Traslado al Perú de domicilio de una sociedad constituida en el extranjero

This axiom has significant implications for an organisation. If we revisit the Tony and Fred examples that we examined before, it is clear that it is in the Tony case that I am trying to control outcomes. We can therefore define control as that which we do to produce predictable outcomes.

The significant outcome being managed or controlled in an organisation is work, which presents itself to the organisation as some sort of an input, is processed and then delivered as an output. The first aspect of achieving control over the work is structure, to

produce the difference between the input and the output. This produces hierarchies, functions and budgets. Once the work is structured it needs to flow from beginning to end. Control is achieved over this flow through things like processes, procedures and policies, in short system.

Together the words system and structure equal organisation in the

technical sense of the word. The third axiom therefore implies an incremental dismantling of the organisation in two senses: Firstly, the structure of the organisation will flatten by increments over time.

Secondly, the systems will shorten by moving from being procedure- driven to being policy-driven over time.

In so far as empowerment is about an incremental suspension of control, it is as much a result of ‘not doing’ as it is ‘doing’. The leader does not do anything to the subordinate; he does things for the subordinate. He removes restrictive barriers. This may sound odd, but it is true for all growth. A gardener, for example, does not make an oak tree grow. The full genetic encodement of the tree is already encapsulated in the acorn. What the gardener does is create the conditions whereby the tree can rise out of the acorn. The gardener removes barriers to the tree’s growth. For example, if the tree’s growth is hindered through lack of water, the gardener provides the water.

It is useful for the gardener to have some idea of what the mature plant looks like, otherwise he would not be able to distinguish the weed from the plant he wishes to cultivate. He may pull out the wrong thing.

The implication for leadership is that you cannot enable people if you do not have an understanding of maturity. If the job of the big one in a relationship of power is to make the small one big, we have to differentiate between smallness and bigness so that we can create the conditions where the one state can be transmuted into the other.

Consider the difference between bigness and smallness in a set of binary opposites. Again, it is useful to draw on the differences between a parent and the child.

Of all of these distinctions, the difference between taking and giving is the most fundamental and most accurately sums up the distinction between big and small. Clearly, the process of maturation separates bigness and smallness. At the one extreme of this process is birth. At birth an infant has not had anything yet, which implies that whatever it is going to get it will still get. In other words, at birth the infant is here to get in the most unconditional sense of the word.

When you die, you take nothing with you. You leave as naked as the day you came in. You give it all unconditionally. It does occur to one, however, that possibly one does not give it all but that it all gets taken away from us when I die. It is useful here to consider the difference between giving something and having it taken from you.

Tony comes back from town with R100 in his pocket. As he gets home he reaches into his pocket and finds that it is no longer there. Someone stole his R100. Fred, on the other hand, comes back from town with a R100 in his pocket. As he walks up to his door his neighbour calls to him that he still has not found a job and that they

do not have food on the table. Out of the kindness of his heart Fred gives the neighbour the R100. Clearly, Fred gave and Tony was taken from. However, the difference between these two experiences does not sit in the R100, it sits in the intention of the person who is going through the experience.

If in these cases the loss of the R100, like death, was inevitable, it is clear that Fred’s experience is the successful experience. This means that by definition the process of maturation is the process of the maturation of intent to give unconditionally.

Let’s assume you want something from me – my shoes, for example. Clearly, I am wearing the shoes, so in this instance, in so far as control over something you want lies with me, I have power over you. If you want anything from anyone else, his or her capacity to withhold what you want makes you manipulable. You are weak and they are strong.

However, let us assume that you really want to give me something, and you really don’t care what you get back from me. You don’t even care whether I like what you are giving to me, so you’re not even interested in my good opinion of you. Can I manipulate you? Clearly not.

In so far as the shoes are important to you but nothing you can give me is significant to me, you are dependent on me and I am independent of you. You are bound by me and under my control, but I am free from you. Your weakness is based on what you want to get and your strength is based on what you are willing to put in unconditionally.

SMALL

BIG

Weak

Dependent

Taken care of

Ignorant

Frivolous

Unaccountable

Irresponsible

Controlled

Strong

Independent

Taking care

Wise

Serious

Accountable

Responsible

Trusted

TAKING

GIVING

This rule not only holds in pleasant things like relationships, it is also true in a street fight.

If you go into a fight concerned about what you may lose and attempting to preserve the more precious bits of your anatomy, you will probably get the hiding of your life. However, if you go into the fight thinking, ‘To hell with tomorrow. I’ll put in everything now, unconditionally’, you’ll probably give your opponent the hiding of his life. Once again, your weakness is based on what you want to keep, and your strength is based on what you are willing to give or lose.

If you get something from someone else, the thing that you are receiving moves from that person to you. When you give something to someone else, the thing that you are giving moves from you to him or her. Your hands symbolise your strength or capacity to act. You have no power over what is coming towards you; you only have power over what is leaving you. If you attend to what is leaving you, you become powerful. By attending to what you want to get, you become weaker and weaker, to the point where you are destroyed.

The difference between maturity and immaturity is the difference between being here to get something and being here to give something. We can therefore differentiate between two basic modes in which the will can function. The first we will call malevolent intention, which is what you have when you think that the world is here to serve you. The second is benevolent intention, which is what you have when you

understand that you are here to serve others.

It is the difference between thinking that the other is there to serve you, that it is a resource to be consumed in the pursuit of your own gratification, or that you are there to serve the other, that your station is a custodial one. This is why there is a necessary connection between bigness and responsibility, and smallness and irresponsibility. The one who gives has duties and is accountable. With the status of being accountable, the big one cannot afford to be careless. This implies

Other

Self

that bigness has a measure of gravity and seriousness.

The small one can afford to be frivolous because he is not accountable. When something goes wrong it has to be someone else’s fault because he is not responsible. He does not have duties; he has rights. It is exactly this kind of person that technocracy thrives on and seeks to cultivate. In fact, one of the most peculiar notions in technocratic ideology has to do with rights.

Let’s say for example, that I worked for Child Welfare and believed passionately in the rights of the child. If you asked me about these rights, I would very quickly rattle off a list as long as your arm, from food and clothing through education and healthcare. The question is, does the child have to do anything to get these things? Clearly not, because the right does not imply obligation. There is an Afrikaans expression that demonstrates this very well: ‘Dit wat jou toekom’ (‘that

which is coming to you, what you deserve’). If you do not get it then ‘they’ are withholding that which is coming to you.

Having a right cultivates the view that getting is both correct and predictable. If you do not receive, it is because some cad out there has literally withheld it from you.

The only thing that is both absolutely true and predictable is death. We spend our lives trying to dodge this matter. We construct illusions of accumulation, and plot out brilliant careers and all the things we are going to get. We forget that death is truly intelligent, because it has already worked out our golden path and is waiting for us! However, it is not somewhere over the hill in Never-Never-Land. Because your individual future is by its very nature opaque, it is always an arm’s length away. It is hidden like an elephant trap with sharp spikes on it. We amble down our paths, delighting in our accumulations, then, suddenly disappear into the hole. We are not permitted to take anything with us. We go out as naked as the day you came in. We have not been made to get or accumulate. We have been made to give, to expend ourselves to the point of exhaustion. Bigness means that you have understood this reality, that you have taken it to heart and that you live accordingly. To think differently is basically ignorant. Bigness is being here to give.

However, if I give you the pen to get something out of you tomorrow, I have not given – I have made an investment. Giving is only giving if it is to give away, if I have acted for a reason that is both

higher than and opposite to my immediate self-interest.

It is important to remember that giving does not require me to be nice, it requires me to be appropriate, and appropriate is very often not nice. Assume Vusi is at home and there is a knock on the door. He opens the door to find a very pale and thin eight year-old boy. The boy is clearly very hungry and he asks Vusi for a slice of bread. Giving in this case clearly means to give the child some food.

On the other hand, Piet is walking through the park and he stumbles on a thug beating a little old lady for her handbag. In this case giving means coming to her aid and beating the thug. This implies that giving is not about nice, it is about being appropriate, but that this appropriateness presents itself in two forms, namely generosity and courage. Vusi is generous and Piet is courageous. However, they are not the same in significance. Piet puts more at risk than Vusi does.

If I give generously, I am basically putting things on the line. I am

acting opposite to my immediate interest because I am having to act contrary to my fear of poverty. Contrast this with a courageous act. A child falls into a river and you jump in to save him, although you are a poor swimmer. You have put yourself on the line.

While generosity means acting contrary to the fear of poverty, courage means acting contrary to the fear of death. The price of courage is therefore infinitely higher than that of generosity. The hijacker knows this when he puts a gun to your head. Money or your life!

So our fourth axiom is:

AXIOM 4

Maturity means being here to give or acting with