The Journey to Wisdom

Complexity science might appear to have no relation to the organizational studies. Yet, it is at the core of today's network organization. An overview of the evolution of the organization might make this relationship more clear.

There are four forms of organization that underlie the governance and evolution of all societies across the ages (Ronfeldt, 2006):

- The tribal form: Beginning thousands of years ago, its main dynamic is kinship, which gives people a distinct sense of identity and belonging.

- The institutional form: Emphasizing hierarchy, it led to the development of the state and the military. Initial examples are the Roman Empire, the Catholic papacy and other corporate enterprises.

- The market form: It enables people to excel at openly competitive, free, and fair economic exchanges. Although present in ancient times, it did not gain sway until the 19th century, at first mainly in England.

- The network form: It serves to connect dispersed groups and individuals so that they may coordinate and act conjointly. Enabled by the digital information-technology revolution, this form is only now coming into its own, so far strengthening civil society more than other realms.

Each of the four forms embodies a distinctive set of structures, processes, beliefs, and dynamics about how society should be organized — about who gets to achieve what, why, and how. Each involves different codes and standards about how agents should treat each other. Each has both bright and dark sides, both strengths and weaknesses. And each can be gotten “right” or “wrong” in various ways, depending on circumstances.

As the complexity science suggests (although the system appears to be chaotic, over time a deep order is revealed), once a form is subscribed to by many agents, it becomes more than a mere form: It develops into a new realm, even a system, of thought and behavior. Each is a generator of order, because each defines a set of interactions that are attractive, powerful, and useful enough to create a distinct realm of activity (Ronfeldt, 2006). Each becomes the basis for a new governance system that is self-regulating. And each tends to foster a different kind of worldview, for each orients people differently toward social space, time, and action. What is deemed rational — how a “rational agent” should behave — is different for each form; no single “utility function” suits them all (Ronfeldt, 2006).

The main story is that human-beings advance by learning to use and combine all four forms, in a preferred progression. What ultimately matters is how these organziational forms are added and how well they function together. They are not substitutes for each other; they are complements. Historically, a society’s progress depends on its ability to use all four forms and combine them (and their realms) into a coherent, well-balanced, well-functioning whole.

For an organization to progress optimally, no single form should be allowed to dominate any other, and none should be suppressed or eliminated. An organization’s potential to function well at a given stage, and to evolve to a higher level of complexity, depends on its ability to integrate these inherently contradictory forms into a well-functioning whole.

Although the science of complex systems was initially applied to physical and biological systems, its application to human organizations has become more widely recognized.

Complex systems dynamically evolve over time and exhibit the properties of self organization, emergence, and co-evolution. Self-organization is the tendency of many systems to generate new structures and patterns over time on the basis of its own internal dynamics—order emerges from patterns of relationships among individuals.

When we use complexity science to view the problems and issues we face in every day life,our attention is focused differently than when we use other, more traditional mental models.

Complexity science provides the following practical suggestions:

■ The quality of the relationships among individuals is more than important than the quality of the individual agents. We are sensitive to the fact that relationships are nonlinear and dynamic, and therefore, often result in high levels of surprise and uncertainty.

■ We focus on the co-evolution of the system with the environment rather than how the system adapts to the environment.

■ We encourage diversity among individuals and leverage this diversity to foster learning and evolution instead of attempting to socialize it away or minimize its effect.

■ We recognize that the system is a social entity. We try to use the social relationships to foster sense-making, learning, improvisation, and other functions that require interaction.

■ We acknowledge that the system exists on a multidimensional fitness landscape and that the interactions among the dimensions will be an important factor in the system development over time.

■ We acknowledge that any one is a part of the system itself and not an external
observer or manipulator of the system.

In summary, there is a shift in our thinking away from single events or processes toward thinking in terms of patterns, interrelated processes, and relationships.

Both science and spirituality search for the truth, but use completely different tools and interpret their results on completely different grounds. As Albert Einstein (1940)said "Science without faith is lame, religion without science is blind." So, science (objectivity) and spirituality (subjectivity) are complementary to each other and we need both.

Science models empirical data: derives a model (hypothesis, theory) which
describes measurements and, if the model describes the data accurately, reliably and repeatedly, it is eventually accepted to be a (natural) law. If new measurements deviate from the current knowledge, the laws are changed/widened in order to correspond also to new measurements. Science limits itself with objective principles and admits only the rational mind, which is limited with symbolic representation. Science is interested in HOW the nature operates and is not concerned in WHY the universe exists and what is the purpose of life. Many scientists assume that the universe and the life appeared by chance and that there is no deeper purpose of existence.

On the other hand, spirituality is mainly concerned with the purpose of life. In all traditions, spiritual movements and all religions, from the east and the west, we can find the same basic issues:

² the purpose of life goes beyond the materialistic world;

² everything that exists is one, originates from the same source and serves the same purpose;

² the truth is undescribable and unreachable to logical mind, it is necessary that everyone tries to feel it by him or herself by subjective experience;

² the purpose of life is learning, the goal is to overcome the limitations of ego, to subjectively recognize the truth and to attain the wisdom;

² spiritual life is based on cultivation of spiritual virtues, such as unconditional love, compassion, faith, humility, patience, tolerance, simplicity, spontaneity, modesty, courage, sincerity, forgiveness etc.

Spirituality is necessarily subjective and uses intuitive mind, inner sense - heart.

Philosophy uses both science and spirituality, objective and subjective experience, in order to achieve the balance and harmony between rational and intuitive mind, between head and heart. True philosophy deals
with both questions, how the universe operates and why universe exists and what is the purpose of life. As Dalai Lama has stated: “We need education and the sense of moral ethics - these two have to go together.”

Although consciousness is often related to intelligence it has a deeper meaning and purpose; it is necessarily connected with ethics of life. Intelligence without heart is unconscious intelligence, able to demolish and destroy the environment

There is a vast number of potential religious concepts, beliefs, and practices. Is there something that religious concepts have in common that explains why they have been preserved and passed down to new generations?

Regarding the science of religion, most of the theoretical contributions have been made from the field of cognitive science. From cognitive science perspective, Boyer introduces the idea of a template that allows for quick development of more particular concepts. We have only a small number of templates such as person, animal, object. Boyer’s thesis regarding religious concepts is that they are anomalous, in that they add a special tag that violates one or a few characteristics contributed by the template. Some examples, a spirit violates the PERSON template by adding to it that it has no body. An omniscient God is created from the PERSON template with added special cognitive powers.

From among an infinite number of possible religious concepts, the ones we actually find in the world have survived and spread because they have this feature of minimal anomalousness. So, they are concepts that are easily formed by slight alteration of a template and they happen to be more memorable simply as a result of how the human mind or brain works.

In addition, we have inference systems that are turned on by different kinds of entities. These are sometimes called cognitive modules. To the extent, then, that religious concepts have enough in common with ordinary concepts, they set off these inference systems, and this makes some sets of beliefs about the relevant entities natural, and therefore likely to be understood, remembered, elaborated in specific ways, and passed on to others.

Boyer says that a typical assumption by and about religious believers is that belief in gods or spirits comes first, and then both religious practices and moral prescriptions follow. Boyer believes that morality and religious practices take priority, and both of these make religious belief more plausible.

Our evolution as a social species is sufficient to explain our shared morality. However, without an evolutionary explanation, humans through the ages have needed some other explanation (Boyer, 1998).

In terms of a science of religion, it can be said that as human brains have evolved to work in ways that suited us for survival in our early environments, religious concepts, belief systems, practices, and rituals are natural by-products of these cognitive processes.

Spiritual growth is a journey into a greater macrocosm. In its earlier stages, it is a journey of knowledge and not of faith. In order to escape the microcosm of our previous experiences we must learn. We must continually expand the realm of knowledge and our field of vision through the incorporation of new information.

To develop a broader vision we must be willing to forsake our narrower vision. The road of spiritual growth lies in distrusting what we already believe and questioning everything.

Self-realization is also related to spiritual growth. It might be referred to as the perception of the divinity and the perfection of the world (Bucke, 1998). Cosmic consciosness, 'I-thou' relationship, 'Being-cognition' are terms often associated with self-realization (Buber, 2003). It is also called as the perception of the miracolous. Miraculous does not necessarily refer to an extraordinary phenomena but also to the commonplace as long as enough attention is paid to it. It ıs a matter of paying close attention to what is ever-present. The true wonder lies in understanding that we are part of a finely balanced ecosystem in which individuation goes hand in hand interdependency. Perception of the miraculous is the subjective essence of self-realization from which one's highest experiences grow (Washburn, 2006).

A system is composed of parts, yet it cannot be understood by only looking at its parts. We need to work with the whole of a system, even as we work with individual parts or isolated problems. From a systems consciousness, we understand that no problem or behavior can be understood in isolation. We must account for dynamics operating in the whole system that display themselves at different times. Only then can we realize that what looked like chaos reveals inherent order or that paired electrons that refuse to act individually exhibit a wholeness.

As our traditional analytic skills narrow our field of awareness and prevent us from seeing the total system we move deeper into the details instead of comprehending the wholeness of the system. Yet, at the quantum level it does not help to analyze thıngs in more detail (Durr, 2007).

Philosophers and scientists described their own ways of understanding the wholeness for many centuries. As the German philosopher Heidegger states we need a 'dwelling consciousness' to understand the whole phenomenon. When we dwell with a problem we move quietly into our senses, away from our analytic skills. We look for images, words and patterns that surface and try to pick impressions and to notice how something feels.

The great German philosopher Goethe applied his genius to the problem of seeing the wholeness of nature. He tried to understand any phenomenon in terms of its relationship to other phenomenon. According to Goethe, we should move from interrogation to receptivity and be open to what is occuring. Only then can we allow ourselves to be influenced by a whole that we can't see. We can dwell with the phenomenon and feel how it makes itself known to us (Wheatley, 2007).

The mechanistic view promised us lives of continual progress. Since we were in control and engineering it all, we believe that we could pull ourselves straight uphill. But life doesn't work that way. No rebirth is possible without moving through a dark passage. Dark times are normal to life; there is nothing wrong with us when we periodically plunge into the abyss (Wheatley, 2006).

The journey to newness is filled with the black potholes of chaos. It might be terrifying when the world we so carefully held together dissolves. We don't like feeling lost and emptied of meaning. We would prefer an easier path to transformation. But even as we experience the demands as unreasonable we know we are in partnership with great creative forces. We know that chaos is a necessary place to dwell occasionally (Wheatley, 2006). So, we have learned to sit with these dark moments-confused, overwhelmed, only faintly trusting that new insight will appear. This might be the only route to new ways of being.

The more we contenmplate these times, when we truly are giving birth to a new world view, the more we realize that our culture is presently journeying through chaos. As the old ways are dissolving we must engage with one another differently, as explorers and discoverers. No single person or school of thought has the answer as what we need is far beyond isolated answers. We can turn to one another as our best hope for inventing and discovering the worlds we are seeking. Thanks to the proliferation of Web 2.0 technologies we can make this discovery collaboratively and much easier.

We can no longer wait expectantly for the right solution as we are each required to begin our individual journeys. We do need to be sharing what we find. From each other, we need to learn what is possible. Another's success encourages is to continue our own search for a fulfilled life.

Leaders need behavioural and cognitive complexity to be able to respond effectively to organisational needs.

Behavioural complexity identifies a person’s capacity to cope with “the interplay of a volatile, complex, and potentially ambiguous environment” (Satish, 1997).

Cognitive complexity is founded on the “number of dimensions used by individuals to perceive environmental stimuli”, and integration, “the complexity of rules used by individuals in organising the differentiated dimensions” (Wang & Chan, 1995). However, although these are necessary components of leadership they are not sufficient. One must also have the capacity to understand the categorical foundations of knowledge systems and the context in which this foundation derives its meaning, or “common sense”. To practice this acuity, a leader needs reflexivity and agency. Reflexivity is a capacity to transcend the here and now.

To be able to step outside these ideological structures requires considerable ability, an ability that we claim strongly characterises wise leadership. Malan and Kriger (1998: 246) acknowledge such a characteristic when they say that a major executive challenge is “to filter and interpret the noise from within their own organizations and determine the salient points on which to act”. So, leaders should filter the enormous amount of knowledge present in organisational discourse. Such knowledge may often be simply data and information, and all knowledge is ideologically invested in some way. Those uncomfortable with the notion of ideology would, nonetheless, accept the proposition that all knowledge makes sense only within an assumed episteme and the appropriate ontological structures that accompany it.

Rabinow (2005) explained discursive diachronicity in this way:

"from time to time, and always in time, new forms emerge that catalyze previously existing actors, things, temporalities, or spatialities into a new mode of existence, a new assemblage, one that makes things work in a different manner and produces and instantiates new capacities. A form/event makes many other things more or less suddenly conceivable".

Being sceptical of the “facts”, orthodoxy, and “common sense” and showing a fluid intelligence (Sternberg, 2007) are well-known aspects of wisdom. Wise people focus at the right level or aspect by choosing what “facts” are salient in a given situation. In other words, they “filter and interpret the noise from within their own organizations and determine the salient points on which to act”.

When it comes to leadership wisdom plays a crucial role, as well. The characteristics of wise leaders are (Rooney, McKenna, 2006):

- Wise leaders make careful observations to establish facts and logical deductive explanations. Rather than being misunderstood as anti-rationalist they utilize insight, imagination, and foresight that occur outside a consciously rational process of intersubjective verification.

- On the other hand, wise leaders also allow for non-rational and subjective elements when making decisions. They acknowledge the sensory and visceral as important components of decision-making and judgment. They have a capacity to think creatively and to acknowledge the potential worth of one's own instincts in making judgments.

- Wise people can grasp the meaning of “several, often contradictory signals and stimuli”, they interpret them holistically, and adapt their cognitions (e.g., schema).

- Wise leaders have a metaphysical, even spiritual, quality that does not bind them absolutely to the rules of reason thereby enabling vision, insight and foresight.

- Wise leaders respect and draw upon tradition as a form of personal insight enabling them to understand the contingency of life and the constructedness of phenomena, particularly their historical and spatial contexts.

- Given their cognitive complexity, wise leaders have a capacity to seek out and understand the “facts” of a situation and to deal with them rationally, but also to understand and question the ontological basis of these facts. As Eflin said "The greater an enquirer's ability to move fluidly between producing alternatives and evaluating them and to operate at both levels simultaneously, the better she will be at finding valuable discoveries.”

- - Because wise leaders are humane, they produce virtuous and tolerant decisions.
A wise leader displays long-term vision and virtue; having a proven commitment to long-term welfare not just of immediate stakeholders, but of humanity in general.

- Finally, a wise leader is articulate; having a proven capacity to reach people through word, affect, and action.

An astronomer asked his Master what time means. The Master said:"You would measure time the measureless and the immeasurable. You would adjust your conduct and even direct the course of your spirit according to hours and seasons. Of time you would make a stream upon whose bank you would sit and watch its flowing."

Yet, the timeless in you is aware of life's timelessness (Gibran, 2006). It knows that yesterday is but today's memory and tomorrow is today's dream (Gibran, 2006). Gibran says:

"That which sings and contemplates in you is still dwelling within the bounds of that first moment that scattered the stars into space. Each of us feels that very love, though boundless, encompassed within the center of his being and moving from love deeds to other love deeds. Like love, time is undivided and paceless. But in your thought you must measure time into seasons, let each circle encircle all the other seasons. And let to-day embrace the past with remembrance and the future with longing."

Giving is usually understood as giving of one's possesssions. Yet, true giving is giving of oneself.

There are those who give little of the much which they have- and they give it for recognition and their hidden desires makes their gifts unwholesome. And there are those who have little and give it all. These are the believers in life and teh bounty of life, and their coffer is never empty. There are also those who give with joy, and that joy is their reward. And there are those who give with pain, and that pain is their baptism.

Yet, there are still others who give and know not pain in giving, nor do they seek joy, nor give with mindfulness of virtue. It is through the hands of such as these that God smiles upon the earth.

It is well to give when asked, but it is better to give unasked, through understanding. To the open-handed the search for one who shall receive is joy gretaer than giving. Give now so that the season of giving may be yours!

We live in a time when the same concepts are appearing in various places. These concepts are our 'Zeitgeist'- a way of thinking that describes a generation or time period. Our Zeitgeist is a new awareness that we participate in a world of exquisite interconnectedness. We are learning to see systems rather than isolated parts and players. The web of interconnections that weave the world together can easily be seen. We are more aware that we live in relationship connected to everything else.

Everywhere in the new sciences, in living systems theory, quantum physics and complexity theory, we observe life's dependency on participation. All life participates in the creation of itself, insisting on the freedom to self-determine (Wheatley, 2007).All life participates actively with its environment in the process of co-adaptation and co-evolution. No sub-atomic particle exists independent of its participation with other particles. Even reality is evoked through acts of participation between us and what we choose to notice.

We see the world through who we are and use the 'self' to filter information and co-create new worlds. Yet, it is also important to note that in all life, the self is not a selfish individual. It includes awareness of those others it must relate to as part of the system. Self-reference explains how life creates order without control and stable identities that are open to change (Wheatley, 2008). As we abondon the machine imagery of the past, self-reference calls to us as the richest teacher for how to be together in ways that support life.