Textos intercalados e intrusiones

For the relationships to be nourishing, there needs to be coherence within and across multiple levels of system. Coherence as discussed in this section is considered a fundamental property of emergent corporate sustainability. The integral quadrants model and its application to the Cassandra model will be presented and used to conceptualise the firm and corporate

sustainability in a more holistic manner. The Cassandra model will be explored as a means of assessing the level of coherence in an organisation.

Whilst there has been a tendency for firms to apply mechanistic metaphors such as

“alignment” to centralised hierarchical control, “distributed, decentralised control makes a system more flexible, and therefore increases its survivability” (Cilliers, 1998, p. 111). From this perspective, over-reliance on autocratic management results in the degeneration of a system where central control is rigidly applied (Cilliers, 1998). Coherence is a more useful construct as it describes the dynamic process of interaction between agents, which makes emergence in complex transdisciplinary contexts more likely. Emergence requires novelty but also coherence in structures, patterns and properties of the complex adaptive system (Goldstein, 1999). These structures, patterns and properties arise through the interaction of many agents across the system (Goldstein, 1999; Stacey, 2010).

Coherence was first applied to the conceptualisation of human action geared towards common aims by Bohm (1996), who borrowed the term from physics where lasers exhibit coherence between photons. Coherence in physics describes the extent to which there is synchronisation or coupling between different oscillating systems, that when operating at the same frequency can become phase- or frequency-locked (McCraty, 2015). Similarly, Arecchi (2010) applies the

ideas of laser coherence to develop a model of neuron synchronisation leading to coherent perceptions.

Coherence is defined as “the degree of order, harmony, and stability in various rhythmic activities, which reflects the regulation of interconnected biological, social, and environmental networks” (McCraty, 2017, p. 2). Coherence is “long range order in space or time” (Arecchi, 2008, p. 157) and can occur in different forms. Auto-coherence occurs when activity within a single system is coherent. “When coherence is increased in a system that is coupled to other systems, it can pull the other system into increased synchronisation and more efficient

function” (McCraty, 2015, p. 24). Coherence will now be explored at multiple levels of system, displayed in Table 2.5.

Level of coherence

Description

Physiological Entrained multiple oscillating systems such as when respiration and heart rhythms operate on the same frequency (McCraty, 2015)

Neuronal coherence which measures the interconnectedness of brain regions (Waldman, Balthazard, & Peterson, 2011)

Cognitive Interaction and synchronisation between external stimuli and sematic memory (Arecchi, 2008)

Social Collective cohesion and action (McCraty & Shaffer, 2015) Sensemaking process when confronted with novelty (Lissack &

Letiche, 2002)

Freedom for team members to self-organise whilst maintaining cohesion and strategic resonance (McCraty, 2015, p. 28)

Organisation Global coherence amongst synchronised subsystems (McCraty &

Shaffer, 2015)

Co-evolution of integral quadrants (Edwards, 2010)

Outcome of resilience in systems (Lissack & Letiche, 2002; McCraty, 2015)

Narrative infrastructure which facilitates meaning making (Schulschenk, 2018)

Table 2.5: Level of coherence

Coherence can be explored across multiple levels of system. Coherence can also be understood at the level of interacting physiological systems. Cross-coherence occurs when multiple oscillating systems become entrained, such as in physiology, when respiration and heart rhythms operate on the same frequency (McCraty, 2015). This is known as heart or cardiac coherence. Cardiac coherence has been shown to be associated with positive emotions and optimal performance. It is measured by heart rate variability analysis where the heart rhythm becomes sine wave-like at around 0.1 hertz (McCraty, 2015).

At a cognitive level, neuronal coherence in the brain is a “way of measuring the

interconnectedness of areas of the brain” (Waldman et al., 2011, p. 62). The interaction between external stimuli (bottom-up signals) and the use of semantic memory (top-down use of control parameters) creates synchronisation which is an indication of conscious perception (Arecchi, 2008). Coherence was used in previous research as a proxy for consciousness (Baets, Oldenboom, & Sewchurran, 2016; Naidu, 2011). “Complexity arises whenever an array of coupled dynamical systems displays multiple paths of coherence. Creativity corresponds to the selection of a coherent path within a complex nest” (Arecchi, 2008, p. 157).

Social coherence describes a relational level which enables collective cohesion and action, where “social coherence is reflected as a stable, harmonious alignment of relationships that allow for the efficient flow and utilisation of energy and communication required for optimal collective cohesion and action” (McCraty, 2015, p. 28). The use of coherence at a social level can be described as a sense-making process with “missing links at hand when confronted with something new” (Lissack & Letiche, 2002, p. 76), and involves a creative act in choosing

between multiple paths of coherence (Arecchi, 2008).

The use of coherence at a social level has been criticised as an example of theorising from physical metaphors that results in the erosion of agency, and for negating the important role of

however, does not imply the absence of incoherence or agency, as McCraty (2015, p. 25) points out: “coherence does not mean everyone or all parts of a system are doing the same thing simultaneously”.

Organisational coherence involves global coherence amongst synchronised subsystems, and is an outcome of the resilience of the system (Lissack & Letiche, 2002; McCraty, 2015).

Organisational coherence includes, but goes beyond, social coherence, which describes a relational level that enables collective cohesion and action (McCraty & Shaffer, 2015).

Operationalised at the level of team, coherence is “freedom for the individual members to do their part and thrive whilst maintaining cohesion and resonance within the group’s intent and goals” (McCraty, 2015, p. 28).

When addressing coherence in corporate sustainability, we must conceptualise it at the level of the organisation. The integral quadrants model (Wilber, 2001), displayed in Figure 2.9, is useful in this regard as it facilitates a holistic conceptualisation of a firm, allowing us to perceive the extent to which interactions between agents, system and environment are nourishing (Bender

& Judith, 2015). The model consists of two dichotomies, namely exterior-interior and

individual-collective, which together create four quadrants. The upper left quadrant describes individual-interiors. This is the subjective “I” associated with the perceptions, emotions and worldviews of agents in the system. The upper right quadrant describes individual-exteriors.

This is the objective “it” associated with objective aspects. For example, the subjective experience of a certain state of mind or consciousness in the upper left quadrant shows up in the upper right quadrant as neural networks which can be seen on an fMRI scan, or in the manifest behaviour of the agent. The lower right quadrant describes collective-exteriors. These are the interobjective “its” associated with social aspects of the collective such as systems, structures and exterior aspects of the environment. The lower left quadrant describes collective-interiors. This is the intrasubjective “we” of relationship and culture.

Figure 2.9: Integral quadrants Source: Adapted from Wilber (2001, p. 71)

Coherence has been implemented at an organisational level using Wilber’s (2001) integral quadrants model, in which sustainability requires “balanced, long-term ‘coevolution’ of these four quadrants” (Edwards, 2010, p. 176). Organisational coherence must be conceptualised in a way that allows us to “consider multiple and incommensurable logics to be an essential

ingredient of social realities” (Krippendorff, 1999, p. 8).

Baets and Oldenboom (2009, 2013) developed a holistic model and assessment of a firm, the Cassandra model, through implementation of Wilber’s (2001) integral quadrants model. The model assumes Wilber’s integral quadrants as the developmental domain by advocating that both individuals and organisations are assessed and developed across all domains. Baets and Oldenboom (2013) emphasise the importance of moving beyond a mechanistic approach which traditionally focused on exterior domains towards holistic development across all domains, as displayed in Figure 2.10.

This approach can be classified as an integral Q approach (Cacioppe & Edwards, 2005) in that it integrates and situates distinct theories and models from different domains, but doesn’t emphasise levels of development. The full All Quadrants All Levels model (AQAL) integrates

approach is advantageous when operationalising coherence as it focuses on emergent processes across all organisational domains that represent an array of coupled dynamical systems out of which arise multiple paths of coherence that can be selected (Arecchi, 2008).

Coherence thus represents an emergent potential to increase synchronisation and efficient functioning between coupled systems (McCraty, 2015).

Figure 2.10: Cassandra axes

Source: Adapted from Baets and Oldenboom (2009, p. 146)

Sustainability has traditionally been seen to require that “the firm has a symbiotic, co-evolving relationship with the greater society and ecosystem” (Stead & Stead, 2004, p. 73). However, Wilber (2000, p. 183) suggests that “it is not enough to say that organism and environment co-evolve; it is not enough to say that culture and consciousness co-evolve. All four of those

‘tetra-evolve’ together”. This tetra-evolution involves synchronisation between coupled systems which can be operationalised by considering levels of coherence between the Cassandra model axes. Baets and Oldenboom (2009, pp. 143–144) follow this approach, indicating that “sustainability, sustainable development, sustainable performance, and

Within classic managerial approaches, other than for personal (or corporate) ethical motivation, there is no reason or space for a company to be responsible or sustainable”. Thus

tetra-evolution is fundamental to emergent corporate sustainability.

Baets and Oldenboom (2013) have operationalised the integral quadrants model at an

organisational level, advocating a holistic approach to management involving the interweaving of all four integral quadrants towards sustainable performance. Each domain has two axes which describe the domain and allow for the assessment of a firm. The Cassandra domains are described in Table 2.6.

Cassandra domain

Description of domain

Values The values domain is in the interior-collective integral quadrant and contains the diversity and complexity axes. “A systemic view on the company starts with a thorough reflection on values” (Baets & Oldenboom, 2013, p. 133).

Values are activated through networks of diverse agents where these networks have developed the capacity to operate in complexity.

Personal development

The personal development domain is in the individual-interior quadrant and contains the personal wellbeing and leadership and teamwork axes. This domain acknowledges the link between the level of satisfaction and

engagement in the workplace and the level of contribution to the company (Baets & Oldenboom, 2009).

Mechanistic performance

The mechanistic performance domain is in the individual-exterior quadrant and contains the financial performance and innovation potential axes.

Financial considerations are considered relative to peer group, and sustaining performance over the longer term requires the capacity for innovation (Baets & Oldenboom, 2009).

Systemic performance

The systemic performance domain is in the collective-exterior quadrant and contains the sustainable development and social responsibility and

knowledge and learning axes. This is a systemic view of the company which combines a focus on sustainability management with the adaptive process of learning and knowledge management (Baets & Oldenboom, 2009).

Table 2.6: Cassandra domains

The Cassandra model, being integrally informed, provides a means to holistically conceptualise and assess an organisation. It also provides a means whereby the level of coherence can be determined.