We are all looking at the same universe, in the end we must agree.”
I hoped Korzybski was right, and that Coulter and I would somehow
discover we were only misunderstanding each other. But I had my doubts,
capitalism and socialism — could they ever be resolved into a single
system? No, it had to be either one or the other.
I hoped General Semantics would lead us to an answer. If it
was to be socialism, then I was willing to change my position. But
Coulter, would have to prove he had a better system.
After breakfast, I began by presenting the basic postulates
underlying theoretical capitalism and its underlying relationship to
hierarchical strategy, and then Coulter presented the basic postulates
of theoretical socialism and its underlying relationship to
heterarchical strategy. First I would teach him, then he would teach
me. We alternated back and forth.
By late in the afternoon of our second day, we had both
learned a lot. I was beginning to see the power and value of
heterarchy, and Coulter was discovering the power and value of
hierarchy. Both of us had held a number of false assumptions about the
other’s position. However no real progress was made towards our ideal
system. And, we still found ourselves butting heads over the terms
capitalism and socialism. It seemed both of us carried strong emotional
opinions about the terms in our unconscious. Our strong emotional
attitudes seemed to block any hope for a solution in the little time we
had available. If we didn’t change our focus, hope for any meaningful
solution would be lost. Because our unconscious attitudes were
sabotaging our efforts, we agreed to drop the terms capitalism and
socialism completely from our discussion.
Beyond Capitalism & Socialism
Coulter and I both agreed that what was really important was to
create a system that produced only win-win relationships. If we
succeeded at that, then whether it was “capitalistic” or “socialistic”
might not really matter. At this point, we agreed to change our focus
to “hierarchy” and “heterarchy”. We began seeking a unique system that
would transcend both capitalism and socialism — perhaps we could call
it simply synergism.
I began by discussing the underlying structure of capitalism.
I felt that even if the ideal system wasn’t capitalistic it would still
have to retain hierarchy.
Hierarchy is a vertical system with many levels of
organization. Those with greatest responsibility and authority occupy
the higher levels. Hierarchy creates a feeling of difference or
individuality. Individuals within the system see each other vertically,
“He is over me.” “I work under John.” “He is way up in the company”
“She is the lowest one on the totem pole.”
Hierarchy is humanity's oldest organizing strategy. It was
born in the jungle, was nurtured in the cave, grew up in the tribe,
blossomed with feudalism, and today dominates nearly all the
corporations, institutions, governments, and militaries of earth.
Hierarchy is often experienced as the chain of command or pecking
order. It is most formalized in military combat.
In business organizations, hierarchy is often experienced as
an extension of the personalities of those individuals who founded the
company. The operating policies of the company are a reflection of the
values of the individual founders. Individuals with similar values are
often selected to continue the company. So we see the primary concerns
of a hierarchy are the goals of those few individuals that control it.
This is why American companies have individual decision
making, and individual responsibility. Hierarchy has a particulate
focus because goals are particular to the individuals who create them.
Hierarchy’s focus on the individual does lead to the
stimulation of individual innovation, creativity, and originality. This
leads to the development of a few individual stars who tend to dominate
the company. Individuality has its strengths — one of which is rapid
decision making. One individual can always decide much quicker than a
group. I highly valued the individual and felt reliance on the best
individuals had to be good for the whole group. Now it was Coulter’s
turn to speak for heterarchy.
Coulter was just as sure the ideal system must be a
heterarchy. His commitment to heterarchy was supported by research
findings which revealed human relationships are optimized when humans
feel they are valued at the same level.
The primary organizing strategy of theoretical socialism is
heterarchy, this is in sharp distinction to political socialism which
is usually hierarchical.
Heterarchy is a very different breed of organizational
strategy than hierarchy. It is a horizontal system with only one level
of organization. All are equal within the heterarchy. Individuals
within the system see each other as being on the same level. “We are a
team.” “Its like a family rather than a job.” “We all respect each
other.”
Heterarchy is ideal for communication and discussion, because
it allows for the sharing of responsibility and authority within an
informal environment. Task assignments following open discussions,
produce more cooperative working relationships. In a setting where
associates feel valued, openness and integrity emerge. Individuals
often take much greater roles in the tasks of their departments. In
this setting, there is less conflict, and this usually results in
improvement in efficiency, productivity, and quality of work-life.
Heterarchy creates a feeling of oneness — a feeling of
community. Members of a heterarchy strongly identify with the whole
system. Morale and espirit de corps are optimized. Because heterarchy
is highly inclusive, all feel that they are a part of the system. This
is in strong counter distinction to hierarchy's exclusiveness.
Individuals within heterarchy tend to protect the system. Individuals
within hierarchy often ignore the system, and sometimes even attack it.
The wholistic focus of heterarchy is on the needs of the whole
organization. This wholistic focus leads to collective decision making
and collective responsibility.
Decision making in heterarchy is slower. It takes time to gain
the consensus of all the individuals within the heterarchy. However,
implementation is much more rapid because the attitudes of those
responsible for implementation have been considered in the decision
making process. This not only eliminates conflict, but also encourages
all members to feel responsible for the successful implementation of
the decision. Anyone who has ever built a house knows it is much less
expensive to erase lines on a paper, than to demolish mortar, brick,
and stone.
As we focused more tightly, our discussions intensified, and
to our mutual surprise we began to discover much agreement. Both
hierarchy and heterarchy were emerging as valid strategies. They could
both be seen to have major utility. They were very different, but
equally valid methods of organizing. Heterarchy seemed better for
meeting the needs of the whole system, while hierarchy seemed better
for accomplishing the goals of the individuals within the system.
Heterarchy reduces conflict by seeking consensus. This appears
to be the secret of its success. This is also why we see slow decision
making, but rapid implementation. Hierachy produces rapid decision
making, but slow implementation. Individual decision making always
occurs with minimal knowledge of the attitudes of those who will be
responsible for implementation. This lack of awareness produces
inevitable conflict which slows and limits the success of
implementation.
Neither seemed universally superior, heterarchy worked best in
some areas, but hierarchy clearly worked better in other areas. But
despite our agreement, if our two positions were found to be equally
valid, then which one should we use? Our discussion of heterarchy and
hierarchy did not trigger the emotional reactions that discussing
socialism and capitalism had, but we seemed no closer to our goal than
we had the first day. Heterarchy and hierarchy seemed to be
exclusionary as capitalism and socialism. It had to be either
heterarchy or hierarchy, it could’t be both.
Exhausted, we decided to break. Coulter invited me to take a
walk along the lake that bordered his property. For some minutes we
walked in silence, both of our minds grateful for the rest. Eventually,
we reached a pleasant spot beside the lake and we sat down.
A few sailboats could be seen on the lake chasing the spring
breeze. The scene was pleasantly reassuring, no sign of the troubled
world that had prompted our quest for a new way for humankind. I
thought of all the years I had been seeking a better way. It seemed so
long ago that this journey had started. Even as a child, I had believed
in a world without conflict. Coulter too seemed quietly sad, he too had
been searching for a long time. His journey had begun even before my
birth. I lay back and closed my eyes. The noise of the water gently
laping against the shoreline began to soothe my troubled mind.
Beyond Right & Wrong
Later, as we lay by the lake, Coulter told me of a powerful thinking tool he had developed:
“When I find I am confused, I test the idea by placing it in the following multiple-point-of-view rotary.
“The “idea” is right.
“The “idea” is wrong.
“The “idea” is neither right nor wrong.
“The “idea” is both right and wrong.
“First, I think of all the examples of when and where the idea
is right, then of all the examples of when and where the idea is wrong.
Then I look for examples where or when the idea doesn’t seem to apply,
and finally I think of examples when the idea seems paradoxical — both
right and wrong simultaneously. I have used this tool many times, and I
have always understood the idea much better because of it.”
After resting a few more minutes we slowly walked back to his cabin.
Following a break for supper, we resumed our discussions. We continued
to learn from each other, but agreement seemed no nearer.
Alone, in my room preparing for bed, I took Coulter’s advice and jotted down his rotary.
Hierarchy is right.
Hierarchy is wrong.
Hierarchy is neither right nor wrong.
Hierarchy is both right and wrong.
Heterarchy is right.
Heterarchy is wrong.
Heterarchy is neither right nor wrong.
Heterarchy is both right and wrong.
As I lay down to sleep the rotary kept dancing in my head. Coming
into our meeting, I had never felt so sure. How could so many things
that seemed certain suddenly become so uncertain?
How could things be so right and so wrong all at the same
time? What is the value of our science, if it can’t answer our
questions?
And tomorrow, was our last day.
Last Day
The third morning, we began our discussions on mind-brain
science. This has been a primary focus of both Coulter’s and my
research for a number of years. Here we found an abundance of
agreement. By midday we had reached a number of accords concerning
human thinking. As we broke for lunch, we were pleased with this
progress.
As this was scheduled to be our last day of meeting, we agreed
to try for the ideal system once more after lunch. Coulter was still
committed to heterarcy, but I had opened his eyes to hierarchy.
Likewise my eyes were now open to heterarchy, although I still leaned
toward hierarchy.
The night before I had completed outlining the operation of a
hierarchy, so it was Coulter’s turn to talk. Coulter began to describe
his ideal heterarchical system in terms of decision making and project
execution.
Coulter’s voice modulated with excitement as he described the
“heterarchy with mission teams”. He had imagined a system of
associates that were organized as a heterarchy. All members would sit
on the same level as equals. No one would have more authority than
anyone else. All problems and projects would be discussed at length in
the heterarchy. All individuals would serve as information sources for
each other, however participation was always voluntary.
Coulter leaned forward, “Now any individual would be free to
declare a mission. Then other members of the heterarchy could examine
the mission and participate on a negotiated basis in the creation of a
mission team. If a declared mission found no voluntary allies, it would
die for lack of support.”
“What would be the structure of the mission teams?”, I asked.
“The teams will be organized any way they like, remember it’s
all voluntary. The individuals of the heterarchy will decide how they
want to organize themselves, or even if they want to participate.
“Only those missions adequately supported by the heterarchy
could occur. All involved would be voluntarily participating.
Committment would be 100% . When a mission was over the team would
return to the heterarchy.”
“Could the mission team be a hierarchy?”, I asked.
EUREKA
Coulter paused momentarily stunned. He seemed deep in thought,
then he relaxed with a sigh and responded, “I had never really thought
about the structure of the mission team. Yes, I think you are right.
The structure of the mission team would be a hierarchy.” He paused
again, deep in thought, then continued, “But with an important
difference from many hierarchies because everything is voluntary.”
I realized he was describing negotiated hierarchy, a powerful
form of hierarchy that served a vital role in Galambos’s non-coercive
capitalism. As Coulter continued talking, I saw the heterarchy in my
mind’s eye begin to move. First, there was the heterarchy, then one
member of the heterarchy declared a mission. The heterarchy suddenly
configures itself into a mission hierarchy — a negotiated hierarchy.
During the mission it functions as a hierarchy. Each member standing
where he agreed to stand, performing those tasks he volunteered to
perform. The system was strongly self-organizing. Once the mission was
completed, the hierarchy was abandoned the members return to the
heterarchy.
Heterarchy becoming hierarchy becoming heterarchy becoming hierarchy
becoming heterarchy becoming hierarchy and on and on and
on.............
The model danced in my head. Always a heterarchy, occasionally a
hierarchy. The heterarchy was the continuous pull — always pulling
information. The hierarchy a discontinuous push — only occasionally
pushing out a mission. Coulter was describing a tensegrity. A
tensegrity made up of heterarchy and hierarchy.
Hierarchy is both right and wrong.
Heterarchy is both right and wrong.
Hierarchy is neither right nor wrong.
Heterarchy is neither right nor wrong.
In a flash, Coulter and I had got what we were after. I
had been blind to heterarchy and he to hierarchy. But there it was,
both strategies in one system. I had not come to North Carolina looking
for tensegrities, and Coulter had never even heard of a tensegrity. And
yet, his “heterarchy with mission teams” was in fact a tensegrity — a
tensegrity with an equal balance of heterarchy and hierarchy.
There are no accidents in Nature and the tensegrity is no exception.
This is the way we humans were meant to organize. Life’s most powerful
organizing strategy for us is the organizational tensegrity.
To be continued ...
Read the full description of ORTEGRITY
