[HOME]
This article was published in the August 1999 issue of Business Spirit Journal
by John Renesch
1999 © John Renesch
Humanistic
psychologist Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs declares that
self-actualization is a state sought by all human beings once we have satisfied
the more basic needs of survival, gratification and belonging.
It
seems quite reasonable that as we humans continue to evolve and become more
conscious beings there will be a concurrent need for our organizations to
follow suit. In his book The Global Brain Awakens, Peter Russell points
out the coming Age of Consciousness. As this becomes more widely recognized and
people continue on their path of self-actualization, the enterprises,
institutions and companies where human beings come together to produce results
will need to change dramatically or die.
The
"Conscious Organization" is not an end-state where every worker has
been certified "enlightened" and each and every element of the
company, or division or bureau, or agency, or institution is spotlessly cleaned
of any residual unconsciousness. The Conscious Organization,
is one which continually examines itself, committed to becoming as conscious as
it can. In other words, it has very low tolerance for unconsciousness. It
possesses the collective will to be vigilant, the collective commitment to
continuous evolution, and the collective courage to act.
Once
this Conscious Organization, or anyone involved with it, recognizes a quality,
procedure, or other element of its culture which is not conscious, a rallying
cry goes out and the organization's resources are marshaled toward
"cleaning up" that area and making it more conscious.
For
example, a secretary overhears a direct marketing person talking to a potential
customer on the phone and hears the salesperson say something that is not
totally accurate. It might be a benefit the company offered but no longer does,
or it might be a mis-interpretation of a product
feature. It need not be a conscious attempt to deceive but the result, intended
or otherwise, is that the salesperson is over-promising benefits to the
customer.
It
is the responsibility of that secretary to call attention to this mis-information which could be an isolated incident of
misunderstanding. The root cause for such an overstatement might run deeper
and, therefore, require an examination into the firm's hiring and training
policies, and selection criteria for new employees. Pressure
for performance or quotas which may also contribute to sales people co-opting
their values.
What
I mean by "consciousness" is becoming aware of something and then
acting responsibly in light of the new awareness. The discovery or new
awareness is likely to generate a number of reactions which should be allowed
to surface. If the new awareness is about something "bad" or
"wrong," guilt, shame, anger, and other emotions may come up. A
tendency to find fault, blame, accuse, or defend oneself or the organization
may materialize. But avoiding discovery eliminates any chance of becoming
conscious – individually or organizationally. Feeling the initial emotions
about these new discoveries is essential.
Another
key part of this process is to forgive yourself, the
people involved, and the organization for being unaware of this problem. Even
if there was some awareness of wrong-doing, it is important to recognize it and
forgive.
Forgiveness
is not a characteristic we normally associate with organizational life, but
failing to forgive ourselves and our co-workers keeps blame and guilt
"locked in" the culture, hidden among all the relationships within
the company. Once awareness has been brought to the conscious level, we've watched
and felt our emotional reactions, and forgiven whomever we need to forgive,
what's next?
Now
it's time to do something - to begin correcting. To jump to action immediately
after discovering something "bad" subverts the process I just
described with all its long-term benefits. Now that emotions have been
experienced and forgiveness has happened, it's time to responsibly act.
What
does "responsibly" mean? It means engaging in a process of discovery
and response as if you've seen something for the very first time. Response is a
root of "responsibility," or the ability to respond. Reacting
prematurely, like rushing to action as soon as the "bad" behavior is
discovered, is often not really responsible. Responsibility includes thought,
choice, comparison to one's values, and gaining consensus among the parties.
Being "able to respond" with full awareness is not accomplished when
we merely react to an undesired condition.
Examples
of less-responsible reactions might include the immediate firing of a salesperson
when it is learned that a "lie" had been told, hiring a diversity
consultant as soon as some prejudice was discovered, or issuing a righteously
indignant warning to all staff that the "bad" behavior "will not
be tolerated." These reactions may not be coming from a place of awareness
and choice. They might be coming from a place of protecting an image – either
an individual's or the organization's; they might also be a righteously angry
reaction (not genuine anger but an intellectualized disguised version.)
Once
the process of becoming aware has run its course and a conscious correction is
underway, the organization's values and core ideologies need to be examined in
light of these ideals – whatever made the discovered behavior or attitude
"bad."
An
organization which holds honesty and integrity high on its list of core ideals,
might want to look beyond the mere "misinformation" given by the
salesperson and search for where and how this happened. They might question
whether or not it was an isolated incident or a mere symptom of a larger more
insidious "virus" in the core body of the company.
I
know from personal experience that a commitment to being conscious on a
personal level is a lifelong commitment. It means a constant vigilance or a
willingness to continuously examine one's life, one's values, and one's
relationship to oneself, others, and the universe.
Since
an organization is a collection of individuals who have come together for some
common purpose, it would seem to be a natural conclusion that an organizational
commitment to being conscious requires the same continuous exploration and
re-examination that is needed for personal transformation. Therefore, it seems
to me, a core ideal of a company wishing to be a Conscious Organization needs
to include this commitment to continuous re-examination throughout its life.
Since
the Conscious Organization is the opposite of a dysfunctional one, its desire
to explore any "shadows" that come to light is totally contrary to
the less-healthy company which serves as a refuge for co-dependent behaviors.
As many mental health professionals will tell you, a leading co-dependent
behavior is to keep secrets and avoid whistle-blowing on any matters that the
"conspiracy" wants to hide.
One
way to cure a dysfunctional system – be it a family or an organization – is an
intervention by people who won't buy into the "conspiracy of silence"
or who have felt enough pain and can't stand it anymore. Such interventions are
usually aimed at a person or persons or a small number of people within the
group. They often resemble a sort of tough-love "ambush" since the
targets for the intervention would probably avoid the circumstance if they were
aware of what was planned.
People
in a Conscious Organization would be open to learning about any unwanted
patterns and breaking through any barriers they may have. Having a conscious
and healthy relationship with their co-workers and the organization's mission
is of paramount importance, far more important than their need to maintain their
image, the illusion of control, or remain in denial about something that
violates their core values.
Can
you imagine an executive coming to the CEO and saying, "I think we need to
have a staff meeting and do an intervention on the budget committee?" In a
Conscious Organization, I can imagine this happening. People in a healthy
company want to see in the shadows; they don't want to perpetuate the darkness.
They're excited at the prospects of self-discovery, moving the team or
organization forward, and learning how to be more aware and more conscious.
"Ambushes"
are unnecessary in the Conscious Organization since the players want to learn
and grow. Therefore, opportunities to do this are welcome, not avoided. People
don't need to be tricked into being on the "hot seat." They are
eager, looking forward to it as a means to improve the team's effectiveness and
the organization's ability to perform.
The
Conscious Organization is one where the lights are always ready to shine
wherever darkness is found. And everybody knows that the process is valuable
and everyone takes responsibility for calling attention to it.
About the Author
John Renesch is a San Francisco
businessman-turned-futurist and a pioneer in the movement to bring about
organizational and social transformation. He offers keynotes and workshops in
systems thinking, leadership and large scale change. For more information about
his work, visit www.Renesch.com. His latest book is Getting to the Better Future: A Matter of Conscious Choosing.