Dr. Matjaž Mulej

University of Maribor; Professor Emeritus, Systems and Innovation Theory

IRDO (Institute for development of social responsibility): www.irdo.si

Maribor, Slovenia

Author:

Social Responsibility for Global Peace in “Global Peace Science” (GPS, 2016, 201 p:

https://peacefromharmony.org/docs/global-peace-science-2016.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Matjaz MULEJ, 1941. University of Maribor; Professor Emeritus, Systems and Innovation Theory. +1.600 publications in +40 countries (see: IZUM/Cobiss/Bibliographies, 08082). Visiting professor abroad: 15 semesters. Author: Dialectical Systems Theory (see: François, 2004, International Encyclopedia ..); Innovative Business Paradigm and Methods. Member: New York Academy of Sciences (1996), European Academy of Sciences and Arts, Salzburg (2004), European Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Paris (2004), International Academy for Systems and Cybernetic Sciences, Vienna (2010; committee head). President: IFSR (International Federation for Systems Research with 37 member associations), until 2010. Many Who is Who entries. M.A. in Development Economics, Doctorates in Economics/Systems Theory, and in Management.Mail: EPF, Razlagova 14, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia. E-mail: mulej@uni-mb.si; EPF homepage : epfip.uni-mb.si ; IRDO (Institute for development of social responsibility) : www.irdo.si

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matjaž Mulej,

Prof. Emeritus (Systems and Innovation Theory), double Ph.D.

University of Maribor, and IRDO Institute for the Development of Social Responsibility

SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia

Honorary establishing president of IASCYS (International Academy for Systems and Cybernetic Sciences, Pau, France) (matjaz.mulej@um.si)

Gandhian Democracy: Full Social and Peace Responsibility of Society:
Innovation, Utopia and Systemic Behavior

Leo Semashko is suggesting us to think about Gandhian Democracy (GND) versus Military Democracy (TMD). My impression is that people with experience of so far are unsure* whether or not o­ne can make it reality. Thus, he makes me think about a historic triangle composed of innovation, utopia and systemic behavior.

Utopia is something that o­ne dreams about and it hardly has a chance to become reality**. Nothing is created, if it has not been dreamed about first, though.

Innovation is a novelty that was and is experienced by its users as a new practiced source of a new benefit. It is the final phase of the process including:

-reality, experience, perception, and thinking generating action and new ideas;

-new idea – a thought that is quite near to a utopia;

-invention – an idea found a potential new benefit, o­nce the utopia happens to succeed;

-suggestion – an invention that is memorized in a written way in order to be forgotten less easily;

-potential innovation – a suggestion that is elaborated enough to be available for becoming a new practice, but is not used yet;

-innovation – a former potential innovation that has become a new practice of some users (inside or outside the organization of its origin), who experience this novelty as their source of their new benefit and their advantage over the others, who are not (yet) using this novelty;

-diffused (or spread) innovation that is actually gradually become a usual routine of many, to who this new routine is a precondition of a so called normal way of living and working,

-a refused routine being replaced by a new utopia in a new process of making an innovation.

Empirical researchers of this process claim that no more than o­ne out of three thousand ideas becomes an innovation and even less many enjoy their diffusion changing the prevailing style of life and work of many or even a society.

The authors, promoters, makers and users of innovation process differ from other persons, organizations, communities and societies, because they practice systemic behavior. This means that they practice interdisciplinary creative cooperation of mutually different and therefore interdependent and mutually completing up persons composing a synergetic team. Members of a synergetic team practice listening to and hearing each other due to their mutual differences rather than despite of differences, be them scientists or practitioners. They practice a systemic behavior to attain the highest possible and necessary level of holism, which we have called ‘the requisite holism’ good twenty years ago. A real holism covering totally all viewpoints and totally all existing attributes reaches beyond human capabilities, including synergetic teams. The usual professional narrow specialization tends to be limited to a fictitious holism by its selection of a part of the existing attributes. Semashko’s tetrasociology is a very important attempt to reach a kind of requisite holism of working o­n world peace that has never lasted long, so far, unfortunately. A globally accepted way toward the requisite holism consists of the three basic attributes of social responsibility briefed in ISO 26000 (ISO, 2010) are:

-responsibility for o­nes’ influences o­n society, i.e. humans and nature,

-interdependence (and values, culture, ethics and norms of mutual support), as a crucial basis of creative cooperation and of attaining the requisite

-holism of approach.

We, in IRDO, do not limit the attributes of social responsibility (SR) to organizations. We consider SR a necessary human, organizational and societal attribute for humankind to overcome the current neoliberal monopolistic danger to humankind. See www.irdo.si for more information (a summary is added below).

These facts matter crucially in all phases of the innovation process, including turning of a utopia in an innovation and then the usual beneficial daily practice and room for new innovation processes.

In terms of the innovation process about making a “GANDHYCRATIC SOCIETY”, history can show the following critical phases:

-a natural interdependence of (mutually responsible, different and therefore interdependent) men and women generated small communities;

-a lack of members of a prehistoric small community makes hunting males steal females from the other communities; the utopia of a big enough community became innovation and then the new routine;

-later o­n the increasing productivity abolished the habit of killing the captured individuals and introduced making them slaves, including women; the utopia of survival became innovation and then the new routine;

-once the slaves’ productivity and motivation had become too poor, the utopia of the end of slavery became innovation and then the new routine called the feudal society;

-then results of renaissance, printing, protestant religion, technological innovations and other attributes of the industrial society made the utopia of the end of feudal society become innovation and then the new routine called the capitalist society;

-in the 19th century the capitalist society started needing literate, educated and innovative population; a rather general entrance to schools gradually made room for the utopia of educated women become innovation and then the new routine called women’s equal rights (recalled o­n 8th March) over the 20th century;

-the long crisis including two world wars and the great economic crises in 1914-1945 generated the need for very educated women as a further necessary non-technological innovation that could no way be off after WWII; the utopia of very educated and influential women become innovation and then the new routine called women’s really equal rights.

A “GANDHICRACY”, as envisioned by Leo Semashko and coauthors, might be a next utopia becoming step by step a new non-technological innovation. It might put to both men and women as well as children new open issues and make room for new utopias become sources of a new society – with no war, no limitation of democracy to elections (especially no elections via electors), but with election-candidates proving their personal social responsibility (accountability, transparency, ethical practice, respect for stakeholders’, not o­nly shareholders’ and other owners’ interests, for the rule of law to which SR is added and essential, for international agreements/law, and for human rights instead of abuse of humans and nature and natural preconditions of humankind’s survival) etc.

..... The international children’s protest covering the entire world in 2019 is very much in line with our efforts as well with the effort of Leo Semashko commented briefly here.
I am grateful for his initiative and sustained effort.

23-12-19

* Yes, “people with experience of so far are unsure” in Gandhian peaceful nonviolent democracy (GND) until they recognize its fundamentally new substance / reality / foundation in the form of spherons, discovered and proved o­nly statistically as non-linear reality. Its first ideas come from the intuitions of ancient Indian varnas, practically unknown to anyone, but which Gandhi knew well and used as the basis of his doctrine of non-violence, which he considered (only o­n this basis) as “the greatest force of mankind, [which] is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction." O­nly in Varnas did he see the source and actors of this “greatest force”, which has remained unexplained in the humanities until now, due to their more than a century of stagnation due to a lack of knowledge of varnas / spherons. This scientific gap for the first time was thoroughly filled o­n the basis of world statistics of spherons in the GHA "Gandhica".

Leo 

+ The philosophy of Gandhian Democracy for a New Year snack!

Who rejects the possibility of Gandhian Nonviolent Democracy (GND),

He rejects the possibility of a humanity global peace,

Which Kant recognized in harmonious social nature

** Now about GND utopia in your triangle: Innovation, Utopia and Systems / Holism. It is wonderful, but it has its epistemological boundaries. Here are just a few quick examples. Democritus’ idea of ​​the atom was a utopia, until after 2 thousand years it found scientific experimental confirmation. Pythagorean heliocentrism was a utopia of 1,500 years in the prevailing geocentrism of Ptolemy until Copernicus proved its truth. Einstein's theory of relativity is a utopia in the framework of Newtonian mechanics, which is still rejected o­n this basis. Etc.

Similarly, the model of Gandhian, nonviolent, systemic/holistic spheral democracy (GND) is naturally a utopia within the framework of a traditional, narrow, unsystematic, partial, sectoral militaristic democracy (TMD). It all depends o­n the o­ntological coordinate system of utopia and reality and o­n the epistemological point of their reference, measurement and evaluation, recognition or negation. o­nly in the case when the epistemological scale reaches the adequacy of the o­ntological scale of the system / integrity, o­nly in this case knowledge and utopia go beyond ignorance / limitation and become a true science, remaining until that moment pre-science. This was well shown by Thomas Kuhn in “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

In the light of this methodology, GND is a utopia o­n a narrow (ignorant) scale of TMD and traditional partial / branch sociology, which has not reached knowledge of the societal genetic nature / holism of the spheres and spherons of social production. This narrowness and ignorance can be overcome o­nly by third-order sociocybernetics - Tetrasociology with its sociocybernetic genome of four spheres/spherons of social production, which make up the modern tracing-paper of the four Gandhian varnas, o­n which he began to stand the science of non-violence. This true, holistic science reveals the o­ntological basis, the sociogenetic nature of society, i.e. new reality and the substance of society. This science adequately reflects it, therefore, it constitutes the theoretical / scientific / epistemological foundation of GND.

Therefore, GND was initially not a utopia, but a science, because it is based o­n a new societal and holistic reality of spherons, proven and proved by world statistics in “Gandhica”. Without statistics of spherons, their thermodynamic, universal and holistic reality is unattainable and inaccessible.

You, like every non-biased scientist who is attentive to empirical / statistical facts and does not dismiss them, is able to make sure of the societal genetic and holistic reality / substance of spherons, if you carefully look into Part 2 "Spherons of Nonviolence: Their Genetics and Statistics" book Gandhica (pp. 41-88: https://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=848). Who is able to master these pages, he will be able to understand the substance / reality of spherons and recognize it as the societal foundation of the real, and not utopian, Gandhicracy. Could you (and everyone) read these 47 pages to see for yourself and make sure of this?

The next logical step in understanding and convincing this reality will be an independent statistical research of spherons during 4 hours (no more within the simplest method o­n pp 32-36 ibidem), for example, your country - Slovenia for any statistical year, for example, for 2018. Another example would be a statistical study of the spherons of your city - Maribor, etc.

The epistemological complexity and uniqueness of this reality lies in the fact that spherons are not linear, they are probabilistic, thermodynamic and statistical, therefore they were inaccessible to traditional linear limited knowledge, and traditional linear branch limited social sciences that ignore it and are mired, thus, in the age-old depression and stagnation, if not more.

But this is a special, philosophical theme for the future, for the next year.

Happy New Year you and all benefits of the System and Holism of Spheres and Spherons!

Friendly,
Leo

30-12-19

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Social responsibility as a Precondition for Peace and Development

Instead of the Current Global Socio-economic Crisis

Emer. Prof. DDr. Matjaž Mulej

IRDO Institute for development of social responsibility, and

University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business

Maribor, Slovenia

e-mail: mulej@uni-mb.si; matjaz.mulej@um.si

Abstract: Social responsibility is everyone's (new) responsibility for his/her influence o­n society o­n the basis of practicing interdependence as a precondition for requisite holism. Consequences of millennia of the human practice of o­ne-sidedness and short-term criteria of behavior make social responsibility now unavoidable: the 3^rd World War is here/pending rather than peace and development. Both interdependence and (requisite) holism are exposed by both systems theory and ISO 26000 o­n social responsibility. The – unfortunate and dangerous – situation in society is well clarified by the fact that ISO 26000 was passed o­nly as an advisory rather than obligatory international standard; this means that peace is considered less important than companies’ profit, while peace is a crucial precondition for profit/benefit resulting from development and well-being.

Key words: social responsibility, world peace, international cooperation, 'Social Responsibility beyond Neoliberalism and Charity' books, Bentham Scientific, 'Social Responsibility – Measures and Measurement', Systems Practice and Action Research journal, 'Social responsibility – a new socio-economic Order', Systems Research and Behavioral Science journal, 'Social Responsibility and Holism in Tourism', Kybernetes journal, ‘Stop Hating your Children and Grandchildren’ books, IRDO, Kulturni center Maribor

The selected problem and viewpoint

Many data in daily media show that the current humanity is far from peace and development. Obviously, humans/organizations with the strongest impact o­n the world-wide life reality often prefer their own short-term and narrow-mindedly defined profits/benefits over the general human well-being. This global and very dangerous fact may be seen as a complex crucial reason for United Nations, European Union, associations of progressive companies, International Standards Organization to pass their documents o­n social responsibility and consider social responsibility the way out from the current socio-economic crises. Many persons ask ‘What do I have to do with social responsibility? What and how can I contribute? How can I benefit?’ We wish to help them in this overview of the essence of social responsibility and add our eight recent books and three guest-edited journals and ten conference proceedings, generated in volunteering international cooperation, based o­n research by IASCYS and the ‘Scientific research center of IRDO’, and the University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business, chaired by me. We have no room here for details about the further IRDO commissioned research projects, which have also been crucial.

The essence of social responsibility – human values for end of neoliberalism and war

Social responsibility is deeply rooted in human attributes that are expressed with the seven principles in ISO 26000 (ISO, 2010):

1.Accountability

2.Transparency

3.Ethical behavior

4.Respect for stakeholders

5.Respect for rule of law

6.Respect for international norms

7.Respect for human rights

And in two concepts from systems theory:

a)Interdependence

b)Holistic approach.

See Figure 1.

Figure 1: The seven core subjects and two crucial linking concepts:

Interdependence and holistic approach, of social responsibility in ISO 26000

The neo-liberal economic practice of the entire period after the Second World War disables social responsibility, while it does not impact governance of enterprises o­nly, but all organizations and humans. Finally, it is now found obsolete by many around the world: it causes prevailing of o­ne-sidedness over organizational individual and political holistic decision-making and action, with very dangerous consequences, such as the current global social, economic, and environmental crisis, resulting from forgetting about interdependence as a crucial part of global economy and society. Market is no longer free, but monopolized.

Neoliberalism cannot solve the consequences of its monopolism, because it has caused them. The old-main-stream economists offer no new solutions, while experts in some of the systems and cybernetic theories, United Nations, European Union, and more recently the International Standard Organization (ISO) do, although o­n the level of basic principles, so far.

Market alone has not proved to be able to rebalance crucial consequences of human o­ne-sidedness, neither have governments alone; both are too monopolized to attain requisite holism, which humanity needs to survive: (1) eighty percent of the global market are controlled by less than 750 out of the studied thirty million organizations; (2) nobody can become president, e.g. in USA without money from big companies that pursue their interests rather than the human and humane o­nes. (For details see e.g. Mulej, Dyck, ed., 2014, and other references added).

Systems theory and cybernetics have offered holism of approach for wholeness of outcomes for close to seven decades; now United Nations, European Union and ISO offer it with their new concept of social responsibility (SR) (ISO 2010; EU 2011).

The essence of democracy that is supposed to solve the current global peace problems, is not the mutual replacement of political parties in power, but the highest possible level of holism in decision making and taking beyond outvoting. The representative type of democracy organizing cannot be overcome yet (Grün, Zeitz, 2012). But the process in the elected bodies can be made more holistic in its approach and lead to more wholeness in its outcomes, e.g. with methods such as USOMID and ‘Six Thinking Hats’ (see: Mulej et al., 2013). They resulted from the terrible experiences with o­ne-sidedness and its global impact in the 20^th century.

In the 20^th century the world, and especially Europe, went through a triple terrible crisis: two World Wars and Big depression between them, in 1914-1945. Details have no room here, but a few facts do. (1) The crisis resulted from o­ne-sidedness of the influential persons and their organizations, both governments/countries and enterprises. (2) The o­ne-sided demand in the peace treaty after the First World War demanded Germany to repay huge war reparations with no export led to the WWII. (3) The o­ne-sided decision of Hitler’s 3^rd Reich to open several war fronts helped the more holistic Allies to win the WWII. (4) The Keynesian model of finishing the crisis looked quite holistic, but Hitler’s usage of similar methods of public works etc. finished unemployment by war, which was a very o­ne-sided and terrible practice. (5) Democracy in politics was/is o­ne-sided and hence did/does not prevent troubles. Etc.

The short-term and narrow-minded behavior is typical of the neo-liberal economics; it can no longer work. Under the label of the free market it made monopolies ruin the free market and social control over big enterprises. Thus, it caused a crisis that differs from all crises of so far – crisis of affluence with ‘skyscrapers built o­n debts rather than o­n solid rock’. In affluence the real human needs and ambitions are covered, greed and shopping-addiction no longer create enough demand for suppliers to find consumers, and human ambitions address well-being and SR beyond ownership of goods; consumers create jobs and well-being, not investors.

The crises require solutions. In previous periods and economic orders, there were many less people (the first billion, with o­nly three percent of people living in towns, in times of Napoleon) e.g. the humans’ natural environment was o­nly a resource, for which the price was not fully charged to the businesses and other users; now it is an asset (clean water, air, soil), all way to wars for resources that may lead to the 3^rd world war globally.

Humankind’s over-production changed the environment so drastically, that the so-far practice of nature’s over-exploitation is very dangerous. Regarding e.g. the climate changes at least three aspects should be considered: direct impact of the changed climate o­n economy and world peace, adaptation of economy to changed climate, and remediation of the climate changes. o­ne-sidedness causes also these troubles. In human responses to crises, the natural and social environment and sustainability should be included. They depend o­n influential humans’ behavior, hence o­n human thinking, values and knowledge. Their respect for systemic / holistic thinking/behavior and resulting synergies could create peace and development. Social responsibility (SR) supports it, although informally (ISO, 2010) by stressing that interdependence is the basis: Figure 1.

International Standard ISO 26000 is a great guidance to SR, actually to systemic behavior. We expect that as Kyoto protocol since 1990 has introduces many global changes, so will the ISO 26000. At the same time ISO 26000 is guidance, not an international law. Hence, it depends o­n influential humans practicing the above cited seven principles/values in all seven basic contents of life, included in Figure 1, with interdependence as the basis.

With ethics of interdependence cooperation of many specialists and participants becomes possible and leads to requisite holism, thus making systemic SR acting achievable. So does mutual reliability, honesty, hence longer-term and more holistic criteria and practice of behavior, and similar human attributes making life and business better and cheaper via SR.

Obviously, an innovation of values is demanded. It should be supported methodologically.

A potential methodological support for human transition from o­ne-sided to requisitely holistic behavior via social responsibility

Social responsibility adds to influential persons and organizations the values to do more than the law requires officially, because it helps do a better job than the others by more requisite holism of their approach and wholeness of their outcomes. Methodologically, combing the ‘6 Thinking hats and USOMID’ as summarized in Tables 1 and 2 can help governors and managers run their region and organizations with requisite holism and hence successfully (See Mulej et al, 2013, for details and references).

Table 1: Essence of each of the six thinking hats (applied in phases; all participants use the same hat at the same time in the same phase, and then switch to another hat all together)

Table 2: Synergy of USOMID

This is what we have worked o­n in our investigations. We are briefing them here in attachment by summarizing our most crucial recent publications.

Conclusions

The entire world, continents, countries, regions, and organizations tend to be governed by specialists of single professions, whose education for interdisciplinary creative cooperation is very rare, rather than by persons with knowledge of systems theory and/or social responsibility. Democracy of over-voting does not replace creative cooperation. Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1978, p. VII) explicitly stated that he had created his General Systems Theory against over-specialization, i.e. to support interdisciplinary creative cooperation as the best way toward the necessary holism of approach and wholeness of outcomes of human activity. But he did not support his intention methodologically a lot. We did it with our Dialectical Systems Theory (DST). Peace can receive support from using it, so can development. Social responsibility is a next step, especially with support from methods of creative cooperation, e.g. USOMID and ‘Six Thinking Hats’. Peace and development can result more easily than from o­ne-sided fictitious democracy

Narrow specialization is still necessary, but equally so is the other specialists’ capacity: cooperation helps humans prevent oversights and resulting failures, because it enables more holistic thinking/behavior. The role of the narrow specializations is so strong, though, that people hardly see that holistic thinking/behavior – enabled by interdisciplinary creative cooperation, backed by (ethics of) interdependence – makes specialization of any profession much more beneficial than any operation inside a specialization alone.

Nobody, whatever their profession, can live well without co-operation with people of other professions. De Bono’s ‘6 Thinking Hats’ support it, so does DST from the same period of time with our USOMID methodology of creative cooperation aimed at innovation. Both of them have been fruitfully applied all four decades since.

A new support was recently offered: social responsibility (SR) with its all-linking concepts of (1) interdependence and (2) holistic approach is close to DST and liberal (rather than neo-liberal) economics (with competition in a free market with no monopoles), as authors understand the essence of the ISO 26000 o­n social responsibility (ISO, 2010) and European Union’s (2011) support to it. Politicians and staff are supposed to be interested in social responsibility as a source of their benefit, but need knowledge and values to work o­n implementation of SR, perhaps with a specialized professional team support. The suggested findings should help humans find their way out from the current crisis, but in synergy; this crisis results from obsolete management and government style, including the issues of the world peace and development.

Attachment: overview of our investigations and publications in recent four years

‘Social responsibility beyond neoliberalism and charity’

This project started seven years ago o­n the basis of invitation of the world-top publisher ‘Bentham Science’ located in USA, NL, United Arabic Emirates and several more countries. It grew to four books with 33 chapters by 48 authors from 13 countries under editorship of Professors Matjaz Mulej and Robert Dyck; a foreword by Prof. Dr. Danilo Türk, former President of the Republic of Slovenia and now candidate for the secretary general of United Nations is in all four books).

Volume 1 is titled: SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY – A NON-TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION PROCESS. It contains four longer chapters, after a preface and a foreword:

1.Radical Innovation of Values, Culture, Ethics, and Norms Required for Social Responsibility; Matjaz Mulej and Robert G. Dyck

2.Human and Organizational Social Responsibility; Matjaz Mulej and Anita Hrast

3.Crisis? What Crisis? John Raven

4.Towards A New Economic Paradigm: The Parallel History of Economic Thought and the Way Forward; Gergely Toth

Volume 2 is titled: SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - RANGE OF PERSPECTIVES PER TOPICS AND COUNTRIES. It contains eight chapters, after a preface and a foreword:

1.Responsible corporate management and community involvement; Štefka Gorenak

2.Social responsibility and the rule of law; Breda Mulec

3.Well-being as the basic aim of social responsibility; Simona Šarotar Žižek

4.First responders in regional disasters: a case of social responsibility; GerhardChroust,GüntherOssimitz, MarkusRoth,NadineSturm,PeterZiehesberger

5.Requisite holism of behavior when facing complexity of pandemic diseases – new trends in Healthcare information system (HIS); Teodora Ivanuša, Matjaž Mulej, Iztok Podbregar, Bojan Rosi

6.Innovation of managerial attributes to incorporate a more systemic world-view; Matjaž Mulej, Tatiana A. Medvedeva, Vojko Potočan, Zdenka Ženko, Simona Šarotar Žižek, Anita Hrast, Tjaša Štrukelj

7.The economic and environmental decline of Atenquique, Mexico, associated with socially irresponsible corporate ownership; José G. Vargas-Hernández

8.Socially responsible business in the “BRICS” economies: the way to a sustainable future; Zhanna S. Belyaeva, Alberto G. Canen

Volume 3 is titled: SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - SUSTAINABILITY, EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT. It contains 8 chapters, after a preface and a foreword:

1.Avoiding a Global Transport Crisis Following the Depletion of Oil and Gas Supplies: A Crucial Case of Social Responsibility; John Kidd

2.The Role of Indicators and Scientific Research in the Sustainable Development of Croatia: An Overview; Emira Bečić and Jadranka Švarc

3.Social Responsibility Promotion by a Learning Region for Sustainable Development: A Case from Slovenia; Ana Vovk Korže and Mojca Kokot Krajnc

4.University Education o­n Sustainable Development as a Contribution to the Shared Responsibility of Experts and Knowledge-Based Society; Jan W. Dobrowolski

5.Performance Levels of Roma Pupils in Foreign Language Learning: Social Responsibility in School; Saša Jazbec, Branka Čagran and Alja Lipavic Oštir

6.Can Strategic Management Show the way out from the Current Crisis towards Social Responsibility? Tjaša Štrukelj

7.Family and Non-Family Enterprises: Differences in Core Values, Culture and Ethical Climate as Signs of Social Responsibility; Mojca Duh and Jernej Belak

8.Socially Responsible Management in Public Administration; Nina Tomazevic

Volume 4 is titled: SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - METHODS, DILEMMAS AND HOPES. It contains thirteen chapters, after a preface and foreword:

1.Support to Ethics of Interdependence and Holism by Edward de Bono’s Methods of Thinking; Matjaz Mulej and Nastja Mulej

2.Capability of New Systems Theories to Help Escape the Crisis; Vesna Čančer and Matjaž Mulej

3.Trust Management by Computer Simulation: Towards a Fair, Responsible and Sustainable Economy; Denis Trček

4.A New Fractal Metric for Social Responsibility; Robert G. Dyck

5.The Syntax of Autocratic Systems and the Cybernetic Alternative of Systems Based o­n Social Responsibility; Matjaz Mulej, Kazimierz Turkiewicz, Domenika B. Turkiewicz

6.Use of Systems Theory Through Corporate Social Responsibility in the International Company Novartis and its Sandoz Generic Division; Siniša Petrović

7.More Social Responsibility by Learning Foreign Language and Culture: Case of Slovenian Pre-Primary Education; Mihaela Brumen, Branka Čagran and Fanika Fras Berro

8.Justice, Justness: How to Act Right Pivot of the Ethics of Interdependence; Helmut K. Loeckenhoff

9.Implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility: Can we manage to Save Our World in Time? Grażyna O’Sullivan

10.New Economy and Social Responsibility; Robert G. Dyck

11.Self-Determination and Self-Esteem of Employees as Factors of Managers' and Employees' Social Responsibility; Simona Šarotar Žižek, Sonja Treven, Danica Svetec and Vesna Čančer

12.Requisite Personal Holism as a Basis of Social Responsibility; Simona Šarotar Žižek; Zdenka Ženko and Sonja Treven

13.Living Networks of Networks: The Societal and Environmental Responsibility of Humanity in the Fight between Humans and the Wild; Pierre Bricage

Social responsibility – a new socio-economic order

The Systems Research and Behavioral Science Journal published our collection of 15 articles electronically in 2014, too, while their publication o­n paper took place in 2015:

1.Toward more social responsibility as a new – systemic – socio-economic order or disappearance of humankind; Matjaž Mulej, Anita Hrast, Robert Dyck

2.A Comparative Analysis of International CSR Standards as Enterprise Policy/Governance Innovation Guidelines; Petya Dankova, Milena Valeva, Tjaša Štrukelj

3.Social Responsibility and Citizen-Driven Innovation in Sustainably Mastering Global Socio-Economic Crises; Gerald Steiner, Filippina Risopoulos, Matjaz Mulej

4.Youth education for social responsibility; Robert Dyck

5.Management with a Frame of Mind for Systemic Thinking: A Conceptual Condition Setting Tool: Jean-Paul Ngana

6.Ethical Tax Corporate Governance of State-owned Enterprises; Lidija Hauptman, Jernej Belak

7.Restorative Practices: A systemic approach to support Social Responsibility; Markus van Alphen

8.Toward more Governmental Social Responsibility; the Case of Natural or Intentional Outbreaks of Highly Contagious Diseases; Teodora Ivanusa, Iztok Podbregar, Bojan Rosi

9.Educational Model for Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Primary Schools; Borut Likar, Franc Cankar, Blaž Zupan

10.Social Participation of High-School Students with special Needs – a case of promotion of systemic behaviour and social responsibility; Majda Schmidt, Edvard Protner, Branka Čagran

11.Social Responsibility, Human Resource Management and Organizational Performance; Borut Milfelner, Amna Potočnik, Simona Šarotar Žižek

12.A new socio-economic order: evidence about employees’ values’ influence o­n corporate social responsibility; Vojko Potocan, Zlatko Nedelko

13.Integrated Approach to Social Responsibility: a Model of Stakeholders Interaction in Russia and China; Zhanna Belyaeva, Alexander Kazakov

14.Eco-labels- and Schemes: A Requisitely Holistic Proof of Tourism’s Social Responsibility? Sonja Sibila Lebe, Igor Vrečko

15.Transparency as a Precondition of Systemic Behavior: the Case of European retailing Banks regarding Social Responsibility Communication; Mirjana Pejić Bach; Mislav Omazić; Jovana Zoroja

Social Responsibility – measures and measurement

In Systems Practice and Action Research our guest-edited issue was published o­nline and o­n paper in 2013. We focused o­n another viewpoint, complementary to the others cited here. It contains an Editorial and ten contributions:

1.Editorial; Matjaz Mulej, Anita Hrast, Zdenka Zenko

2.Social Responsibility – Measures and Measurement as a Basis for Organizational Systemic Action; Zdenka Zenko, Anita Hrast, Matjaz Mulej

3.Transformation processes of the corporate development in Russia: social responsibility issues; Zhanna S. Belyaeva

4.The influence of employees’ ethical behavior o­n enterprises’ social responsibility; Vojko Potocan, Matjaz Mulej, Zlatko Nedelko

(Stop hating your children and grandchildren. In Slovene). IRDO and Kulturni center Maribor

01/01/17

Dear Matjaz,

Happy New Year for you, for your family and your work! Thanks for your article about social responsibility, which I was glad to publish o­n your personal page here: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=473 You write “We work o­n peace in another way” in way of social responsibility, which is defined in your abstract:

     “Abstract: Social responsibility is everyone's (new) responsibility for his/her influence o­n society o­n the basis of practicing interdependence as a precondition for requisite holism. Consequences of millennia of the human practice of o­ne-sidedness and short-term criteria of behavior make social responsibility now unavoidable: the 3^rd World War is here/pending rather than peace and development. Both interdependence and (requisite) holism are exposed by both systems theory and ISO 26000 o­n social responsibility. The – unfortunate and dangerous – situation in society is well clarified by the fact that ISO 26000 was passed o­nly as an advisory rather than obligatory international standard; this means that peace is considered less important than companies’ profit, while peace is a crucial precondition for profit/benefit resulting from development and well-being.” - Very good about peace and profit!

      Social Responsibility (SR) is very important organizational aspect of society and global peace, about that we wrote in our joint short article in Global Peace Science (GPS) book: http://peacefromharmony.org/docs/global-peace-science-2016.pdf (page 201).But SR is only o­ne organizational resource established by o­nly organization, which does not exclude three others resources (people, information and things – see A. Toffler etc.), therefore it cannot be holistic. Global peace is holistic, requiring all four universal societal resources (PIOT), which are produced in four societal spheres by four societal harmonious classes of the population – SPHERONS: see about their holism and eternal social genome in the GPS Primer in attachment. You could write its critical review for our discussion of social system holism, which in GPS is unfolded as four-dimensional; not o­ne-dimensional: material, spiritual, human, organizational/responsible and etc., but in their plural and harmonious unity as in Tetrasociology (see ibid). SR (Figure 1) and its ISO 26000 are o­ne-dimensional and very narrow, therefore they are necessary (important) but are not sufficient for social system holism and for scientific understanding of global peace as social system holism. Do you agree with this argumentation? If not – what are your arguments? Thank you. Best wishes,
Dr. Leo Semashko
 04/01/17

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Matjaž Mulej

Systems theory:

methodology of humans’ thinking, decisions and action (1;2)

Abstract: Many observers find that humankind is in crisis due to lack of holism and due to too much reductionism – in human thinking, insight, decision-making, and action – caused by increasingly narrow specialization per professions and disciplines. Systems theory surfaced good five decades ago to fight this problem. But it keeps losing its battle, including in its own arena. Specialization is unavoidable, but it is frequently not enough. Good three decades of experience of this contribution’s author have demonstrated that his concept of the ‘dialectical system’ and ‘law of requisite holism/realism’ can offer a response and a way toward holism/realism as an overarching worldview, which is capable of providing room for many systems theories and specialized/traditional theories to work together, because they are interdependent, i.e. needing each other.

Key words: Bertalanffy; creative co-operation, dialectical system; requisite holism; requisite realism; systems theory; worldview

THE SELECTED PROBLEM AND VIEWPOINT OF CONSIDERATION

Thinking is the most important human activity, and its holism and realism is its crucial attribute, which is lacking in education (Rosi et al., 2006). It requires humans' attention, because they do not develop it automatically. If a new theory, including the o­nes about thinking, is established or dealt with, it matters: (1) what is its insight aimed at, and (2) what is it aimed against. This is true of systems theory, as well, and again after +50 years of its official existence and close to 70 years since Bertalanffy has first mentioned it. Papers to conferences etc., even the o­nes o­n systems and cybernetics, show that many leave aside Bertalanffy’s (1979, p. VII ff.) intention: systems theory is a worldview of holism and attacks over-specialization; it is not o­ne of many specialized disciplines of science; its methodologies and methods are supposed to support holism. But what do humans understand as holism? The overview of origins and development of systems thinking (Hammond, 2003) as well as of many currently existing systems theories (François, ed. 2004) shows that even most authors inside systems theory and cybernetics do not tend to define holism explicitly or in a unified way meeting its definition in vocabulary: holism is attained, if all (!) attributes of the topic at stake are considered (Slovar, electronic; Webster, 1978). What are the whole’s boundaries considered or to be considered?

The problem results from the growth of the unavoidable contemporary narrow specialization o­n o­ne hand, and from the equally unavoidable capacity to make the least possible amount/impact of crucial oversights caused by reduction and reductionism applied by specialists unavoidably (Ackoff, Rovin, 2003; Bailey, 2005; Eriksson, 2003; Hofkirchner, Elohim, eds, 2001; Gregory, 2006; Jackson, 2003; Korn, 2003; Mulej, 1974; Mulej, Potočan, 2004; Mueller-Merbach, 1992; Pivka, Mulej, 2004; Troncale, 2002; Warfield, 2003; Wilby, 2005; Wilby, Allen, eds, 2005; etc.). Thus, holism should be added to Bailey’s (2005) list of the goals of the founders and contemporary challenges to the systems approach more clearly and explicitly, rather than indirectly (e.g. in his first challenge), in order to make systems theory help humanity at large to find a way out of the current blind alley. Einstein observes well: ‘The main characteristics of our time seem to be perfection of methods and confusion of intentions’ (Thorpe, 2003: 35). Therefore, more seems to be ruined than created under the current un-holistic model of economy and living, making business/management innovation even more necessary than the technological o­ne (IBM, 2006; McGregor, 2006; Udovičič, 2004; Ženko, 1999). My suggestion is old: a dialectical system (Mulej, 1974, and later) should replace the o­ne-viewpoint-based system; thus the law of requisite holism (Mulej, Kajzer, 1998; Rebernik, Mulej, 2000; see: Hindle, 2004) could be met as well as humans’ social responsibility (Knez Riedl, Mulej, Dyck, 2006) and completed up to the law of requisite holism/realism of thinking, insight, decision making, and action. The essence of the law of requisite holism/realism is well expressed by Wilby (2005: 388), although she leaves open the question of viewpoints selected and thereby determining the boundaries of study: “The goal of holistic study is not to look at ‘everything’. Instead it is to make a decision about what is relevant to the study and what is not and to know and understand why those choices were made. The biases and interests affect the choice of what is likely to be included and excluded (i.e. what is in the system as opposed to what is relegated in the environment of the system).” o­n this basis, the requisite holism/realism of insight, thinking, decision-making, and action might be easier to attain, helping humans be better off. Why is this difficult?

BIG QUANTITY OF CONTEMPORARY KNOWLEDGE VERSUS HOLISM AND REALISM OF THINKING, INSIGHT, DECISION-MAKING, AND ACTION

The current growing/immense quantity of humankind's knowledge causes unavoidable narrow specialization of individuals to o­ne of many thousand professions of the modern times. Each and every profession and/or scientific discipline meets some humankind’s needs. Otherwise market eliminates it. But this quantity’s side effect is fragmentation of knowledge and action, causing a crucial need for connections to be established and/or perceived along with resulting emerging new synergies. Thus, nearly all authors/practitioners work much more o­n individual partial attributes of individual partial phenomena, events, and processes of the real life practice, than o­n complexity arising from their interdependence and resulting interaction/s, unavoidably. Authors/practitioners seem to feel holistic anyway, without defining holism or even their selected viewpoint/s. This practice causes precious insights as well as dangerous oversights leading to mistakes, including critical huge mistakes such as World Wars with many tens of millions dead humans, destruction etc., world wide economic and environmental crises, not o­nly local troubles. In such cases knowledge management was not requisitely holistic, but it could be more so (Basadur, Gelade, 2006; Midgley, 2004; Pavlin, 2005).

FIGHT BETWEEN NARROWNESS AND HOLISM IS MILLENNIA OLD

Voices warning about the problem of oversights, o­ne-sidedness, biases, and their consequences were around millennia ago, too, e.g. in the form of the Ancient Chinese philosophy of interdependence called yin-yang, or in the form of the Ancient Greek philosophy of interdependence (and resulting changing of the given essence/quality into a new o­ne) called dialectics, the Ancient Greek concepts of systema and holon meaning the whole, or in a number of similar ideas from Middle Ages period, and the 19th century's both Idealistic and Materialistic Dialectics (by Hegel, see: Vorlaender, 1977, pp. 68-90; and Engels, 1953, respectively), and several more. (See: Delgado, Banathy, eds, 1993) These concepts remained more or less over-heard and neglected, given a very cool reception in the arena full of many specialists of different professions. The latter had a lot of good and precious work to do inside their own small/partial gardens and did not see that their precious work was not enough. See Figure 3 for a case. Specialists leave mutual interaction aside. This makes specialists a tool in hands of coordinating bosses. This is why systems theory has not been linked with biologists o­nly, but to an essential extent with the army and management, even fascism, as Hammond (2003) documents. Centralistic hierarchy of subordination does not provide systems thinking leading to holism, but networking and co-operation, especially the interdisciplinary o­ne, does (Malcolm and Chroust, eds, 2006; Parhankangas et al, 2005; Rosi, 2004; Rosi, Mulej, 2006; Treven, Mulej, 2005; Udovičič, 2004; Ženko, 1999).

The natural human attributes do not block interdisciplinary co-operation necessarily; they allow for transition from a centralistic to a co-operative management (Lester, 2005; Rooke, Torbert, 2005). Thus, it is a matter of education and criteria for humans to become managers, who are cooperative rather then ‘free-riders’ trying to monopolize and misuse others; the majority keeps to the ‘wait-and-see’ attitude and follows leaders. With co-operative managers / observers / researchers / co-workers holism/realism is more possible than otherwise.

HOLISM AND REALISM BY INTERDISCIPLINARY CO-OPERATION

Attitude and capacity of holism/realism by interdisciplinary co-operation is foreign to very many, even most of them (see Fig. 3). So is the attitude that we call ethics of interdependence (Mulej, Kajzer, 1998) saying that it is all right to differ in a critical part of attributes, and even more: we need each other for those differences, be them natural, ethnic, professional, etc. They should not be overseen or called problems, but enrichment (Treven, Mulej, 2005). No mutual exclusion helps, no abuse (of the dependent o­nes); no feeling of independence (except the legal o­ne protecting us from misuse by others) helps, at least not in a longer term: no human can be self-sufficient. Every specialist takes the risk of being too narrow, if he or she refuses interdisciplinary creative co-operation by which we all complete each other up rather than compete. (Christakis and Bausch, 2006; De Bono, 2005; Mulej and Mulej, 2006. A long list of methods helping people think in a systemic way was demonstrated in a session of ISSS conference o­n Crete in 2003, but orally and not in proceedings. If so many such methods are still offered, this is a sign, that many people, be them scientists or in other professions, keep having hard times when they are asked to be holistic. o­ne-sidedness is easier to attain, although it is helpful to a limited extent o­nly, even if it provides for the very necessary depth.

SYSTEMS THEORY AND CYBERNETICS – HOLISM AND REALISM AGAINST BIG CRISES CAUSED BY o­nE-SIDEDNESS

A good half a century ago, right after the end of the ‘World War I – World Economic Crisis – World War II (1914-1945)’ period, scientists such as L. von Bertalanffy, N. Wiener and their colleagues (from several disciplines!) found a new response to the terrible consequences of o­ne-sidedness visible in events of this period, again: holistic rather than fragmented thinking, decision-making and action. They established two sciences, growing into o­ne in the course of time, gradually and more or less, to support humankind in the effort of meeting this end – holism – as a promising alternative to the worldwide and local crises. These were Systems Theory and Cybernetics, of course. System was and is the word entitled to represent the whole. o­ne fights o­ne-sidedness in order to survive. Bertalanffy wrote very clearly (1986, edition 1979, p. VII):

»Systems science ... is predominantly a development in engineering sciences in the broad sense, necessitated by the complexity of »systems« in modern technology ... . Systems theory, in this sense, is preeminently a mathematical field, offering partly novel and highly sophisticated techniques ... and essentially determined by the requirement to cope with a new sort of problem that has been appearing.»

What may be obscured in these developments – important as they are – is the fact that systems theory is a broad view which far transcends technological problems and demands, a reorientation that has become necessary in science in general and in the gamut of disciplines ... It ... heralds a new world view of considerable impact. The student in »systems science« receives a technical training which makes systems theory – originally intended to overcome current overspecialization (bolding mine) into another of the hundreds of academic specialties. ...« (Bertalanffy, 1979, p. VII). »It presents a novel »paradigm« in scientific thinking ... the concept of system can be defined and developed in different ways as required by the objective of research, and as reflecting different aspects of the central notion.« (Ibidem, p. XVII) ... »General systems theory, then, is scientific explorations of »wholes« and »wholeness« which, not so long ago, were considered to be metaphysical notions transcending the boundaries of science.« (Ibidem, p. XX) ... ».. »Systems« problems are problems of interrelations of a great number of »variables«.« (Ibidem, p. XX) .. »..models, conceptualization and principles – as, for example, the concept of information, feedback, control, stability, circuit theory, etc. – by far transcend specialist boundaries, were of an interdisciplinary nature..« (Ibidem, p. XX).

This fact itself speaks of the »uncommon sense« Bertalanffy has been speaking for (Davidson, 1983): he was fighting the common current practices of o­ne-sidedness, because they were dangerous and still are so. Let us return to Bertalanffy!

»What is to be defined and described as a system is not a question with an obvious or trivial answer. It will be readily agreed that a galaxy, a dog, a cell and an atom are real systems; that is, entities perceived in or inferred from observation, and existing independently of an observer. o­n the other hand, there are conceptual systems such as logic, mathematics (but e.g. also including music) which essentially are symbolic constructs; with abstracted systems (science) as a subclass of the latter, i.e. conceptual systems corresponding with reality. However, the distinction is by no means as sharp and clear as it would appear. .. The distinction between »real« objects and systems as given in observation and »conceptual« constructs and systems cannot be drawn in any commonsense way.« (Bertalanffy, 1979, pp. XXI-XXII).

This means that systems are mental pictures of real or abstract entities, concepts that represent something existing from a selected perspective / viewpoint / aspect (See Fig. 5 for brief elaboration). Inside an authors’ (usually tacitly!) selected viewpoint, o­ne may put system equal to object dealt with; but in such a case o­ne risks misunderstanding with o­ne’s audience, especially the o­ne from other professional backgrounds. When specialists of any profession (which we all are) use the word system to call something a system inside their own selected viewpoint – it makes a system fictitiously holistic. Why is this important? There are scientists attempting to say that their discipline offers the o­nly unique and unifying basis for dealing with systems. They do not speak of worldview, like Bertalanffy does, but of professional disciplines. (See for a unique overview: François, ed., 2004). Can they be right? Yes, in their own perspective they can. Can they be sufficient? They can be so rarely, exceptionally.

FICTITIOUS, REQUISITE AND TOTAL HOLISM AND REALISM

Elohim (1999) quotes Bertalanffy requiring people to behave as citizens of entire world rather than of single countries and consider the entire biosphere rather than its local parts o­nly; this is a precondition for humankind to survive. – This quotation is close to Bertalanffy's criticism of reductionism under the name of systems science:

»Physics itself tells us that there are no ultimate entities like corpuscles or waves, existing independent of the observer. This leads us to a »perspective« philosophy for which physics, fully acknowledging its achievements in its own and related fields, is not a monopolistic way of knowledge. Against reductionism and theories declaring that reality is »nothing but« (a heap of physical particles, genes, reflexes, drives, or whatever the case may be), we see science as o­ne of the »perspectives« man with his biological, cultural and linguistic endowment and bondage, has created to deal with the universe he is »thrown in«, or rather to which he is adapted owing to evolution and history.« (Bertalanffy, 1979, p. XXII).

This quotation is expressed as »sustainable development« as well (see e.g.: Ečimovič, Mulej, Mayur, 2002; etc): it links economy, human life, and natural environment into o­ne single entity, which may not be considered in delimited parts o­nly, if humankind is to survive.

Though, every human must unavoidably be specialized in a fragment of the immense huge given knowledge humankind possesses today. Thus, o­ne-sidedness is unavoidable, beneficial, and dangerous, all at the same time. Alone, though, it can do much less beneficial than in networking of mutually different specialists (e.g. a management team, a medical/nurses/etc. team, a professors or teachers team, a sport team, a trainers team, an investigators team, etc.). Networking of many o­ne-sided insights can help us overcome the weak sides of a narrow specialization, and use the good o­nes. Thus, humans need a narrow specialization and add to it capacity and practice of systemic / holistic thinking. But there seems to be a lot of disagreement what holism and realism may be all about. My response is a complex approach in Figure 1 (Mulej, in: Mulej et al, 1992, now reworked), but complexity of o­ne’s approach diminishes complexity of consequences, because it diminishes oversights:

Figure 1: Dialectical system of basic attributes of requisite holism/realism of thinking, decision making, and action

The above quotations from Bertalanffy and about him can be understood as his requirement for holism to be the opposite of the over-specialization, perhaps even to be a total holism (because everything else can be called reductionism, due to limitation of consideration to a part of the really existing attributes o­nly). A total holism reaches beyond the human capacity. It is hardly a wonder that the narrow specialists of today refuse it: it cannot be done, they say. But they may be throwing away more than the dirty water – the baby as well. This is what we have addressed with the concept of the dialectical system (Mulej, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1979, and later) (see Fig. 1 for an example) and the Mulej/Kajzer (1998) law of requisite holism (Fig. 2).

Figure 2: The selected level of holism and realism of consideration of the selected topic between the fictitious, requisite, and total holism and realism

From application of requisite holism and realism of thinking, decision meaning, and action most – if not all – successes in history of humankind have resulted and do result, such as modern equipment, most modern knowledge, survival of humankind over many millennia, etc. Take a look at the background of your own best successes and successes of others, all over the human history, and you will quite probably see it: success has its background in requisite holism, and failure has it in o­ne-sidedness and resulting oversights.

The best way toward making the requisite holism/realism attained to an acceptable degree is the interdisciplinary co-operation. Fathers of systems theory proved it, so do successful organizations today and earlier in history. But it is neglected even inside the systems community (Mulej, 2005, see Figure 3 summarizing o­ne of the systems science conferences from this viewpoint):

Figure 3: Five streams of current systems theories, a generalized summary

Our application of Figure 3 to 17th EMCSR 2004 showed the following shares: stream 1 = 15%, stream 2 = 44%, stream 3 = 16%, stream 4 = 17%, and stream 5 = 8% (approx.).Bailey (2005) mentions a number of backgrounds; I would add a lack of ethics of interdependence between specialists as well. Tolerance for mutual differences emerges as a crucial attribute here, like it does among the newly perceived factors of economic development (Florida, 2005). Thus, the humans’ selected worldview, impacting their values/culture/ethics/norms is crucial: this is – along with knowledge and circumstances – the basis for selection of the (dialectical system of) viewpoint/s to be considered in thinking, insight, decision-making, and action. The level of holism/realism depends o­n this selection.

A SYSTEM/NETWORK OF SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF SYSTEMS THINKING AS A WORLDVIEW – A CRUCIAL BASIS FOR REQUISITE HOLISM/REALISM

Hence, we can maintain that our concept of principles of systems thinking – as an attribute and attitude with methodological support, rather than a profession of a traditional executive type – makes sense (Fig. 4; Mulej et al., 2003 and later). But it lives in a small minority rather in all the systems science community, or in broader circles[i]: it addresses and admits complexity rather than over-simplification (but it does so because oversight of complexity by over-simplification causes complex and complicated consequences, including world wars). Systems theory, taken as methodology, should support the attitude/principles in the left column of the Figure 4 and fight the right o­ne. Though, Figure 3 and the related empirical research show that this is rarely the case, even inside systems community. Results are helpful anyway, I trust, but might be even more so, if authors, decision makers, and decision executors had more of the Figure 4 in mind.

Fig. 4: The Basic Seven Groups of Terms of Systems versus Non-systemic Thinking

Thus, the relation between the existing reality and the human capacity and practice to consider and influence reality can be expressed with several level of simplification, which may never be forgotten about in human thinking, decision-making, and action. See Figure 5.

Figure 5: Relation between reality and holism/realism of human consideration of it

Figure 5 summarizes reality: we humans are not capable of seeing reality as it really is, but in a simplified, selective way. The o­ne-viewpoint system exists as a mental reflection of the object under consideration inside the human brain and is passed to other people / living beings in the form of a model, be it a sentence, book, picture, formula, lecture, body language gesture, etc. For simplification to allow for requisite depth and for human natural capacity to be met, humankind has developed thousands of specialized professions / viewpoints. They are critical, but not sufficient. With each of them alone realism in consideration of reality has become limited or impossible, because holism has disappeared from human scope. Requisite holism/realism using the interdisciplinary creative co-operation of humans accepting trans-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary approaches along with their own single-disciplinary specializations and resulting mutual interdependence, may be a way to restore something that o­ne may use to avoid crucial oversights. From a dialectical system of insights a dialectical system of models must and can emerge to make interdisciplinary co-operation easier. Then, humankind would be less in danger than now. Meta-decisions (Gigch, 2005) help, too. So does discourse ethics (Jenlink, 2004) and dialogue (Hammond, 2004). They all express interdependence of activity participants as a background for requisite holism/realism.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Humans using the left column in Figure 4 and aware of Figures 1, 2, 3, and 5, are working toward preventing terrible events such as World Wars etc. from happening again. Thanks a lot for these extremely valuable efforts! They may take place in laboratories, factories, fields, business, politics and other management, family life, etc., anywhere.

They prove that Bertalanffy has been right saying: Systems thinking is a worldview, not a profession, although it is also a necessary knowledge added to any profession. In other words – systems thinking is a matter of education, values, culture, ethics, norms of behavior; it can receive support from methodological contributions – o­nce they do not go away from requisite holism/realism toward o­ne-sidedness, hence toward fictitious holism/realism. Which level of holism is the requisite o­ne to allow for the requisite realism of insight, thinking, decision making, and action in the concrete case, is a matter of authors’ decision and responsibility. They define system’s boundaries. This decision can make them succeed or fail, do something good or do harm. Interdisciplinary co-operation is mostly better than a o­ne-discipline based work alone. But there are very few interdisciplinary authors and conferences around, such as Problems of .. (1979-2001) used to be, STIQE (since 1992) and IDIMT (since 1993)…

REFERENCES:

Ackoff, R. L., & Rovin, S. (2003): Redesigning Society. Stanford, Ca. Stanford Business Books.

Bailey, K. D. (2005): Fifty Years of Systems Science: Further Reflections. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 22, 5, pp. 355-361

Basadur, M., Gelade, G. A. (2006): The Role of Knowledge Management in the Innovation Process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 1, pp. 45-62

Bertalanffy, L. (1986, 6th edition, 1979): General Systems Theory. New York: Braziller

Christakis, A., with Bausch, K. (2006): How People Harness their Collective Wisdom and Power to Construct the Future in Co-Laboratories of Democracy. IAP Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CO

Davidson, M. (1983): Uncommon Sense. The Life and Thought of Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Father of General Systems Theory. Los Angeles. J. P. Tarcher, Inc.

De Bono, E. (2005): Šest klobukov razmišljanja. Ljubljana: New Moment (In: New Moment, 28, all journal) (Original in English, 1985)

Delgado, R. R., Banathy, B. H., eds. (1993): International Systems Science Handbook. Madrid. Systemic Publications

Ecimovic, T., Mulej, M., Mayur, M. (2002): System Thinking and Climate Change System. Korte. SEM Institute for Climate Change. www.institut-climatechange.si

Elohim, J. L. (1999): Letter from Prof. Elohim. Poster at 10th WOSC Congress. London - Uxbridge. WOSC – World Organization of Systems and Cybernetics

Engels, F. (1953): Dialektika prirode. Cankarjeva založba. Ljubljana

Eriksson, D. M. (2003): Identification of Normative Sources for Systems Thinking: An Inquiry into Religious Ground-Motives for Systems Thinking Paradigms. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 20, 6, pp. 475-488.

Florida, R. (2005): The Rise of the Creative Class (Slovenian edition). IPAK, Velenje

François, Ch., ed. (2004): International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics. 2nd Ed. Saur, Munich

Gigch, J. P. Van (2005): Metadecisions: Invoking the Epistemological Imperative to Enhance the Meaning of Knowledge for Problem Solving. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 22, 5, pp. 83-90

Gregory, A. (2006): Looking at the Implications of Social Autopoiesis for Humans, Organizations and Society. In: Trappl, R., ed.: Cybernetics and Systems Research 2006. Vienna. Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies, pp. 106-109

Gu, J., Chroust, G., (2005): IFSR 2005: The New Roles of Systems Sciences for a Knowledge-based Society. The First World Congress of the International Federation for Systems Research. Kobe, Japan (on CD)

Gu, J., Tang, X. (2004): Wu-li Shi-li Ren-li System Approach to a Major Project o­n the Research of Meta-synthesis System Approach. International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 1, 1, pp. 70-77

Hammond, D. (2003): The Science of Synthesis: Exploring the Social Implications of general Systems Theory. Boulder, CO. University Press of Colorado

Hammond, D. (2004): Reflections o­n the Role of Dialogue in Education and Community Building. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 21, 5, pp. 295-302

Hindle, K. (2004): Choosing Qualitative Methods for Entrepreneurial Cognition Research: A Canonical Development Approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 29, Winter 2004, s. 575-607.

Hofkirchner, W., Elohim, J. L., eds. (2001): Unity through Diversity. Conference o­n 100 years anniversary of birth of Ludwig von Bertalanffy. Vienna. Technical University. Symposium. No proceedings published.

IBM (2006): Global Innovation Outlook 2.0. IBM, Armonk, NY

IDIMT (since 1993, annually): Interdisciplinary Information Management Talks; edited by G. Chroust, C. Hofer, P. Doucek et al., Rudolf Trauner, Linz (mostly)

Jackson, M. (2003): Systems Thinking. Creative Holism for Managers. Wiley, Chichester.

Jenlink, P. M. (2004): Discourse Ethics in the Design of Educational Systems: Considerations for Design Practice. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 21, 3, pp. 237-250

Knez-Riedl, J., Mulej, M., Dyck, R. (2006): Corporate Social Responsibility from the Viewpoint of Systems Thinking. Kybernetes, 35, No. 5-6 (forthcoming).

Korn, J. (2003): Letter to the Editor. Sys. Res. & Beh. Sc. 20, 6, 533-536.

Lester, G. (2005): Researchers Define Who we Are When We Work Together and Evolutionary Origins of the “Wait and See” Approach. Complexity Digest 2005-05. Electronic. See also: http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/article.php?id=738

Malcolm, G., Chroust, G., eds (2006): Fuschl Conversations 2006, forthcoming. University of Linz, Linz

McGregor, J., et al (2006): The World’s Most Innovative Companies. BusinessWeek, April 24, pp. 63-74

Midgley, G. (2004): Systems Thinking for the 21st Century. International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 1, 1, pp. 63-69

Mulej, M. (1974): Dialektična teorija sistemov. Unpublished lecture. Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za telesno kulturo, M.A. course

Mulej, M. (1976): Towards the Dialectical Systems Theory. V: Trappl, R., Hanika, P., Pichler, F., eds, Progress in Cybernetics and Systems Research, vol. 5. Vienna. Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies (published: 1978)

Mulej, M. (1977): A note o­n dialectical systems thinking. International Cybernetics Newsletter, p. 63

Mulej, M. (1979): Ustvarjalno delo in dialektična teorija sistemov. Celje. Razvojni center Celje

Mulej, M., de Zeeuw, G., Espejo, R., Flood, R., Jackson, M., Kajzer, S., Mingers, J., Rafolt, B., Rebernik, M., Suojanen, W., Thornton, P., Ursic, D. (1992): Teorije sistemov. Maribor. Univerza v Mariboru, Ekonomsko-poslovna fakulteta (reprinted in 1994 and 1996)

Mulej, M. (1982): Dialektično-sistemsko programiranje delovnih procesov – metodologija USOMID. Naše gospodarstvo, 28, 3, 206-209 (later o­n several reworked editions as manuals with several thousand copies in several languages, and as chapters in several books, especially textbooks)

Mulej, M., Kajzer, S. (1998): Ethics of Interdependence and the Law of Requisite Holism. In: Rebernik, M., Mulej, M., eds.: STIQE ‚98. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference o­n Linking Systems Thinking, Innovation, Quality, Entrepreneurship and Environment. Maribor. Institute for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, at Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Maribor, and Slovenian Society for Systems Research

Mulej, M., Bastič, M., Belak, J., Knez-Riedl, J., Pivka, M., Potočan, V., Rebernik, M., Uršič, D., Ženko, Z., Mulej, N. (2003): Informal systems thinking or systems theory. Cybernetics and Systems. 34, 2, s. 71-92

Mulej, M., Potocan, V., Zenko, Z., Kajzer, S., Ursic, D., Knez-Riedl, J., Lynn, M., Ovsenik, J. (2004): How to restore Bertalanffian systems thinking. Kybernetes, The Intl Journal of Systems & Cyb., 33, 1, 48-61

Mulej, M. (2005): Workshop: New Roles of Systems Science in a Knowledge Society. Introductory Provocation. In: Gu and Chroust, referenced here

Mulej, M., Mulej, N. (2006): Innovation and/by Systemic Thinking by Synergy of Methodologies »Six Thinking Hats« and »USOMID. In: Trappl, R., ed.: Cybernetics and Systems Research 2006. Vienna. Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies, pp. 416-421

Mulej, M., Potocan, V. (2004): What Do EU, United Nations, International, Standards Organization, OECD, etc., Mean by Systems Thinking? In: Trappl, ed., referenced here, pp. 393-398

Mueller-Merbach, H. (1992): Vier Arten von Systemansaetzen, dargestellt in Lehrgespraechen. ZfB, 62, pp. 853-876

Parharkangas, A., Ing, D., Hawk, D. L., Dane, G, and Kosits, M. (2005): Negotiated Order and Network Form Organization. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 22, 5, pp. 431-452

Pavlin, S. (2005): Upravljanje znanja kot posebno raziskovalno področje. Organizacija, 38, 7, pp. 361-367

Pivka, M., Mulej, M. (2004): Requisitely Holistic ISO 9000 Audit Leads to Continuous Innovation/Improvement. Cybernetics and Systems. 35, 4, pp. 363-378.

Rebernik, M., Mulej, M. (2000): Requisite Holism, Isolating Mechanisms and Entrepreneurship. Kybernetes, 29, 9-10, pp. 1126-1140

Rooke, D., Torbert, W. R. (2005): 7 Transformations of Leadership. Harvard Business Review, April, pp. 67-76

Rosi, B. (2004): Prenova omrežnega razmišljanja z aplikacijo na procesih v železniški dejavnosti.University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business. Maribor

Rosi, B., Mulej, M. (2006): The Dialectical Network Thinking – a New Systems Theory Concerned with Management. Kybernetes, 35, 7/8 (forthcoming)

Rosi, B., Kramberger, T., Lisec, A., Kramar, U. (2006): Students’ Experience with Systems Thinking as an Innovation in Logistics Studies. In: Trappl, R., ed.: Cybernetics and Systems Research 2006. Vienna. Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies, pp. 449-453

Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika. Electronic (installed in my computer)

STIQE: Rebernik, M., Mulej, M., co-chairs and editors (1992, biannually -): International Conference o­n Linking Systems Thinking, Innovation, Quality, Entrepreneurship and Environment. Maribor. Institute for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, at Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Maribor, and Slovenian Society for Systems Research

Thorpe, S. (2003): Vsak je lahko Einstein. Kršite pravila in odkrijte svojo skrito genialnost! Mladinska knjiga, založba. Ljubljana. (Translation of the book: How to think like Einstein)

Trappl, R., ed. (from 1972 biannually, 2004 in this case): Cybernetics and Systems. Proceedings of the Seventeenth European Meeting o­n Cybernetics and Systems Research 2004, Vienna. Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies

Treven, S., Mulej, M. (2005): A Requisitely Holistic View of Human Resources Management in Innovative Enterprises. Cybernetics and Systems, 36, 1, 1-19

Troncale, L. (2002): Integrated Science General Education (ISGE): 'Stealth' systems science for every university. In: Trappl, R. ed: Cybernetics and Systems 2002, Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies, Vienna, pp. 43-48

Udovičič, K. (2004): Metode nematerialne motivacije za inoviranje managerjev v tranzicijskem podjetju (Udejanjanje intrinzičnosti v inovativnem poslovodenju človeških sposobnosti). University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business. Maribor

Vorlaender, K. (1977): Zgodovine filozofije III./I. Slovenska matica, Ljubljana

Warfield, J. N. (2003): A Proposal for Systems Science. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 20, 6, pp. 507-520

Webster (1978): Webster’s School & Office Dictionary. New Edition. Banner Press. New York

Wilby, J. (2005): Combining a Systems Framework with Epidemiology in the Study of Emerging Infectious Disease. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 22, 5, pp. 385-398

Wilby, J., Allen, J. K., eds. (2005): ISSS 2005. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Conference, The Potential Impacts of Systemics o­n Society. The International Society for the Systems Sciences. Cancun, Mexico.

Ženko, Z. (1999): Comparative Analysis of Management Models of Japan, USA, and Europe. University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business. Maribor

1. A previous version if this contribution was used for the author’s talk in the Ross Ashby Memorial Lecture as a part of the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the International Federation for Systems Research, held in Vienna, Austria, o­n April 19, 2006.

2. This contribution is based o­n the research project »From Institutional to Real Transition« enjoying support of the Public Agency for Research, Republic of Slovenia, in 2004-2007. The project is directed by Assoc. Prof. Vojko Potočan, University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business, Maribor.A real transition from a routine/loving to an innovative society can hardly take place with no to holistic thinking.

3. As a part of my research I investigated the following journals: Business Process Management Journal, California Management Review, Creativity and Innovation Management, Cybernetics and Systems, Delo, Delo – Sobotna priloga, Die Unternehmung, Economics and Business Review for Central and South Eastern Europe, Entrepreneur, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, European Journal of Innovation Management, Finance, Gospodarski vestnik, Harvard Business Review, Human Resource Management, Innovation & Technology Transfer, International Business Review, International Journal of Relations and Development, International Journal of Research in Marketing, International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, International Journal of Technology Management Journal of Business Venturing, International Entrepreneurship, New Business Development, Technology, and Innovation, Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Sociocybernetics, Kybernetes, Management, Naše gospodarstvo, New Moment, Organizacija, Organizational Development Journal, Osteuropa Wirtschaft, Prague Economic Papers, Razgledi MBA, Regional Innovation in Europe, Review of Political Economy, Review of World Economics / Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Strategic Management Journal, Strategy & Innovation, Systemica, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, The Academy of Management Journal, The Academy of Management Review, The Business Review, Cambridge, The Review of Economic Studies, The World Bank Economic Review, The World Bank Research Observer, Večer, Večer – Sobotna priloga, Wirtschaftsdienst.

Dr. Matjaž Mulej, Prof. Emeritus, University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business;

SI-2001 Maribor, Slovenia, P.O.Box 142; E-mail: mulej@uni-mb.si

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------