Complementary Languages for Sustainable Governance
Year:
2003 This is the development of a theme articulated in a earlier paper:
Four Complementary Languages Required for Global Governance (1998)
The above diagram interrelates 12 complementary "languages" that may prove to be essential for sustainable governance. The languages are named using caricatural abbreviations -- partly for mnemonic purposes. The selection of "languages", and the names given to them, are extremely tentative. The purpose is to evoke discussion of the different conceptual modes in which governance of any kind might be discussed. The diagram benefitted from insights of Nadia McLaren.
As described in the earlier paper (Four Complementary Languages Required for Global Governance, 1998), the rationale for this kind of approach to strategic and management thinking and "operacy" has been notably developed bt Edward de Bono (Six Thinking Hats, 1987); Six Action Shoes, 1991; and The Six Value Medals, 2005).
Focus of languages
The 12 languages -- grouped in pairs, positioned across the circle above -- may therefore be tentatively understood as follows:
- Pair A: Positive vs Negative
- Pozzy: This is the language in which everything is expressed positively with a focus on Solutions. Great for political correctness. This is the language of hope-mongers -- unfortunately also the direct cause of the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster (the manufacturers, as in many modern organizations, discouraged upward reporting of problems).
- Neggy: The is the negative, critical language characteristic of newspaper reporting and general cynicism, typically focused on Problems. The language of doom-mongers. Useful to have around if you want to fix infrastructure problems (pipe-leaks, broken-legs, etc) where a good diagnosis is essential to rapid remedial action. Does not seem to be able to deal with wider global challenges.
- Pozzy: This is the language in which everything is expressed positively with a focus on Solutions. Great for political correctness. This is the language of hope-mongers -- unfortunately also the direct cause of the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster (the manufacturers, as in many modern organizations, discouraged upward reporting of problems).
- Pair B: Love vs Toughness
- Luvvy: This is the language in which everything is based on love and being lovely. Implicit and unquestioning belief in brotherhood, sisterhood, solidarity, community and the like. Great as a basis for initiating relationships. Any lapse is seen as a call for Education. Tends to be at an extreme loss in recognizing or dealing with nasty situations (Saddam Hussein's, etc). Poor at sustaining relationships through their bad patches.
- Tuffy: This is the tough language of the corporate, military and gang worlds -- the bulldozer language of "empire" and getting things done. Typically this calls for a degree of Training in "enforcement". Certainly achieves things, including the need for other styles to compensate for its insensitivities.
- Luvvy: This is the language in which everything is based on love and being lovely. Implicit and unquestioning belief in brotherhood, sisterhood, solidarity, community and the like. Great as a basis for initiating relationships. Any lapse is seen as a call for Education. Tends to be at an extreme loss in recognizing or dealing with nasty situations (Saddam Hussein's, etc). Poor at sustaining relationships through their bad patches.
- Pair C: Vision-speak vs Tech-speak
- Vizzy: This is the language of envisioning the future, of "vision"-- which is central to the coherent articulation of collective strategy and as the outcome of personal "vision quests". The call is typically for appropriate "Dreaming" possibly as articulmated through collective brainstorming procedures. Tends necessarily to be constrained buy visual metaphors, thus failing to integrate equivalents of foresight based on other senses (sound, touch, taste, and smell) that may may greater importance to some cultures or segments of the population (eg role of music for youth).
- Tekky: With all its joy in gadgets, technical fixes and scientific explanations, and yet more monitoring. The green's have there own variants concerned with recipes for permaculture, composting toilets, eco-housing, and the like. Tends to assume, as with architecture, that right human relations follow from right technical solutions to environmental problems. Typically focuses on the need for Planning -- a step-by-step approach. The result has tended to be soulless environments.
- Vizzy: This is the language of envisioning the future, of "vision"-- which is central to the coherent articulation of collective strategy and as the outcome of personal "vision quests". The call is typically for appropriate "Dreaming" possibly as articulmated through collective brainstorming procedures. Tends necessarily to be constrained buy visual metaphors, thus failing to integrate equivalents of foresight based on other senses (sound, touch, taste, and smell) that may may greater importance to some cultures or segments of the population (eg role of music for youth).
- Pair D: Art-speak vs Business-speak
- Artty: This is the language of art, decor, music and crafts. A major emphasis is on Design. Can be great for look-good / smell-good / vibe-good environments that are nice to hang out in. However this language is notorious for its inability to handle conflicting tastes and for the maneuverings to impose particular tastes and marginalize others. Fickle in its blind response to fashion and other rules of taste.
- Bizzy: This is the language of business and commerce subject to economic and resource criteria -- and the profit-making bottom line. The creativity of successful entrepreneurship and an exciting deal tends to be based on a guiding "Concept", notably when dealing with the intangible constraints of the world of art (as with media events and design studios).
- Pair E: Wisdom vs Pragmatism
- Wizzy: This is the language of wisdom and gurus -- emulated to a high degree by consultants and therapists. Also used as a vehicle for personal aspiration, prayer and relating to the cosmos ("Goddy"). Great for wise sayings and recommendations -- things one ought to do. May be associated with mysterious transformative moments that can be experienced as "Magic". Best appreciated, in its subtlest forms in relation to the pragmatic realities of the world, through the classic Zen phrase: "Before Enlightenment, Chop Wood, Draw Water; After Enlightenment, Chop Wood, Draw Water". Amazingly inept when several speakers of it get together to articulate action in response to a concrete situation or an opposing perspective -- hence the limitations of the "Councils of the Wise" used by some governments.
- Praggy: This is the language of pragmatism and realpolitik ("Reelly"). It is the language that handles, and is responsible for engendering, fragmentation of collective effort ("Fraggy"), incoherent action ("Skatty"), and the divisiveness of the world. Its creative focus is on Innovation. Focused on the here and now. Tends to be insensitive to consequences elsewhere and elsewhen.
- Pair F: Fuzziness vs Legalese
- Fuzzy: This is the language of the conceptual approach to incommensurables, whether in the form of creative tolerance of ambiguity, fuzzy logic, or the complexity sciences and chaos theory. Hence the generative reframing of rigid rules through Complex-systems thinking. Unsuited to any need for a clear answer.
- Leggy: This is the language of law and legislation. Basic to any bureaucracy governed by rules and regulations -- hence the focus on Procedures in response to fuzziness. Typical of the language of how-to manuals. Most efforts at global organization are formulated in this language -- as well as the articulation of human rights and responsibilities. Easily takes over mentalities as an end in itself. Quite insensitive to its own limitations and absurdities -- and the pain it can cause in dealing with unforeseen exceptions.
Four-fold systems have long been a feature of psychometric testing of individuals -- based on the work of Jung, Myers-Briggs and Hermann. Most recently attention has been given by the Cognosis Consulting Group to a "Four Worlds" framework extending such approaches, and applying them to the "personality" of organizations (see Alex Benady. Organisations, too, can be put on the couch. Financial Times, 20 June 2003). This recognizes the critical importance of the "culture" of an organization -- none of which is considered better than another, although possibly one may be better suited to a particular style of challenges.
