The TQM JournalCultural and ethical obstacles on the road to sustainable development in theglobalization eraTito Conti,

Article information:To cite this document:Tito Conti, (2017) "Cultural and ethical obstacles on the road to sustainable development inthe globalization era", The TQM Journal, Vol. 29 Issue: 6, pp.920-935, https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-01-2017-0009Permanent link to this document:https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-01-2017-0009

Downloaded on: 20 November 2017, At: 07:15 (PT)References: this document contains references to 23 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 136 times since 2017*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:(2017),"Service ecosystems, markets and business networks: What is the difference? A horizontalliterature review", The TQM Journal, Vol. 29 Iss 6 pp. 800-810 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-03-2017-0028">https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-03-2017-0028</a>(2017),"Dream or reality? A recipe for sustainable and innovative health care ecosystems", The TQMJournal, Vol. 29 Iss 6 pp. 847-862 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-02-2017-0023">https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-02-2017-0023</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Cathie Manis

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emeraldfor Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submissionguidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, aswell as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources andservices.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative fordigital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)

Cultural and ethical obstacleson the road to sustainable

development in theglobalization era

Tito ContiInternational Academy for Quality, Torino, Italy

AbstractPurpose – After the Second World War, important initiatives were taken to avoid the risk of mankind self-destruction. The creation of the United Nations generated high hopes. Unfortunately, after 70 years markedby the great technological progress, humanity seems to be ready to repeat the same mistakes; with theaggravating circumstance that the technological advances will greatly increase the risks of self-destruction.The purpose of this paper is to contribute to generate awareness and then contrast such risks, by going to thedeep roots of the problems, which are cultural and ethics, and by analyzing them from the systems thinkingand quality thinking perspectives.Design/methodology/approach – The paper is the synthesis of many years of experience in managing aswell as advising large, complex organizations and parallel research on the viability of – and conditionsfor – merging systems thinking and quality thinking. In front of the evidence that systems’ sustainabledevelopment can be reached only through internal cooperation, the above research expanded to the study ofnatural evolution, which apparently can give a lead to direct man-driven evolution toward a healthyworldwide system.Findings – First, with the increase of the organizational size, analytical thinking must give way to systemsthinking. Education in systems thinking is then becoming the main critical factor. Second, worldsustainable development is challenged by an uncontrolled man-driven evolution, where technology is oftenused for violence and wars (win-lose relations). Ethics, which is part of quality since it aims at win-winrelations, should be at the foundations of sustainable development, where cooperation should be one of thesustaining pillars.Originality/value – What the author wrote in the last 12 years on the above subjects, culminating in thislast paper, has broken new ground in the field of managing for quality, bringing it to the highest levels ofhuman organizations. As far as value is concerned, what kind of value can be considered higher than takingcare of the future of humanity – and the whole ecosystem?Keywords Systems thinking, Cooperation, Globalization, Sustainable developmentPaper type Conceptual paper

1. IntroductionTraditional management and organization theories show their limits when applied tolarge, complex organizations. They prove to be totally unfit, in particular, when biginternational bodies are created to resolve international conflicts and worldwide crises.The fact is that complex problems cannot be solved using traditional analytical thinking.For them, turning to systems thinking – the science of complexity – is absolutelynecessary: a painful process of unlearning and learning anew that requests awareness ofthe urgency, and humility. A similar painful process – and act of humility – is neededwhen addressing the theme of world sustainable development. Opening the book of natureand learning how natural evolution took (and takes) place teaches us that cooperation,not wild competition, is key to sustainable development. The paper aims at increasing theawareness of the urgency to face such problems, of the relevant stumbling blocks and ofthe possible ways to overcome them. Cooperation and systems thinking turn to be thekeywords for making world globalization successful. The alternative is chaos, conflicts,and self-destruction.

The TQM JournalVol. 29 No. 6, 2017pp. 920-935© Emerald Publishing Limited1754-2731DOI 10.1108/TQM-01-2017-0009

Received 9 February 2017Revised 20 April 2017Accepted 16 May 2017

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2731.htm

920

TQM29,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)

2. Human organizations: social systems characterized by their purposeHuman organizations are built to meet purposes which regard – and ask for the cooperativeengagement of – collectivities of persons. Such purposes may consist of making products(material or immaterial) or provide for services, information. The common purpose of allorganizations is generating the value legitimately expected by the receivers of the outcomeof their activity (customers, citizens, partners), as well as by the members of the organizationitself and by all other interested parties. “Fitness for purpose” then is the absolute primaryrequirement of any organization. It may be also called “quality of the organization,” it beingthe mother of all the qualities associated with any material or immaterial organization’soutcome. Pursuing quality of results when the system’s quality is inadequate is useless toil.

The word “system,” as used here in accordance with modern systems thinking, means“a collection of parts which interact with each other to function as a whole.” A system’svalue-generation potentiality is not just the sum of its parts’ potentialities; it is a function ofboth such potentialities and the synergy in the relations among its parts. The more positivethe synergy, the higher the multiplicative effect on value generation. It may even happenthat the multiplicative effect is incommensurable, as it happens in science when, from a teamof researchers, a striking invention springs out; or, in nature, when a singular mutationtakes place. The expression “emergent property” is used in such cases. Examples ofextraordinary emergent properties in our planet’s evolution are the appearance of life,of man (and hopefully, in the future, of an even more integrated and cooperative eco-culturalGaia system)[1].

Human systems are also called “social systems” or, even better, “socio-cultural systems.”Another adjective is often used to specify their nature, for example, “socio-technical,”“socio-economic,” and “socio-politic.” Typically, systems are part of supra-systems andcomprehend sub-systems (the world we live in displays such a Chinese-box-like structure).Figure 1 shows, in its lower part, seven systems. Three of them, S1, S2, and S3, enter incooperation to create the new S.S.A. supra-system (which includes the three cooperating

S4

S1

S2

S3

S1

S2

S3

SG

S5 S7

S6

S3 S7

S6

S5 S1

S4

SG SGS.S.B

S.S.A

S.S.C

Note: A system can become part of different supra-systems (in the figure: S1, S.S.A and S.S.B; S3,S.S.A and S.S.C)

Figure 1.Systems at the lower

level cooperateto create supra-

systems, of whichthey become part

921

Sustainabledevelopment inthe globalization

era

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)

systems, plus a new governing sub-system). The same applies in relation to the newsupra-systems S.S.B. and S.S.C.

Examples of systems which enter in cooperation to create a new supra-system are:merging of two companies to reinforce their market position and creation of an associationof companies to defend their common interests at the national and/or international level.

The figure also shows how a system can participate to the creation of differentsupra-systems.

Man is an example of an alive system that normally rivendicates the right to activelyparticipate to different supra-systems for political, spiritual, or cultural reasons, or simply for fun.

3. Application of the mechanistic/deterministic model to organizationsThe industrial culture, born with mass production, could not escape the mental paradigmsof its times. From the field of physics to those of cosmology and human organizations,the universal model was the mechanistic/deterministic. In it, the mind who plans anddirects is outside the system in charge of execution (Figure 2). The latter has the mission ofproducing multitudes of identical objects, according to the received specifications.

The mechanistic model applied to human systems does not deny human intelligence,but enslaves it to the sole purpose of meeting the objectives through rigid processes.

A consequence of that was that the word quality became synonymous with conformityto specifications, mutilating a millenary concept of “attribute of a person, object, situation”intrinsically dynamic, with a constant tension toward improvement. But there was not at thetime – and would not be there for a long time yet – the awareness of applying to humanbeings an intrinsically inadequate model, disrespectful of her/his intelligence and freedom.

Unfortunately the mechanistic model is still widely used, mainly in those parts of theworld where the fundamental values of equality and freedom of all human beings is not yetrecognized (or, if recognized in words, is not practiced).

4. Which model for which organization?In the second half of the twentieth century, with the increase of the average size andcomplexity of the companies operating in international markets and of the number andquality of competitors, organization experts and managers started to realize that theorganization was not a machine but a human social system. If treated as a machine, besideslosing the best fruits of the human intelligence, it will inevitably foster passive attitudes andeven negative behaviors due to the lack of motivation, dissatisfaction, conflicts betweenthe organization’s, and the personal interests. Figure 3 provides a qualitative representationof the negative side of the coin (occurrence of problems, i.e. “accruing damage”).The negative effects on the positive side of the coin (loss of potential contributions byemployees, i.e. “loss of profit”) are not considered here.

The mind is outside (above) the systemand dictates what the components of the system are bound to do – and howit should be done

The mind

The systemand its component

parts

Good for mechanistic systems in theextended sense (cybernetic included). Bad when the components of the system are human beings

Kinds of systems/1

Figure 2.Deterministic/mechanistic system

922

TQM29,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)

While in small-medium organizations technical problems prevail, as the dimension andcomplexity of the organization increase, problems due to the organization itself take the lead.

That is why new management theories flourished in the West, aimed at increasingpeople’s motivation and involvement. Many remedies were conceived, but few of them reallysucceeded, because they did not go to the roots of the problems. People continued to betreated as interchangeable “resources” not as the main (alive) assets of a neg-entropicsystem[2], able to multiply, through synergy, individual value-generation capabilities, andmoney continued to be seen as the main motivator. Different was the situation in thoseAsian countries where the Confucian ethics for personal relations is deeply rooted. In them,the model that spontaneously took root, where industrialization was advancing, was muchcloser to the organic than to the mechanistic one (Figure 4).

The organic model is cooperative but at the same time paternalistic: the mind whichgoverns the system is bound to rely on the undisputed collaboration of the governed minds.Not only in the form of obedience, but also of positive interaction with the mind, providing itwith all the information needed to keep the course and, when opportune, to improveperformance. Such model can take roots where the soil is propitious. The most convincingexample came, in the years 1970/1980, from Japan, which put the Western industry in adifficult position thanks to the effective application of approaches developed in the USA(by J. Juran and E. Deming) but not well received there. This is a clear example of culturalblindness due to overconfidence on one’s own culture. The Japanese culture was a favorableground for the “continuous improvement” message and for the elaboration of a global anddynamic vision of quality (TQC); and results were amazing.

Complexity of the organization

Wei

ght o

f org

aniz

atio

n/m

anag

emen

t-r

elat

ed (

O/M

) an

d te

chni

cal(T

)pr

oble

ms

in o

rgan

izat

ions

Small organizations Large organizations

O/M

TFigure 3.

Organization/management-relatedproblems prevail inlarge organizations

Organic-animated systems (human beings and higher level animals)

The mind is part of the system, sets the rules and controls the activity of themembersMembers act and interact, but strictly following the rules set by the mind

Kinds of systems/2The mind

The membersof the system

Figure 4.Organic system

923

Sustainabledevelopment inthe globalization

era

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)

Western reaction to the Japanese strategy was initially (1980/1990) very effective, and hadthe merit of starting a “laicization”[3] process aimed at rendering the new approach toquality more rational and less dependent on the specific culture. In some of the new models(Conti, 2007), the systemic approach was already taking form.

In the West, the new approach went under the name of total quality management (TQM)and, as noticed above, was successful in the short period. Apparently, the Western Worldseemed on the right track to a merging of quality thinking and systems thinking, andseemingly the awareness was growing that people are the most important part ofsocio-cultural systems, whatever their specific mission (technical, economic, or other).For them, the right model is the “multi-minded” (Figure 5). In such model, all members’cooperation is asked for, but the leader’s role is fundamental: she/he should care ofinterpersonal relations. Relations are to be considered as the absolutely critical place whereexcellence in value generation can – and should – be pursued.

5. The decline of TQM and the need to contrast a negative trendThe decline of TQM in the Western World started around the year 2000. In a few years,the innovative impulse induced by it faded, overwhelmed by short-term commercialinterests. Rehash of old recipes sold better. Among the causes of the decline was the fact thatthe consultant market was flooded with a multitude of experts in quality assurance eager toexploit the success of quality. They brought along with them the “standards andcertification culture.” Very few of them had direct experience in managing largeorganizations. They heavily contributed to bring quality back to the level of a technicaldiscipline, ignoring or underestimating its strategic content. Deeply rooted cultural attitudesare difficult to eradicate. Western companies, with few exceptions, continued to lose groundin the consumer and traditional durables sectors (they continued to hold competitivepositions in the advanced technology products sectors as well as in services with hightechnology content).

Having always fought against such regression, the author takes this paper’s opportunityto reassert his views about what should be done – and with urgency (Conti, 2006, 2011).Not just to restore a role that the West traditionally played in the product and service areas,but mainly to fill in a serious cultural void, this time at the world level. It concerns the lack ofknowledge in systems thinking and consequent inability to effectively manage largeorganizations, in particular those very large international organizations required byglobalization (Conti, 2013). Such inability creates the big crises of our time, which areindicators of a general unfitness to both define appropriate goals and accomplish them.Lack of knowledge and experience in systems thinking regards both those who managecomplex organizations and those who train the candidates to manage them, universities tobegin with. Both in companies and public administrations, as well as in the related schools,

Multi-minded system (human socialorganizations). The system comprises a plurality of minds.One of them should lead (L), but taking into account the plurality of minds and their potential. Shared values are defined and cared for. Relations are cared for toimprove value generation capabilities

Kinds of systems/3The leader

The membersof the system

Figure 5.Multi-minded system

924

TQM29,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)

analytic thinking is still the dominant thinking paradigm; necessary but inadequate to facethe realm of complexity. Extremely complex is the problems related to protection ofmankind and of the Gaia system from the risks of wild development. Risks are mainly due toman taking the driving seat of evolution without adequate knowledge of its mechanismsand without having defined appropriate rules. In this respect, underlining anotherfundamental aspect is opportune. Man, if claiming the right to govern evolution on ourplanet, is bound to explore the evolution patterns followed by nature. By doing that, she/hewill meet with unexpected surprises.

6. Man-steered evolution is bound to learn from natural evolutionKnowledge of the fundamental mechanisms of natural evolution (which has built the world welive in, as well as ourselves), and then the capacity to seize the opportunities and realize therisks of a man-steered evolution, have then become crucial. No sign of awareness by those whohold power (political, financial, and economic) is visible[4]. Man-steered evolution (globalizationtoday) proceeds in the sign of a youthful carefree attitude (to use an euphemism, in realityirresponsibility). With times incomparably shorter than those of natural evolution and in theabsence of an appropriate ethical code, the risk of taking roads and making choices that couldheavily damage mankind and the ecosystem is high. These are clearly too big themes topresume that they can be deeply treated here. For those who want to deepen the concepts onwhich we have built our theses, we suggest to refer – for systems thinking – to Ludwig vonBertalanffy (1969), Russell Ackof (1999), Charles West Churchman (1979), JamshidGharajedaghi (1999) – and for evolution to Ervin Laszlo (1996a), the main theorist of theGrand Evolution Theory. Two more authors, not utilized for this discussion because of theirmore philosophic slant but worthy of mention, are Heylighen (1999) and Stewart (2000a, b).

7. Nature has a passion for relations[5]Evolution, from the elementary post-Big Bang aggregations of particles to today’ssocio-cultural organizations, is mainly characterized by the evolution of relations. Figure 6,derived with minor changes from Erwin Laszlo (1996a), Evolution, The General Theory(p. 26), shows the progressive appearance, of larger and larger systems characterized byweaker and weaker physical bonds and higher and higher levels of organization.

Big bang

Particles

Atoms

Molecules

Macromolecules

Protobionts

Organisms

Eco-systems

Socio-cultural systems

Leve

ls o

for

gani

zatio

n

Microscopic(Strongly bonded)

Macroscopic(Weakly bonded)

Today(15 billion years)

Time, years

Homo sapiens

Figure 6.Climbing the evolution

scale, levels oforganization increase

hand in hand withsimplification;

physical energy linksget weaker, new

kinds of links emerge,particularly in

socio-cultural systems

925

Sustainabledevelopment inthe globalization

era

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)

The sub-atomic and atomic are the realms of the highest energies and bond forces.Following the post-Big Bang evolution time scale (horizontal axis), we see a constantincrease of the level of organization, accompanied by a parallel decrease of the strength ofthe physical bonds. Increasing level of organization led to atoms, molecules, and then tomacromolecules, the gate to life. In the realm of life, we find a sequence that finally led to theecosystems and to the appearance of man and human organizations. According to Laszlo,human organizations are destined to become (if man acts according to reason) the nextsignificant stage of evolution on our planet, after the appearance of man. A possibility, not acertainty, being the destiny entrusted to man.

Particularly important for our discussion on organizations are then the two stages which are,in the figure, at the top of the evolution scale: the appearance of Homo sapiens and the creation,by the latter, of socio-cultural systems. Physical bonds between humans, in fact, become veryweak, while a new kind of relation appears, the socio-cultural. Social bonds are already presentin animals, but the development of the human mind (with its ability to think beyond and abovereality and change it, to improve communication through language, to record and share pastexperience and build on it) added the “cultural” dimension to the “social” one, radically changingthe nature of relations[6]. Such cultural dimension is a continuous product of the community,which creates it and is enriched by it. It is made up of common history, values, traditions,knowledge, beliefs, and sentiments. Culture becomes the DNA of human social organizations, itsidentity, the cement that integrates its members in a whole. Such cultural bond was particularlystrong when the clan was the typical social system. It expanded to larger and larger – typicallyethnic – groups, normally decreasing bond intensity as the dimension increased.

The most relevant human beings’ profile change in pre-historic times was that fromgatherers and hunters to breeders and growers. That favored the increase in size andwell-being of human social systems as well as the appearance of socio-political systems.The historic era starts, by definition, from the appearance of writing that sheds light on thereal life within and among the social systems of the time. One cannot deny that conflicts forconquering new territories and gaining regional supremacy emerge as the dominantfeatures of the relations between systems. Even alliances are often instrumental to conflicts.In fact, military power and conflicts dominated human history for millennia; to a point thatfor a long time the locations and dates of the battles have been used as the cornerstones ofhistory. No wonder, then, that the belief that violence and conflicts are inherent in humannature and cannot be eliminated has been – and still is – widely diffused. But such anargument seems superficial if we consider the evolution’s times. The presence of man onEarth looks like a flutter if compared with the times of evolution. We can legitimatelycounter the above thesis with the following: the humanization process (that is the process ofevolution from the homo sapiens’ infancy to full maturity) is bound to take a long time, andwe are still midway. It is then understandable that humanity is still divided between thosewho aim at using intelligence to simply reinforce the destructive power of their animalinstincts and those who aim at using it to tame the wild instincts and build a world wherepeople can grow together in peace. Since such humanization process is not physical butcultural, it is up to mankind to accelerate or delay it.

If a cooperation-based evolution is the only way for man to survive on our planet(see below); if, differently from the past, evolution is more and more governed by man; if allthat is true, the collective responsibility of humans becomes extremely high. Man isresponsible for the alternative between a worldwide successful integration leading tosustainable development and a catastrophic failure.

Perhaps we have reached a decisive bifurcation for the fate of our ecosystem[7].The change in pace, nature, violence, and extent of conflicts, due to the distorted use of theadvances in science, began to manifest itself clearly at the end of the Second World War ofthe last century. In front of the evidence of the risks of using mass destruction weapons,

926

TQM29,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)

nuclear energy in particular, winners and losers, exhausted, agreed that, in the bifurcation,it was necessary to take the road of a joint government of world conflicts. The United NationsOrganization was created, and to bring together in friendship nations that for centuries hadbeen enemies, the European Union was created. Unfortunately, the one and the other haveundergone a progressive weakening because of the re-emerging nationalisms.

In our century, globalization has become the buzzword. Nobody denies that it isnecessary, at least unavoidable. Unfortunately, it is being reduced in meaning and tamed bythose who feel themselves strong enough to extend their power to larger and larger portionsof the globe. The reduction consists in considering globalization just a market/economy/finance-related phenomenon. The taming consists in stripping globalization of its vitalityand its ability to accelerate the process of humanization. The full meaning of globalization infact is: a structured transition from a jumble of closed national systems to a true globalsupra-system which, through the synergy of positive relations, can substantially increasesthe capacity to enhance value generation for the benefit of all its members.

Up to now globalization has not been like this. The reason is evident: those who have thepower to impose their own interests over the common good, oppose the change […]. “the oldguard dies but does not surrender”[8]. That is why globalization appears as the new bigdiscontinuity that the Gaia system is located in front of.

8. Cooperation: the critical success factor in natural evolutionThe good news in such a critical situation is the following: the most eminent evolutionscholars agree that there is a logic and an invariant pattern in evolution, where cooperationamong the involved parties is the critical success factor (Laszlo 1996a, b) It does not meanthat there are deterministic, prescriptive laws. On the contrary, the course of evolution is farfrom being uniquely determined in nature. Ensembles of possibilities are always presented,among which the evolutionary process can unfold. As Laszlo (1996b) puts it: “Evolution isalways a possibility, never a destiny” (p. 23).

If cooperation among the interested parties is a critical success factor in natural evolutionwhen a new higher-level system is going to be created, as well as when it struggles forgrowth and survival, why should not men accept to adopt cooperation as the basic criterionof the evolution processes that they themselves steer? With an advantage, being manendowed with rational as well as creative intelligence, she can choose from the alternativesthat arise. Thus, increasing the chances of success and dramatically reducing the time.

However, in a culture that tends to think only in terms of competition, the wordcooperation is not very popular. What is difficult to make people understand is thatcompetition and cooperation are not mutually exclusive. They are both necessary and eachhas its own role. Cooperation must be used to create the systemic environment within whichhealthy competition can develop. Competition in this context is the yeast, the stimulus thatleads individuals (and therefore the communities) to give the best of themselves,continuously improving the entire human system.

Man-driven evolution, in this phase of globalization, should have as its primaryobjective a more equitable distribution of the available resources. Since such objective hasa very low probability of being pursued, stemming the growth of the imbalances should atleast be pursued. Next to a greater equity between the present human systems, thereshould always be the goal of not mortgaging the future of generations that follow oursthat is the goal of sustainable development. But in a hierarchy of open systems,sustainability starts from the top, from the higher-level systems. For example, there can beno sustainable development at the country level if there is no sustainability worldwide.This in turn can only be achieved through a cooperative effort of the relevant countries.That is what is going on, with difficulty, for global warming. Will it ever happen for theeconomy and, especially, for finance?

927

Sustainabledevelopment inthe globalization

era

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)

What was said above in relation to cooperation is true for all organizations, at all levels.Only cooperation in the generation of value can make organizations effective and efficient.Once again let us look at nature. The human body is a magnificent example of cooperationamong its parts (see the famous apologue of Menenio Agrippa) (Livius, 1905; Livy, 1919, 1978).Lack of cooperation among its parts generates what we call diseases. The body is organized tocure them and, when possible, prevent them; and the mind to always invent new cures.The human body is an example to imitate also in relation to delegation. Let us imagine howcomplex the brain should be if it were to directly control the blood circulation or the immuneor the thermoregulation sub-systems! Nature teaches us that higher organization level doesnot mean higher complexity but higher simplification and delegation[9] (and as a consequencefewer defects, higher reliability).

9. Organizational architecture conceived and described in terms of valuegeneration – and the bricks to build itOrganizational architecture is fundamental to make the organization a purpose-orientedsystem, where the purpose is generating the values expected by the receivers of its activity.Since value maximization is achieved through group synergy, the basic brick – or basiccell – of the organization should be the group.

In the paper that first introduced such concept (Conti, 2005), the basic cell was named“value-generation cluster.” Figure 7 represents it in its most simple form: a triangle withthree persons at the vertices. Clearly groups will normally be made by more than threepersons and in such cases the figure will be a polygon. The basic cell is a variabledimension brick where the brick’s dimension is limited by the primary requirement ofkeeping the team synergic.

The organizational building will normally look as a cluster of clusters (or a network ofnetworks), like a Chinese box. That is the typical systems structure, of natural systems inthe first place. But the main purpose of Figure 7 is evidencing the characteristics that thecluster is bound to have in order to meet its purposes: maximum effectiveness in generatingthe expected value.

Outputvalue

The primary value flow isfrom the person towardthe organization.In return, a fair value flowis essential for motivation

Both value creationcapability and mutualsatisfaction stronglydepend on valueexchange in the relationsbetween the persons

Syn

erge

tic e

ffect

in v

alue

cre

atio

n:v

=k*

(Σ v

alue

s)

System’s boundary Shared values permeatedenvironment

Trust

TransparencyCooperation

Figure 7.The “value-generationcluster,” thesynergetic processof value generationin relations

928

TQM29,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)

The continuous lines in the figure represent the relations and the arrows in them the valueflow direction. The note at the top right of the figure warns that the vitality and then theeffectiveness of the relations depend on how the environment is permeated by three crucialvalues: trust, transparency, and cooperation. Two types of relations take place within thesystem. The first is the radial relation between each element and the organization: bi-lateralrelation, represented by couples of radial arrows pointing in opposite directions. The primaryvalue flow is from the elements (persons or groups) to the organization (positioned at thecenter): it represents the value that the organization has the right to expect from anyindividual (or group) who is part of it[10]. The reverse value flow, from the organization to theindividual, is critical, since employees’motivation to contribute to the collective effort dependson the gratification that they get in return. Gratification depends on many factors: one iscertainly how interesting for the person the value-generation process is in itself. But ofparamount importance is also the perception of the value received (economic/career related,appreciation from the boss, public acknowledgment, a pleasant work environment).The perception of a fair balance between the received and given value is fundamental forkeeping the level of employees’ contribution high ( for more details see Churchman (1979)).

The second important type of relation highlighted in Figure 7 is that betweenthe members (elements) of the “value-generation cluster” (bi-directional arrows between theelements). To enhance value-generating capabilities, such relations should be based onthe shared social values mentioned above, repeated here in more detail: mutual respect,trust, openness and transparency, intellectual honesty, willingness to share information, andbuild knowledge together. The key word is always “cooperation.” Little can be done in socialenvironments where the conflict culture prevails.

Organizations are usually described using organization charts. But these represent only thedistribution of power and the chains of command. They say nothing about the vital dynamicsof the organization, how it is structured to achieve its own ends. Only representationshighlighting the networks of relations aimed at creating value can highlight these dynamics.

Figure 8 suggests a synthetic view of an organization (internal ellipsis) seen as a networkof networks. By way of example we take a business enterprise, immersed in a business

The independent environmentC

PC

MST

EP

EMP

The transactional environment

The Organization

SSPA

Notes: MS, Main stakeholders; EMP, employees; EP, external partners; SS, strategic suppliersC, customers; PC, potential customers; PA, public administrationsSource: Gharajedaghi (1999, pp. 30-32)

Figure 8.In the systems view,the organization is anetwork of networkswhich also promotesnetworking (that is

partnership relations)with the external

environment

929

Sustainabledevelopment inthe globalization

era

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)

environment. This latter is subdivided in a transactional environment, the one which theorganization can have influence on, and the independent environment, that the organizationhowever must know and take into due consideration.

Figure 9 takes from the world of companies an example of value-generation network – theplanning-development-production-marketing macro-process – and represents it as a cluster ofclusters. All the basic relations, for the different stages of the process, are evidenced. Figure 10is focused on stage 2 of the macro-process of Figure 9. To provide a quick view of theintensity/importance of the different relations, line thickness is used.

10. The pyramid of values: from the individual to the social valuesLife in human social systems is made of relations – between persons or aggregations ofpersons – and each relation consists in exchange of material or immaterial value: valuegenerated by one party and received by another party. Positive value – that satisfiesthe receiver’s value expectations – or negative value – that does not satisfy them.But value expectations are of many kinds. They span from the individual inner values(typically the religious) to the social values, and the latter can be of many different kindsdepending on the type of social aggregation: communities who share the same personalvalues; business aggregations (typically companies); socio-political aggregations from thelocal level to the state level; international aggregations (regional federations/unions);the human world system at large. Harmonious, sustainable development at all levelsideally depends on satisfaction of all parties in all relations.

Clearly a utopian ideal, which should however be pursued as far as humanly possible.But to do this a reasonable model of the dynamics of values among the various levels andtypes of social systems must be defined.

To analyze such dynamics of value between individuals and organizations and betweenhierarchies of organizations, a pyramid representation is utilized here (Figure 11) that hassome conceptual connections with the Maslow’s Pyramid (Maslow, 1970) but with different

Step 1Ricerche

di mercato

Step 2Pianificazione

prodotto

Step 3Sviluppoprodotto

Step 4Test prodotto

Step 5Acquisto

parti

Step 7Produzione

Relazioni con

altri cluster

and funzioni

Relazio

ni co

n

altri

cluste

r

and

funz

ioni

Step 6Pianific. Processi

produttivi

Step 8Commercializzaz.

and assistenza

IN

OUT

Figure 9.The new productplanning-development-production-commercializationmacro-process

930

TQM29,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)

contents and aims (Conti, 2010). The top of the pyramid represents the individual, personalvalues and intimate and deeply held values, which are confined to the material and spiritualprivate spaces. Until they do not collide with the rights of others, they should be fullyrespected, The bottom layer of the pyramid represents those values that are supposed to be

Step 1Market

research

Step 2Productplanning

Step 3Product

development

Step 4Product

test

Step 5Part

procurement

Step 7Manufacturing

Step 6Manuf. Process

planning

Step 8Sales

IN

OUT

Relations with

other clusters

and functions

Relatio

ns w

ith

othe

r clus

ters

and

func

tions

Notes: Product planning is the leading process. Line thickness indicates relation intensity

Figure 10.The value-generation

cluster in phase 2

Level of voluntary aggregations basedon communality of values. Examples:religious and cultural aggregations

Level of enterprises and otherorganizations aimed at creating valuefor customers and citizens

MankindBasic human and social values

shared at world level(basic human rights)

Basic values shared among the membersof the sociopolitical system and formalized

in constitutions and laws

Values shared bypeople voluntarily

adhering to the organization

Innerpersonalvalues

Values shared among themembers of the enterprise or

similar organization

Level of sociopolitical organizations:local and regional governments,states, federations, internationalorganizations

Level of individuals, with their personalvalues that should always be respected,whatever the organization they are part of

Figure 11.The value pyramid:

from the level ofpersonal inner values

(top) to the level ofbasic human and

social values (bottom)

931

Sustainabledevelopment inthe globalization

era

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)

fundamental and shared by all human aggregations (today, the UN declarations on humanrights could be the reference). Proceeding top down, from the peak to the bottom layer,we meet more and more complex social systems, which the individual can be part of.For each of them the right balance between individual values and social values must befound. As the dimension and complexity of social aggregations increase, values pass fromthe richness and variety of the individual ones to those relatively few, basic, that areaccepted by the ever larger and heterogeneous communities.

The first social system ( just below the peak of the personal values) represents the“voluntary aggregations,” based normally on a set of common values; typically religious orcultural. As in the case of individuals, such values should not be touched as long as they donot affect other people’s or people aggregations’ rights. The next type of social systemrepresents the case of enterprises and other organizations aimed at creating value forcustomers or citizens. In such a case the organization’s values should be clearlycommunicated to the newly recruited members. If clearly declared by management andshared by the employees, cooperation will more easily take place[11]. Going furtherdownward, we meet the level of socio-political organizations: local and regionalgovernments, states, and federations. At that level, ethic shared principles (rights andduties) should be formalized in constitutions and laws and become the ethical code for allcitizens, aggregations of citizens, public administration, and governing bodies.

The last step considers mankind as a whole. Its ethical code should comprehend the basichuman and social values shared at the world level and the consequent basic human rightsand duties. The United Nations represent the state of the art in this area. We are still faraway from a satisfactory worldwide ethical code and from a world organization that canexact respect of such code by all members. Conflicts still prevail on cooperation. But the wayto go is clear for all men of good will.

In conclusion, the pyramid suggests frameworks of mutual respect and well-conceivedbalances that privilege freedom but at the same time define its limits, to protect people andsocial systems well-being, at every level. Abiding by the pyramids rules, a culture of“multiple belonging” emerges that favors peaceful relations. An individual can be at thesame time a follower of a religion, a loyal member of a company, a loyal citizen of a state,a federation, and the whole human family.

11. Conclusions and implicationsIt may seem eccentric, in a time when crises and conflicts multiply and extend, to argue,as this paper has done, that the priority issues to be addressed today, to guaranteesustainable development, are cultural and ethical. Yet it seems to be so.

From the cultural perspective, there is no doubt that diffusion of systems thinking is themost critical factor. Systems thinking is on the way to taking roots in many areas,like biology, psychology, and cosmology. Not so in the area of large human systems,socio-political and socio-economic in particular, where the highest peaks of complexity arereached and where the fate of humanity is at stake.

The emphasis we placed on ethics can be at first rejected as an attack on personalfreedom. Far from that, in a democratic society, individual freedom is always limited by thecommon good. From the ethical perspective then, the creation of a world-level organizationthat defines agreed-upon rules and controls their application is mandatory. The spread andthe increasing levels of conflicts, made ever more alarming by the continued progress ofdestructive technologies that support them, make this very urgent.

The profoundly mistaken idea that human progress is measured by technologicalprogress must be countered. Science, as knowledge of the universe in which we live,is intrinsically neutral and cannot be confused with the technology, that is, with theapplications of the discoveries of science that may be beneficial or destructive to man and

932

TQM29,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)

the ecosystem. The fact that man has taken the driving seat of evolution on our planet turnshim from caretaker to boss. If responsibility does not grow along with knowledge, it is littlewonder that the planet may finally drive the boss out.

Which are the main implications stemming from the above conclusion? The first regardsgeneral education. Starting from the primary school, basic education should comprehend aprogressively deeper knowledge of our common home: the ecosystem we are part of, itsevolution, the increasing impact that man has on it, the consequent responsibilities, and alsobecome aware of the dark side of man’s relationship with the ecosystem, like the tendency totake possession of greater and greater parts of it, or allow the progressive dominance of onesubsystem – for example, the financial – on the whole system.

More specific education regards all those who have leading roles in science, technology,politics, and religions. Science has the main role of progressively discover the “secrets” ofour common house and its neighborhood. Technology has the role of using suchdiscoveries to make the house an ever more pleasant and friendly place to live in.Education, in this area, should aim at avoiding improper use of discoveries. But thatrequires a code of ethics that only politics at the world level can create and enforce.Religions – if cooperation and peace are among their teaching – can have a fundamentalrole in making our world a friendly place.

In summary, the most critical implications, in a world where man has taken the lead ofevolution, regards the creation and enforcement of a world ethical code. A gigantic task.A utopia? It may be, but the most important human achievements stem from utopias[12].

Notes

1. Without entering the “Gaia philosophy,” we use here the name Gaia after the Greek goddess of theEarth, to represent the large, alive ecosystem in which we live and which we should take care of.

2. A neg-entropic system is an open system where the arrow of time does not point toward entropyincrease but toward entropy decrease, that is, from disorder to order. Alive systems are thetypical example of neg-entropic systems and natural evolution is the typical example of processwhere the arrow of time points “upward.”

3. Following the evolution of languages, the terms “lay” and “laicization” are no longer restricted tothe religious area (as the antonyms of “clerical” and “clericalization”) but extended to the culturalarea, as concepts, ideas, values that, even if born within a specific culture, can be rationalized sothat they can be shared by other cultures.

4. Outstanding exceptions to the silence at the world highest authorities level are the voices of religiousleaders, like Pope Francis (encyclical Laudato si’) and Bartolomew, Patriarch of Costantinople.

5. Statement by E. Laszlo.

6. At all levels of evolution, relations can be of two kinds: attractive or repulsive. Attraction is at thebasis of new, more complex structures’ creation, while repulsion is at the base of conflicts forsurvival and domination. When evolution reaches the level of human beings and humanorganizations, cultural forces take the lead and can span from love (very much attractive) to hateand deadly conflict (very much repulsive).

7. Natural evolution often shows long (if measured with human meter) periods of stability, followed bysudden changes. However, in the (apparently) stable periods changes take place but normally at aslow pace. Man can hardly perceive them and even scientists had come to the conclusion that naturedoes not make leaps (natura non facit saltus). However in such long periods incubation of change cantake place. The incubated change can erupt at any time, not in a predetermined way, but randomly,in front of bifurcations. Then nature makes leaps, and we are probably now in the proximity ofdramatic bifurcations, due to the chaos and instability induced by man in the world eco-system.

8. Such a proud answer is attributed to a general of the Napoleon’s Old Guard who refused tosurrender at the Battle of Waterloo.

933

Sustainabledevelopment inthe globalization

era

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)

9. “Systems at a higher organizational level may control more complex systems at a lower level,thanks to the possibility for the highest level to select which of the detail dynamics can beneglected” (Laszlo, 1996a, pp. 27-28).

10. In the central block, named “synergic effect in value creation”, a factor K is introduced to measurethe synergy level. K is calculated as the ratio between the value that the cluster is able to generateand the value that the group’s members might generate in a normal situation of fragmentationand division of labor.

11. The well-known Italian entrepreneur Adriano Olivetti (1900-1959) transmitted his companyvalues not through high sounding words and glossy paper. He wanted the company foundingvalues be clearly communicated at recruiting. He personally did not lose any opportunity to recallthem, in personal and collective meetings, whenever he deemed it opportune. Extremelyimportant, he practiced and exacted coherent behaviors in the company daily life. The result ofthat, as well as of the company’s attention to employees’ and their families’ well-being, wasexemplary employees’ cooperation in the workplace and loyalty toward the company.The Olivetti company, under Adriano Olivetti leadership, was a world example of organizationalexcellence and excellent performance.

12. The answer can be found in a quote attributed to A. Gramsci: The pessimism of reason can befought with the optimism of the will.

References

Ackoff, R.L. (1999), Re-Creating the Corporation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Conti, T. (2005), “Quality and value: convergence of quality management and systems thinking”,ASQ World Quality Congress, Seattle, May 16-18.

Conti, T. (2006), “Quality thinking and systems thinking”,The TQMMagazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 297-308.

Conti, T. (2007), “A history and review of the European quality model”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19,No 2, pp. 112-128.

Conti, T. (2010), “The dynamics of value generation and their dependence on an organisation’s internaland external value system”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 885-901.

Conti, T. (2011), “No panaceas for organizational diseases, but better knowledge and systems thinking”,The TQM Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 252-267.

Conti, T. (2013), “How should quality-related concepts evolve to face the challenges of worldglobalization?”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 641-658.

Curchman, C.W. (1979), The Systems Approach, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Gharajedaghi, J. (1999), Systems Thinking, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA.

Heylighen, F.P. (1999), “The global superorganism: an evolutionary-cybernetic model of the emergingnetwork society”, Social Evolution & History, Vol. 6, No. 1.

Laszlo, E. (1996a), Evolution, The General Theory, Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ.

Laszlo, E. (1996b), The Systems View of the World, Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ, p. 26.

Livius, T. (1905), The History of Rome, Vol. 1 (Trans by C. Robert), J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London.

Livy, T. (1919), The History of Early Rome, (Trans by B.O. Foster), Harvard University Press,Cambridge, MA.

Livy, T. (1978), The History of Early Rome, Collector’s ed. (Trans by A. de Sélincourt), The EastonPress, Norwalk, CT, pp. i-iv.

Maslow, A.H. (1970), Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row, Publishers, New York, NY.

Stewart, J. (2000a), Evolution’s Arrow: The Direction of Evolution and the Future of Humanity,Kindle Books.

Stewart, J. (2000b), The Evolutionary Manifesto, Kindle Books.

von Bertalanffy, L. (1969), General Systems Theory, George Braziller, New York, NY.

934

TQM29,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)

Further reading

Heylighen, F., Bollen, J. and Riegler, A. (1999), The Evolution of Complexity, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.Laszlo, E. (1994), The Choice: Evolution or Extinction The Thinking Person’s Guide to Global Problems,

Tarcher/Putnam, Los Angeles, CA.Lovelock, J. (2009), The Vanishing Face of Gaia, Basic Books, Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY,

p. 255.Tyrrell, T. (2013), On Gaia: A Critical Investigation of the Relationship Between Life and Earth,

Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, p. 209.

About the authorTito Conti spent the first part of his professional life in a large electronic and IT group of companies,with both line and staff responsibilities. Among the latter, significant was the role of VP for quality,where he matured his interest for organizational quality. The second part of his professional life wasdedicated to advise and support large companies and public administrations on how to buildorganizational systems capable of maximize their ability to generate value and to do that in asustainable way. It was also dedicated to diffuse a “C&C” quality culture that is a quality culture basedon both cooperation and competition. He was the President of the European Organization for Quality(1992-1994), the President of the Italian Association for the Culture of Quality (2000-2002), the Presidentand then the Chairman of the International Academy for Quality (2006-2010). As a Funding Member ofthe European Foundation for Quality (EFQM), he brought to it his TQM Model, which became theEuropean Model for Excellence. He was a Contract Professor in two Italian Universities and a VisitingProfessor in many European Universities. In a presentation at the 2005 EOQ Congress in Moscow,he introduced the idea – and purpose – to merge Quality Thinking with Systems Thinking. Since then,such merging has become his pet subject. That was in tune with his conviction that qualitymanagement, in conjunction with systems thinking, is badly needed at the level of internationalsocio-political organizations, to avoid degeneration of the whole world ecosystem and self-destructionof the human system within it. Now Tito Conti has decided to retire from external engagementsbut not from thinking and writing about risks that menace our planet. Tito Conti can be contacted at:conti.tito@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

935

Sustainabledevelopment inthe globalization

era

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. CiasulloMaria Vincenza, Maria Vincenza Ciasullo. 2017. Introduction to the special issue onmanaging service innovation and quality: a service ecosystem perspective. The TQM Journal 29:6,762-766. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

mer

ald

Inst

itutio

n, C

athi

e M

anis

At 0

7:15

20

Nov

embe

r 20

17 (

PT)