October 17, 2006
In the Beginning...
It seems looking into the past can give us some perspective on the future. I guess I might be writing this more for myself than for others. Anyway, might as well get some of the facts and figures out of the way. Born in London, Ontario, Canada, November 4, 1963 (6 weeks premature) to British parents (dad: English, mom: Welsh). Age: 42 (now, not then). Nearly did not make it, etc.
With parents and younger sister in the Anglican mission field (Father was/is ordained Anglican/Episcopal Priest) in Mexico and Central America until about 4 years old. Came to the US (Los Angeles), moved to Indiana (God only knows why). Lived in Indiana from about 6 years old to 15 years old. Moved quite a bit until I was in my 20s. Moved to Santa Clara while in high school. I have been in SF Bay Area ever since (Santa Clara, San Jose, and then Napa, CA since 2001).
When we moved to Santa Clara, I ended up going to all boy Bellarmine Prep (High School) in San Jose from 10th to 12th grade (1982). I went to Santa Clara University (where my father taught) -- While I was not very thrilled with Bellarmine, both Bellarmine and SCU were outstanding Jesuit schools. While I started at SCU to get a Computer Science degree, I ended up getting a BA in History degree with a lot of computer science courses (1986). After a few years, I ended up going to San Jose State University (1988) for my MS in Cybernetic Systems (1992) (ironically from the Anthropology and Cybernetic Systems department). About 2 years later, I started a Ph.D. at University of Hull in the UK while living in Napa. In retrospect, maybe not the brightest thing I ever did. I defended in November of 1997, and graduated February of 1998 from the University of Lincolnshire and Humberside. Lincoln School of Management for short. My PhD was essentially in Systems Thinking and Human Values.
I got married in September of 1986 (for an update on this, see here). Worked in the tech industry in various roles for a long while (largely until I started on the PhD). Some of the places were: Olivetti ATC, Sun Microsystems, Frame Technology, Verity, Autodesk, IDG (technology writer). I was also starting to do a little OD (organizational development) and that eventually led to me doing the doctorate. My father is an expert in human values, and I worked with him at various times over the years. In 1994, we started Values Technology which has been seriously up and down over the last twelve years (I am not currently working for VT). Since I was technology savvy, and a growing expert in the area of values, I consulted and also steered the technology development. When I was not working on the technology I designed large scale interventions for values-based OD. The last time I left I was considered chief architect (bridging technology and values). I still advise my dad and company. Other than this stuff, I have taught at the post graduate level -- mostly in the area of leadership development.
Systems thinking and values, two areas, that other than history and technology, have fascinated me. I might add document analysis, but that really is an offshoot of the others. Since high school I had been fascinated by the ways in which values and meaning could be pulled from documents. Metaxio is a current attempt to make this more accessible to others.
In 1999 and 2001, my wife and I had a boy and twin girls -- as with most fathers, they are my pride and joy.
Well, that is probably enough for this entry. It sets up the entries to follow ;-). I am hoping there is a point to all of this!
Tags: martin, doc, docmartin, life, values, systems, systems thinking, history, tech, technology
Posted by mlwhall at 8:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 7, 2006
'House' of Meaning
I swear that I usually do not watch that much TV and more importantly, I do not tend to get heavy messages from them. However, I was just watching the season premiere of the TV show, House. The title of this episode was 'Meaning'. I guess the backdrop was how we often get meaning where we want to. Other than being a big part of my professional background (values and meaning), it seems to be a big part of what I am trying to figure out for myself. Many things that I have taken for granted, and assumed that at some level to be a foundation or rock. This foundation, and other stuff is moving -- one might say that it is moving far out of my comfort zone. I find that while a number of my values have stayed the same, that I allowed myself to ignore them. I have gotten to a place where I am not entirely trusting what is important and what is not.
My search for meaning seems to be centered on faith, risk and vision. I have many other values that are part of me, but these seem to be swirling around me at the moment. Belief and philosophy are part of this also. I am not sure where all this is going to land me, but I feel the need to express some of these ideas. I have had many ideas and issues (particularly unresolved ones) on my plate. It is through discernment and striving for some clarity, that I hope to get this. As I said before, I might not be totally making sense, but as I get things out, I hope it will become a little more clear.
Tags: house, fox, philosophy, risk, faith, vision, meaning, belief
Posted by mlwhall at 11:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 25, 2005
Colleges and "American" Values
Posted by mlwhall at 10:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 9, 2005
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
Posted by mlwhall at 4:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 14, 2005
Values of Progress
Posted by mlwhall at 11:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 22, 2005
Iran
Reading the beginning of an interesting article in the SF Chronicle about Sean Penn and some colleagues spending a few days in Iraq.
Posted by mlwhall at 2:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Iraq and Constitution
Now that Iraq is transitioning to their constitution. They are going to need as much help as possible. When you think about it, the American constitution was a tough enough thing to agree on and pull together, with the help of some very bright people in a simpler time. When you consider the factions, etc. It is amzing that they have made it this far. Especially since you have to figure that the U.S. has been keeping itself busy "advising". The thought of all this boggles the mind!
Posted by mlwhall at 1:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 27, 2005
Possible Application of Values with Leadership
The development of human consciousness requires that the minimum elements of survival and self worth to be met. If these are not met then engaging in even the most basic human interaction is difficult if not impossible. Decision making, let alone informed values-based decision making, is primitive at best. How can you be in a position to demand a minimum of change for the better if you do not have a good sense of self.This is a minimum requirement for learning! In order for the student to engage in comprehensive, values-based decision making, requires that the lower stages be met. What would it take to create an environment that was not just desired by most but a moral requirement. What we are talking about is installing a world-wide, educational meaning system. Some places it may be easier than others. But it can be done. Sustainable change takes time. Values-based decision making is worth it.
For this, we need to look at the development of the human being. The levels of consciousness of the human being are going to get mirrored in the way weorganize.The decision making is usually going to be done in the context of a group of some type. Both in the educational institution, as well as any other social grouping the student may encounter.In some ways, we need to imagine what does the basic sustainable human being look like, what is the meaning system that puts this person in the best place for accessing their potential for fulfillment.
From Survival to Self Worth to (Being) Self
Being is about arriving at a place where a person has the best understanding of how to actualize their own personal fulfillment. Developmentally, this not an easy place to get to. However, there are basic components that must be in place before we can even think about this. A totally evolved planetary consciousness would have all the people in the world with the potential of getting access to their own being. But we are still talking about baby steps, in an educational setting this can likely be accelerated.
The cornerstones of this journey are Survival, Self Worth and Being (Self). One cannot hope to progress as a human being if one cannot get basic needs met. But one cannot progress if they do not feel that I am worthy of something better. It is these two items (survival and self worth) that must be part of the foundation values-based decision making.
Creation of a comprehensive educational deployment requires that we build up the self worth of the individual. They must feel that they are worthy of the respect of being provided. This is easier said than done. Self worth is often expressed culturally. Therefore, their needs to be a common framework for establishing self worth but it should take into account the issues in a given culture.
Awareness is also important. If I know what is going on around me, I can make informed decisions. If I know how friends and peers feel, I will likely not feel alone.
Leadership and Accountability (Mutual)
Awareness is important for the person. But awareness is also about being explicit. When things are no longer hidden, when they are explicit, it is harder for those in power to ignore the needs of the many. Being explicit about the needs and desire of the populace is an important way for leaders to be held accountable. Their actions are measured against the wishes of the people and culture. Leadership without accountability creates a misuse of power. This brings values-based decision making to the forefront. The global consciousness needs to create a leadership environment that focuses on leadership and not on management. There are plenty of people that that are good at deployment. However, creating an effective, and yet collaborative leadership environment is needed and imperative. Telling others in the world what to do will not work, but creating the environment where the vision can be accomplished is imperative. Leadership and decision making go hand in hand.
This awareness also creates a framework of systemic ethics. When intervening to create a new consciousness, the development of this system needs to provide for the needs of the whole. Awareness is essential to this.
From Clan to Global-State
Throughout history, man has had a tendency to create relationships in order to get more and more complicated things done. One started with the family or the clan (or in more modern terms a team or group). Man had to learn how to best organize this to accomplish goals such as killing a mastodon. As these tribes grew, and people became more specialized, cities and towns developed. Each time these occurred, it took time for the man to adapt and work these relationships. These groups would also get a sense of self. A sense of ownership of and for the group. You progressed to the city-state and then to the nation-state. The sense of self at the level of the nation-state is what we call patriotism. It is good for creating a sense of group-self but it can create differences with other such groups. Andconflict and war can arise from this. Using a values approach as students move into the world is imperative.
Educational institutions would find the possibilities expansive, as well as the research that could be done and shared inter-institutionally that would give invaluable knowledge of values-development globally.
Posted by mlwhall at 9:34 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 9, 2005
Leadership Tools
Leadership Tools looks like a interesting web site. I am just starting to checking it out.
Posted by mlwhall at 7:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 18, 2005
Knowledge = Values Context + Information
Knowledge = Values Context + Information. Knowledge is about getting information in context. Values are another way to give context to information. When one can get information based on specific and relevant context, the information becomes meaningful and is consequently more than information. It is knowledge.
It is about creating a meta-taxonomy for describing people and knowledge on the Internet. Values are in every human behavior and transaction. Values also give context to all human decisions. Understanding the decision making that drives transactions gives context for understanding behavior and knowledge creation.
Posted by mlwhall at 9:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 4, 2005
Foundation or Future, War and Peace: Why Current Peace Initiatives are Likely to Fail
Minessence & Systems, Values & Organizations
I have been slow in coming to the realization that the current peace process has a fundamental flaw. Rather than trying to create a unified vision of peace, we end up fighting the idea of war (Iraq, etc) on its terms not ours. The vision for peace is seen only as the absence of war. Peace needs to be a viable alternative. It also must look at practical ways of dealing with the issues that war is now being used to solve.All too often a viable alternative is not proposed that looks at root causes and motivations. The leadership environment that allows for a strong vision of peace takes time to put into action, however it must start with an articulate and actionable vision that the common person can understand. Essentially, we are talking about an expanded and comprehensive New Deal for a global stage.
War is a foundational response to a problem. It comes out of the notion that we are forced to violence as a way of defending and/or protecting ourselves or our interests. A link to the concept of freedom is as close as war gets to a vision. The concept of peace is an energizing notion for most people. We are energized by things, values, ideals, beliefs that give us hope.
The lack of a unified vision simply allows us to become fractured and unclear in our message. We then end up simply trying to displace war by attacking the foundational elements of life. Since we are not linked in a single notion, we give several messages that can often times give mixed messages. (My Son is over there, War is bad., Anything but war., Blood for Oil., etc.) This is then contrasted by the singular message as communicated by those that advocate war they are a threat, we must remove the threat.Most of the reasons to not going to war are valid, but they must be part of a unified vision and message that includes these ideals. We must prevent war by creating a global leadership environment that deals with potentially conflicting issues before war surfaces as a solution.
I do not want to be so bold as to suggest that I have the vision for peace but I think there are some complementary notions. The strongest of these, I believe is sustainability.
Sustainability
· Human dignity
· Basic necessities
· Economic fairness
· Sovereignty
A very actionable plan can rise out values such as those above. A vision with sustainabiltiy as a theme, if defined and promoted properly, covers all the phases of consciousness and human development. What this creates is a vision that people can connect into no matter what stage of live they are in, from single mother to Geroge Soros (progressive global philanthropist). A vision that covers this spectrum creates energy toward a viable vision, and it engages everyone. War, on the otherhand, is speaking to our foundation, so all can understand it, however, it is not promoting a vision (except maybe freedom). However, the means of getting or protecting this freedom is ultimately short-lived.
Here is one value-based or cultural cluster that can be used in promoting sustainability. From basic needs to becoming the best that I can be, and empowering others to do the same.
Security/Basic Needs --> Self Worth --> Self Actualization --> Being Self --> Global Human Dignity
This works in Afghanistan, Iraq , Tsunami-ravaged countries and in the U.S. It allows a person, group, tribe, nation or world to connect to the vision from where ever they are. People cannot expect to dislike and throw out a dictator if they do not have a basic idea of self worth (I am worthy of something better).
Foundation is about Focusing on Basic Needs, Vision must be the way that we energize ourselves and the world. And the Focus is the most effective way to get the work done.
The complete vision can be simple, but the deployment will be tough. Create a vision that is obtainable but also allows for a currently hostile environment.
Harnessing the Evolution of a Global Consciousness
The more that people organize in groups, the more that we have to find new ways to do things. The explosion of travel and world-wide information access is creating a world where the bounds of nations are becoming increasingly murky. While the potential for human development is great, it also creates a tension as nations try to understand what it is to survive in the future. While the gains for humanity could be incredible, turf wars are one of the dangerous components that we need to wrestle with.Our future needs to be adaptable and flexible while maintaining a common vision.
We also need to realize that achieving a globalConsciousness is something that does not happen overnight. We need to think far into the future and try to put into place meaningful steps that can take us along this path. At best we can hope to be a guide. If we complete some baby steps, we might actually make a difference.
Creating Global Sustainability
A majority of the world's population does not have the minimum amount of food to eat. One of the imperative steps is that a majority of the planet musthave the basic needs for survival met. While this maybe quick, we must do this with in twogenerations. This is a tall order but one that really needs to be done if we are to have any hope of seeing ourselves as one planet rather than several nation-states.
The development of human consciousness requires that the minimum elements of survival be met. If these are not met then engaging in even the most basic human interaction is difficult if not impossible. How can you be in a position to demand a minimum of change for the better if you are constantly struggling just to stay alive. Assuming for the moment that we have the capability and the capacity to deliver food, warmth and shelter to those that want and require all over the globe? What would it take to create an environment where this was not just desired by most but a moral requirement. What we are talking about is installing a world-wide meaning system. With subtle, yet conscious shifts in global cultural priorities, this can be achieved. Some places it may be easier than others. But it can be done. Sustainable change takes time.
For this, we need to look at the development of the human being, the group and the planet. And in that order. The levels of consciousness of the human being are going to get mirrored in the way we organize to how we operate as a planet. In some ways, we need to imagine what does the basic sustainable human being look like, what is the meaning system that puts this person in the best place for accessing their potential for fulfillment.
From Survival to Self Worth to (Being) Self
Being is about arriving at a place where a person has the best understanding of how to actualize their own personal fulfillment. Developmentally, this not an easy place to get to. However, there are basic components that must be in place before we can even think about this. A totally evolved planetary consciousnesswould have all the people in the world with the potential of getting access to their own being. But we are still talking about baby steps.
The cornerstones of this journey are Survival, Self Worth and Being (Self). I cannot hope to progress as a human being if I am not getting my basic needs met. But I also cannot progress if I do not feel that I am worthy of this food, or of a better life. This istrue of a starving child in Ethiopia as it is to the drug addict on the streets of New York. It is these two items (survival and self worth) that must be part of the foundation of this planetary consciousness. In human terms, the planet is not meeting its basic needs so there is arrested development.
Creation of a planetary consciousness requires that we build up the self worth of the individual. They must feel that they are worthy of the respect of being provided with basic human necessities. This is easier said than done. Self worth is often expressed culturally. Therefore, their needs to be a common framework for establishing self worth but it should take into account the issues in a given culture.
Awareness is also important. If I know what is going on around me, I can make informed decisions. If I know how friends and peers feel, I will likely not feel alone.
Leadership and Accountability (Mutual)
Awareness is important for the person. But awareness is also about being explicit. When things are no longer hidden, when they are explicit,it is harder for those in power to ignore the needs of the many. Being explicit about the needs and desire of the populace is an important way for leaders to be held accountable. Their actions are measured against the wishes of the people and culture. Leadership without accountability creates a misuse of power. The global consciousness needs to create a leadership environment that focuses on leadership and not on management. There are plenty of people that that are good atdeployment. However, creating an effective, and yet collaborative leadership environment is needed and imperative. Telling others in the world what to do will not work, but creating the environment where the vision can be accomplished is imperative.
This awareness also creates a framework of systemic ethics. When intervening to create new global consciousness, the development of this system needs to provide for the needs of the whole. Awareness is essential to this.
From Clan to Global-State
Throughout history, man has had a tendency to create relationships in order to get more and more complicated things done. One started with the family or the clan (or in more modern terms a team or group). Man had to learn how to best organize this to accomplish goals such as killing a mastodon. As these tribes grew, and people became more specialized, and citiesand towns developed. Each time these occurred, it took time for the man to adapt and work these relationships. These groups would also get a sense of self. A sense of ownership of and for the group. You progressed to the city-state and then to the nation-state. The sense of self at the level of the nation-state is what we call patriotism. It is good for creating a sense of group-self but it can create differences with other such groups. And conflict and war can arise from this.
The evolution to the global-state is going to be key to the development of an evolutionary consciousness. We need to think of ourselves as one planet, and not a planet divided into groups. We must move from Us vs. Them -- to We.
The global state needs to see itself as entity worthy of existing. To do this we need to evolve human development to the evolution and development of the whole. To the planet as the reflection of the holographic image of all its occupants.
Posted by mlwhall at 10:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 31, 2005
DNA, P2P, and Privacy
DNA, P2P, and Privacy
bLOGical: "DNA, P2P, and Privacy First published on the 'Networks, Economics, and Culture' mailing list For decades, the privacy debate has centered on questions about databases and database interoperability: How much information about you exists in the world' databases? How easily is it retrieved? How easily is it compared or combined with other information?
Databases have two key weaknesses that affect this debate. The first is that they deal badly with ambiguity, and generally have to issue a unique number, sometimes called a primary key, to every entity they store information on. The US Social Security number is a primary key that points to you, the 6-letter Passenger Name Record is a primary key that points to a particular airline booking, and so on.
This leads to the second weakness: since each database maintains its own set of primary keys, creating interoperability between different databases is difficult and expensive, and generally requires significant advance coordination. Privacy advocates have relied on these weaknesses in creating legal encumbrances to issuing and sharing primary keys. They believe, rightly, that widely shared primary keys pose a danger to privacy. (The recent case of Princeton using its high school applicants' Social Security numbers to log in to the Yale admittance database highlights these dangers.)
The current worst-case scenario is a single universal database in which all records -- federal, state, and local, public and private -- would be unified with a single set of primary keys. New technology brings new challenges however, and in the database world the new challenge is not a single unified database, but rather decentralized interoperability, interoperability brought about by a single universally used ID. The ID is DNA. The interoperability comes from the curious and unique advantages DNA has as a primary key. And the effect will put privacy advocates in a position analogous to that of the RIAA, forcing them to switch from fighting the creation of a single central database to fighting a decentralized and interoperable system of peer-to-peer information storage. DNA Markers.
While much of the privacy debate around DNA focuses on the ethics of predicting mental and physical fitness for job categories and insurance premiums, this is too narrow and too long-range a view. We don't even know yet how many genes there are in the human genome, so our ability to make really sophisticated medical predictions based on a person's genome is still some way off. However, long before that day arrives, DNA will provide a cheap way to link a database record with a particular person, in a way that is much harder to change or forge than anything we've ever seen.
Everyone has a biological primary key embedded in every cell of their body in the form of DNA, and everyone has characteristic zones of DNA that can be easily read and compared. These zones serve as markers, and they differ enough from individual to individual that with fewer than a dozen of them, a person can be positively identified out of the entire world's population. DNA-as-marker, in other words, is a nearly perfect primary key, as close as we can get to being unambiguous and unforgeable. If every person has a primary key that points to their physical being, then the debate about who gets to issue such a key are over, because the keys are issued every time someone is born, and re-issued every time a new cell is created. And if the keys already exist, then the technological argument is not about creating new keys, but about reading existing ones. The race is on among several biotech firms to be able to sequence a person's entire genome for $1000. The $1 DNA ID will be a side effect of this price drop, and it's coming soon. When the price of reading DNA markers drops below a dollar, it will be almost impossible to control who has access to reading a person's DNA.
There are few if any legal precedents that would prevent collection of this data, at least in the US. There are several large populations that do not enjoy constitutional protections of privacy, such as the armed services, prisoners, and children. Furthermore, most of the controls on private databases rely on the silo approach, where an organization can collect an almost unlimited amount of information about you, provided they abide by the relatively lax rules that govern sharing that information. Even these weak protections have been enough, however, to prevent the creation of a unified database, because the contents of two databases cannot be easily merged without some shared primary key, and shared primary keys require advance coordination. And it is here, in the area of interoperability, that DNA markers will have the greatest effect on privacy.
You're the Same You Everywhere Right now, things like alternate name spellings or alternate addresses make positive matching difficult across databases. Its hard to tell if Eric with the Wyoming driver's license and Shawn with the Florida arrest record are the same person, unless there is other information to tie them together. If two rows of two different databases are tied to the same DNA ID, however, they point to the same person, no matter what other material is contained in the databases, and no matter how it is organized or labeled. No more trying to figure out if Mr. Shuler and Mr. Schuller are the same person, no more wondering if two John Smiths are different people, no more trying to guess the gender of J. Lee. Identity collapses to the body, in a way that is far more effective than fingerprints, and far more easily compared across multiple databases than more heuristic measures like retinal scans.
In this model, the single universal database never gets created, not because privacy advocates prevent it, but because it is no longer needed. If primary keys are issued by nature, rather than by each database acting alone, then there is no more need for central databases or advance coordination, because the contents of any two DNA-holding databases can be merged on demand in something close to real time. Unlike the creation of a vast central database, even a virtual one, the change here can come about piecemeal, with only a few DNA-holding databases. A car dealer, say, could simply submit a DNA marker to a person's bank asking for a simple yes-or-no match before issuing a title. In the same way the mid-90s ID requirements for US domestic travel benefited the airlines because it kept people from transferring unused tickets to friends of family, we can expect businesses to like the way DNA ties transactions to a single customer identity.
The privacy debate tends to be conducted as a religious one, with the absolutists making the most noise. However, for a large number of people, privacy is a relative rather than an absolute good. The use of DNA as an ID will spread in part because people want it to, in the form of credit cards that cannot be used in other hands or cars that cannot be driven by other drivers. Likewise, demands that DNA IDs be derived from populations who do not enjoy constitutional protections, whether felons or children, will be hard to deflect as the cost of reading an individual's DNA falls dramatically, and as the public sees the effective use of DNA in things like rape and paternity cases. Peer-to-Peer Collation of Data In the same way Kazaa has obviated the need for central storage or coordination for the world's music, the use of DNA as an ID technology makes radically decentralized data integration possible. With the primary key problem solved, interoperability will arise as a side effect, neither mandated nor coordinated centrally. Fighting this will require different tactics, not least because it is a rear-guard action. The keys and the readers both exist, and the price and general availability of the technology all point to ubiquity and vanishingly low cost within a decade. This is a different kind of fight over privacy.
As the RIAA has discovered, fighting the growth of a decentralized and latent capability is much harder than fighting organizations that rely on central planning and significant resources, because there is no longer any one place to focus the efforts, and no longer any small list of organizations who can be targeted for preventive action. In a world where database interoperability moves from a difficult and costly goal to one that arises as a byproduct of the system, the important question for privacy advocates is how they will handle the change."
Posted by mlwhall at 4:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 25, 2005
Darwin, DNA, Chaos and Meaning
This and other thoughts from Martin Hall
We hear about values in values in many contexts and we will go into some historical contexts in the next chapter. However, we hear about values: family values, organizational values, societal values, religious, moral values, etc. But many times they are hard to understand because the context is not understood. Values are personal and but they also need to be accessible. They need to be meaningful. The challenge is create meaning for the individual while also providing meaning for others to understand and interact.
The closer that we can come to discussing personal values in a universal context the more effective it can be. Looking at values from the perspective of the pursuit of science can be effective at looking at values in a more universal, more accessible context. The more we can agree on what something means (even if we disagree on its importance) the better possibility that we will have better communication, better relationships and more meaningful organizations.
If we begin to understand values, and at least agree on the definitions of values, then we can measure. Measure values! Can you really do that! Well, in the proper context you can. We will go more into the idea of measurement later, but the idea of identifying something and being able to see if it changes is very important in the pursuit of science. While there are some areas such as axiology (Hartman, etc.) which are trying to turn values into a science, we are going to explore the strong contexts in a more metaphorical context. As you will see these contexts are very powerful in creating a language for the effectiveness of values in organizations.
While we will talk about Aristotle and others in a historical context later, it can be good in setting a context of how a Darwinian view of values is important to getting the proper context of how values play an ongoing and changing role in our lives and the organizations within which we work and interact. Aristotle may have had the first attempt to vocalize values concepts. He saw leaders as needing about half a dozen attributes for excellence. In many ways he was one of the first leadership development mentors. He was an advisor for Alexander the Great. His context was leadership development, but there were obviously other things that drove peoples' decisions at that time, such as simple survival. In the intervening years, there have been more values as the way in which we have interacted with the world has become more complex.
Values have evolved in a manner that might be consistent with Darwinian concepts of evolution. Think of the Cave man personal survival, family, relationships, power, etc. Moves to hunter/gatherer created need for stronger relationships. Communities came together to deal with the increasing need for specialization so that duties did not have to be duplicated and more could be provided....this is where the valuing process starts to get more diverse. As groups come together to achieve common but diverse objectives there is more needs or aspirations involved.
Aristotle voiced some of these. Likely there are things that were valued historically, that are not valued now. Or they have evolved into something that is more significant to our time. But as religion, philosophy, science, politics, exploration, economics all grew so did those things that people would value or aspire to.
We have evolved from the cave man to the six to twelve values of Aristotles day to what be considered a number well over 100 (we will cover this idea later). Not only the did the development of values frameworks develop, but there is process of evolution and survival of the fittest that comes out of how the individual and organization grow and maintain themselves.Lets look at Darwin for a moment. Before Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species (1859), he took a trip on The Beagle. It was here that he discovered many things that lead to his ideas and concepts such as the process of natural selection. In the Galápagos Islands, he found that similar creatures on different islands had developed differently apparently based on different environments even though they were only miles apart.
Values both for the individual and for the organization react the same way. We may be born into similar environments but a combination of our genetics and our environment shapes in very specific ways. We will be very much like those around us but we will also have things that drive us that are unique. We all have our own unique configuration. We are attracted to living and working with people with similar likes, dislikes and gifts. However, we are still unique and have our own contributions.
Organizational culture develops in the same way. Organizations are a lot like self-regenerating evolutionary organisms that evolve to meet new challenges or die off. If they have the requisite variety (Ashby) or diversity while maintaining a core they will continue to evolve and continue to be successful.
Organizations may start from the same environment such as the same marketplace but the internal code is different. There are different people in the different organizations. And while people from different organizations may come together for similar reasons, they are all a little different. It is dependent on this code or configuration that defines the culture. The minimal values that are in common give the basis for the culture, and it is the diversity and the clarity of purpose that give the organization capability for success. They still need to have good products and be competitive, but to do this they must evolve.
Posted by mlwhall at 7:10 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Chemistry as Metaphor
This core commonality is a kind of code. This code is similar to the configuration of chemicals and chemical reactions. Metaphorically speaking, chemistrys periodic table of elements is a way of looking at values systemically. All humans pull from the same table or list of values.
As human beings, we all have the potential for all values. Values could be seen as the descriptors for behavior, how we configure our values, gives us a key to understanding our own behavior and the behavior of others. People actually only operate on a subset of all values. It is our own personal configuration of these values that makes us unique and drives our behavior. And like chemical compounds, some values clusters are more compatible than with some other values clusters. But the wrong combinations of people and the results can be explosive. When the right combination of people come together the results can be exciting and effective.
Organizational alignment of values and culture is about finding the compatible compounds without making everyone the same.
Posted by mlwhall at 6:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Values as DNA for the individual and DNA for the organization
If we are to tie the concepts of chemical reaction and evolution together, genetics can be a strong communicator. Mendel, Bateson and Watson are among those that have been instrumental in our understanding of how a genetic code has a lot to do with how our genes or cellular make up behaves.
From a values context, we inherit from our biology and from our experiences a sense of valuing what we feel is important. This configuration or code is what makes us individual.If we are to think in an organizational context, Values are the DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) that codes the genes, humans are the cells, and teams are their manifestation as organs. These all need to come together to have an effective human being. If the DNA has defects it can disrupt the whole being, if the organs have problems it can threaten the viability of the organism. If the whole being is not held together and healthy it will not be able to meet the challenges that it has put before it. And while there may be similarities with other beings (organizations), there still is a sense of self that is different for all others. This is the same for the organization as it is for the individual.
Our relationships are the glue to this DNA. Relationships build human beings, teams, organizations, and marketplaces.
Posted by mlwhall at 6:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Big Picture, Personal Focus, Meaningful Environment
The Duality is probably best discussed as understanding the Big Picture but maintaining a connection to the personal focus. What Think Globally, Act Locally means to the ecological and peace movements, Big Picture, Personal Focus, Meaningful Environment means to the Effective Organization. This idea is not new. Senge (1990) touches on it in his seminal book, The Fifth Discipline.
Big Picture
Seeing the Big Picture is about seeing the world as collections elements with interrelated parts. It is essentially seeing groups of things and the relationships between them. The more technical term is systems thinking but it comes in many forms. In a quaint way, it is the specialization of generalization. Complexity and Chaos are just a few of the ideas that come under aegis of systems thinking. Much of western education focuses on specialization, systems thinking does not want to discard that but also wants to integrate some of the Renaissance notions of seeing the connections and patterns among different things such as science and art. It is about stepping back from the incredible volume that we process every day and distilling it down to its essence. Minessence is about mining the essence of complex ideas. This is what systems thinking is about. It is essential for understanding and harnessing the power of the organization and the environment in which it operates.
Personal Focus
There is really no such thing as an organizational value. It is really the manifestation of personal values in a larger context. Personal focus is about getting the individual to understand the role that values plays in their day-to-day life. As we understand our values, we get insights into out own behavior. It is only when we get this insight into our own behavior that we can effectively interact with others, and can begin to understand their behavior. The more I understand about being what I desire and can offer the more effective I can be as a team player. The team is the holograph of the organization in that it is where values are first applied in a social context. It is where personal focus must get applied in a group context.Values are about understanding relationships the more that we make our own values explicit, the more success we can have with our relationships. Organizations are really nothing more than a complex system of relationships.
Meaningful Environment
Meaningful environment is the team, group, organizational or cultural alignment by harnessing the Big Picture and the Personal Focus.
Posted by mlwhall at 6:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack