INTRODUCTION 

Across the globe, the catchphrase in organizations is 'corporate governance'. Undoubtedly, 'corporate governance', is widely known for organizational achievement. It is associated with successful organizations. While the mentioning of 'corporate governance' represents excellence and reputation, critics however, believe it is just a 'romantic' buzzword. There is huge expectation of aggressiveness of 'corporate governance' in guiding the functioning of organizations. 

Jhaveri (2008), in one of his studies, however, laments the well-publicized reports of scandals and frauds that have severely brought down the value of organizations. Such reports have disoriented 'corporate governance' efforts on the functioning of organizations. He observed that while 'corporate governance' focuses on the conflict of interest between managers and owners, management on the other hand is increasingly acting on their own self-interest. This has resulted in many corporate failures. According to Jhaveri, instances of scandals and frauds, rocked reputed companies like Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Adelphia, and others. 

This means the role of 'corporate governance' in organizations appears inadequate. The growing fallout between organizations and their shareholders, stakeholders, customers, society etc. is classic evidence that 'corporate governance' could just be a perception. This is because, while 'corporate governance' must ensure organizations functioned properly, the opposite is obvious. For that reason, such vital aspects within organizations of 'decision-making, supervision mechanisms and compliance enforcement', have unfortunately become weak. Organizations on their own have a duty to circumvent any form of 'unethical behaviour' that stunts their growth. In so, 'corporate governance' should be that tool used by organizations to fight any form of 'unethical behaviour'.  

In recent years however, 'corporate governance' is under the rules of Government Regulations. This is to ensure it is capable of providing 'checks and balances' needed in organizations. One would wonder, therefore, if 'corporate governance' is one smart approach to importing Government Regulations in the governance of organizations! The question is why 'corporate governance' itself is a tool without systemic and self-sufficiency to govern organizations! 

Yusoff and Alhaji (2012) underscore that 'corporate governance' is vital in every organization. This is because good 'corporate governance' must contribute to better performance. Therefore, every other organization must enforce 'corporate governance' in order to achieve their goals and dispel any tendencies of unethical behavior. This paper explores the authority of 'corporate governance' in the organization. This will be through approaching if from the Orgtology perspective.

 HYPOTHESIS

The problem begins with why there is no universal meaning of 'corporate governance'. Different authors have provided variety of meaning of 'corporate governance'. One conventional meaning of corporate governance though is that 'it is about systems, procedures and rules usually laid down by a company for it to function efficiently and ethically in order to achieve its mission. It helps conformance to public policy and law of government, and also acceptable ethical standards of the society – resulting in equitable and just delivery of its benefits and outputs to stakeholders and the society at large', Anbalagan (2020).

Meanwhile, Joseph and Tranos (2018), describe 'corporate governance' as the distribution of responsibilities and rights among different participants in the corporation such as managers, the board, shareholders and stakeholders as specified by a 'corporate governance' structure. In addition to other authors, Gouiaa (2019) describes 'corporate governance' as the set of mechanisms, processes, and relations by which corporations are controlled and directed.  

Gouiaa extends his point and states that 'corporate governance' is necessary in corporations because of the possibility of conflicts. These conflicts arise out of interests between stakeholders, primarily between shareholders and upper management or among shareholders. However, is there a link between corporations and organizations? Yes, there is. According to Wikipedia, an organization is an umbrella 'word', within which includes, corporations, companies, industries, firms etc., whose origin is 'purpose'- based.

 On a similar note, Orgtology, the study of the science of organizations, defines an organization as 'Purpose' sanctioned through 'Intent'. The 'Purpose' is the heart of an organization and is where everything begins. 'Purpose' is the origin, the heart and nucleus of an organization. 'Purpose' is permanent in an organization. As result, every stimulus into the functioning of an organization must speak to 'Purpose'.Like with humans, where the arteries pump blood to and from the heart, similarly is with organizations. With organizations, 'process' links activities to and from Purpose. That means, anything that influences the working of the organization submits to 'process' so as to drive the 'Purpose'.

'Corporate governance', among many things, must deal with unethical behavior (including mismanagement, frauds, scandals, problems, and conflicts) in organizations. On an equal argument, Orgtology believes that such unethical behavior tends to manifest through entropy (Force of Entropy). Force of Entropy is disruption that creates disorder in an organization, and it tends to threaten the existence of the organization. An organization must therefore do a self-assessment for its survival and growth in terms of its 'relevance' and 'performance'. Relevance and performance must outweigh the Force of Entropy, to ensure a relevant and performing organization (RPO), and a relevant and performing individual (RPI). 

So if, 'unethical behavior', that results to mismanagement, frauds, scandals, and conflicts etc., remains unresolved in organizations, then it means'corporate governance' is not self-capable of helping the organization to perform and be relevant. This is because 'corporate governance' itself is the only tool that is designed to enable good 'decision-making, supervision mechanisms, and compliances enforcement'. All organizations, regardless of size and shape, require 'corporate governance' as a tool in order to be relevant and performing organizations (RPO), and mould relevant and performing individuals (RPI).

 CONFINEMENT OF THE RESEARCH PAPER

This research paper recognizes that a number of factors are responsible to steering performance and relevance of organizations. 'Strategic Plan' is one example. Within this premise, this paper, however, will focus on 'corporate governance' by exploring appropriate theories of Orgtology. The paper will confine itself to the meaning of 'corporate governance'.

  The work by Hendrikz (2018:2020) on Orgtology will form the review process of the analysis of 'corporate governance'. Hendrikz developed contemporary theories to explain the organization. Through his work, he has made valuable contributions to the study of organizations. He also presents a body of knowledge for understanding Orgtology. A comparative analysis of literature on 'corporate governance' and the theories of Orgtology will be fundamental for this paper.

REVIEWING LITERATURE DEBATES 

 Corporate Governance at a Glance

Ramalho (2016), in King IV Report, says corporate governance is the exercise of ethical and effective leadership. The objective according to Ramalho, is promoting governance as an integral part to running an organization. The aim is to deliver governance outcomes such as an ethical culture, good performance, effective controls, and legitimacy. 

Goergen (2012) explains that corporate governance includes the processes through which corporations' objectives are set and pursued in the context of the social, regulatory and market environment. These include monitoring the actions, policies, practices, and decisions of corporations, their agents, and the affected stakeholders. Goergen states that interest in corporate governance practices of modern corporations, particularly in relation to accountability, increased following the high-profile collapses of a number of large corporations between the years 2001–2002, and again after the financial crisis in 2008. 

Corporate scandals, according to Goergen, of various forms have maintained public and political interest thus the introduction of regulations on corporate governance. In the United States (US), these have included scandals surrounding Enron and MCI Inc. (formerly WorldCom). As a result, Enron in June 2002 filed for bankruptcy. Demise of reputed corporations led to the enactment of the Sarbanes–Oxley (SOX) Act in 2002, a United States federal law intended to improve corporate governance in the United States. Comparable corporate failures according to Goergen were noted in Australia (HIH, One.Tel), were associated with the eventual passage of the CLERP 9 reforms in 2004, which similarly aimed to improve corporate governance. 

Corporate governance, according to lcgc.lifeforeveryone.com, must be an expression of quality management to maintain 'checks and balances' within an organization, in order to increase transparency and preventing abuse and misconduct. The website emphasizes that corporate governance must understand the importance of investors in terms of long-term relationships, persistent operation, and inherent performance. 

According to the lcgc.lifeforeveryone.com, corporate governance must provide a mechanism, which improves the efficiency, transparency, accountability and builds the confidence of stakeholders. The website states that the main principle of corporate governance is that decision makers at all levels in the organization assume the responsibility to take initiative and be answerable for the decisions they make.

The lcgc.lifeforeveryone.com argues that each decision maker within the organization has an important role of establishing the reputation of the organization and drive successful corporate governance. Fair decisions establish longer-term relationships, which are critical for long-term sustainable development of organizations. The website continues to say that people who make decisions in corporations must be accountable for their decisions and working mechanisms. Managerial responsibility in organizations, according to the website, is about people behavior and that there must be means to punish their negligence. This is includes putting in place systems that direct organizations on the right path when things go wrong. 

With competition raising the bar for survival, corporate governance will set apart organizations, states Jhaveri. He argues that effectiveness of corporate governance means organizations will be able to:

• Reduce chances of reputational hazards;
• Help attract talent in terms of non-executive manager directors; and
• Reduce the amount of frauds.

Jhaveri states that there is growing investor and sponsorship confidence crisis across the globe. The confidence crisis has posed unanswered questions on the corporate world. N. R. Narayana Murthy, a top Indian Billionaire and core-founder of Infosys (India), quoted by Jhaveri, acknowledged that the primary purpose of corporate governance and leadership is creation of wealth legally and ethically. It brings a high level of satisfaction to customers, employees, investors, vendors, sponsors, and the society-at-large. It also must create predictability, sustainability, and profitability of revenues year after year. 

Prof. Ramakrishnan (2007) underscores that every organization, as it grows, accumulates a number of stakeholders. These include shareholders, employees, customers, vendors, community, etc. He emphasizes that for organizations to survive and grow; they must rely on the healthy relations with all their stakeholders. Hence, organizations need to provide good returns for shareholders but also good jobs for employees, reliable products for consumers, responsible relations with the community and a clean environment.

Ramakrishnan reiterates the lcgc.lifeforeveryone.com that ethics is the foundation for the principles of integrity and fairness. According to Ramakrishnan, ethics is an internal stakeholder issue. It focuses on product quality, customer satisfaction, employee benefits, environmental responsibilities that a company can actually influence. Ethics is the application of ethical principles to business dilemmas. A business dilemma exists when an organizational decision maker faces a choice between two or more options that will have various impacts on (a) the organization's profitability and competitiveness and (b) its stakeholders. 

Corporate governance, according to Ramakrishnan, needs to ensure that long-term strategic objectives and plans are established. It also means proper management structure is in place to execute strategy and ensure compliance to policies. Ramakrishnan describes corporate governance as representing the moral framework, the ethical framework, and the value framework under which an organization takes decisions. Investor and the customer will always favor organizations that provide acceptable corporate governance, both in terms of practices and results. In the end, ethical behavior has a positive impact on the organization's performance. 

According to Ramakrishnan, corporate governance is responsible for growing profits and the reputation of organizations. It represents the relationship, among stakeholders, who determine and control the strategic direction and performance of the organization. Ramakrishnan stresses that the initial impact of corporate governance is greater transparency and better effective oversight to increase investor and sponsorship confidence. A higher investor confidence level flows through into a higher valuated company. Companies, which enjoy higher valuations, find it easier to access capital on easier terms. 

Ramakrishnan states that companies, which are well controlled, enjoy a good image. Organizations that emit positive image are able to draw talent to themselves. Customers and suppliers do business with such a company. Ramakrishnan says that communities want a good corporate citizen in their midst. Good image and good citizenship often tip the scale in critical situations. Corporate governance is for ensuring that long-term strategic objectives and plans are established. If companies are well controlled, they outperform other peer companies and are able to attract investors whose support can help finance growth and expansion. 

According to Ramakrishnan, corporate governance must be the net result of the individual sense of values. This means the values held in society or part of a society like professional bodies or business associations and the systems of public governance. Companies gain by adopting systems that bolster investor trust through transparency, accountability, and fairness. The crucial aspect of corporate governance, according to Ramakrishnan, lies in transparency in decision-making and accountability, and safeguarding the interests of the stakeholders and the investors. Ultimately, this forms a self-driven; self-assessed; and self-regulated, organization. 

Other studies have argued the lack of measurability of corporate governance. They contend that quantitative meaning of corporate governance is nonexistent. A number of frameworks on corporate governance have attempted to provide a guide. The 4Ps of Corporate Governance Framework is among them. The framework has, People, Purpose, Processes, and Performance. See the picture below:  

Figure 1: Chapter II: Corporate Governance – A Prologue (Source of 4Ps Framework)  

The 4Ps of Corporate Governance Framework is a basis for argument against many other frameworks on the tracking of corporate governance. The lcgc.lifeforeveryone.com, (2020) explains the Framework. It begins with people who organize themselves for a distinct Purpose. They apply crucial processes constantly to achieve predicted performance. Through performance, they achieve sustained development. People represent founders, the board, the stakeholder, the consumer, and impartial observer. People determine the purpose to work on. They develop processes to achieve purpose, evaluate performance outcomes, and use those outcomes for growth.

The second P is purpose. According to the lcgc.lifeforeveryone.com, corporate governance exists to achieve a purpose for organization. Purpose gives definition to mission and vision. Purpose achieves mission and vision through strategy, which uses policies and projects. In the framework, the third P is Processes. A process is the way by which the organization achieves purpose. Processes lead to compliances and innovation through management. According to the lcgc.lifeforeveryone.com, processes are refined over time in order to achieve purpose, while it keeps an eye on governance processes. 

The fourth P in the framework is Performance. It represents the ability to look at the results of a process. It determines whether a process was successful and applies those findings to the rest of the organization. Performance leads to growth through efficiency. 

 The Orgtology Perspective

Hendrikz (2018:2020), through Orgtology – the science of organizations – presents that an organization is 'Purpose' sanctioned through 'Intent'. Hendrikz states that there is duality between 'Purpose' and 'Intent'. Using 'Hypothesis 2x' – the core theory of Orgtology – Hendrikz states that an organization exists if there is conscious interaction between receptive and projective elements or activities. Two elements are thus dual if they oppose each other, and one cannot exist without the other. 'Purpose' and 'Intent' represent 'Hypothesis 2x', in that 'Purpose' and 'Intent' are dual elements that interact to create a 'Whole', which is 'organization'. 

Orgtology provides that 'human intellect' and 'systems intelligence' interact and jointly organize activities and resources to create outputs of the organization. The environment of the organization will then sponsor these outputs, and thus the organization survives and secures sustainability. When gathering energy or resources (that is, people, assets, and money) and intelligence (both crystallized intelligence from systems and fluid intelligence from humans) around the organization's 'Purpose' and 'Intent' yields relevant outputs. 

Orgtology states that an organization is 'alive'. It has its own brain and the humans in it are its neurons. Neurons (in Biology) are cells that receive sensory inputs from the external world and through the nervous system send impulses to the brain for processing. Similarly, an organization works with its consciousness, which creates a flow of intelligence that helps it absorb all forms of projected elements. Orgtology states that organization self-consciousness links to 'the anatomy of organization' (see Figure 2 below). Like humans' antibodies, an organization consciousness resolves issues of unethical behavior, which includes conflicts and problems.

  Figure 2: The Anatomy of Organization – Orgtology (Hendrikz: 2001)

​In the 'anatomy of organization', 'Purpose' is the nucleus that defines the organization. 'Purpose' uses processes, resources, and systems intelligence for the organization to run efficiently. 'Purpose' drives the algorithmic or repetitive activities of an organization. This will guarantee performance. 'Purpose' does not exist outside an environment. A need within the environment will give birth to 'Purpose'. That same environment decides the sponsorship that will make the organization survive.

Orgtology presents that 'Purpose' and 'Intent' have a dual relationship. 'Intent' is meaningful if there is duality between itself and 'Purpose'. Orgtology describes 'Intent' as the desire and the abstract thought of the organization. It directs what something is to be, and it uses projects, resources, and human intellect to create relevance of an organization. 'Intent' also creates the effectiveness of the organization. The organization tests its relevance by assessing if the environment does provide sponsorship. Relevance will also show in terms of motivation of citizens and investors' willingness to invest in that organization. 

In addition, Orgtology according to Theory 2P presents that an organization will have two ways in which it does its work. This will be through the cycle of duality between a process and a project. When the repetitive activity in an organization organizes itself through dependency and 'Purpose', it thus results to a 'process'. The 'process' is sanctioned through 'Purpose' which creates rules that are held through 'systems intelligence'. The 'process' runs the repetitive part of work and delivers realistic outputs. Thus, it drives performance of the organization. The 'process' works with perfecting activities which have a known past and creates certainty and efficiency within the organization. 

'Process' and project have a dual relationship. A project is the part of work that is non-repetitive. Its role is to influence outcomes and to secure the relevance of outputs. Projects keep the organization relevant since they change things and bring about revolution in the organization. The work of the project is to, begin, fix, or end, a 'process'. Projects therefore keep 'processes' of an organization relevant. Organizations do projects to stay relevant. Orgtology states that managers through 'processes' enable the organization to perform. Managers therefore empower process-based work. Leaders, on the other hand, through projects assure that the organization is relevant. Leaders influence the environment that sponsors the organization.

An organization constantly checks itself for relevance and performance within an environment. Such awareness helps the organization understand that it exists and that it is functioning within an environment, which must sponsor its existence. Organizations have their own ability to be relevant and performing. This means an organization must do "right things in the right way". Resources and systems intelligence within the organization create the ability to perform. The organization highly performs if it delivers more outputs as measured against its peers. The organization thus negotiates its relevance through abstract thoughts and human dynamics.

Orgtology through Theory O creates a RPO (Relevant and Performing Organization). That means the organization suitably relates Intent, resources, and intelligence, to 'Purpose' to create an RPO. Performance is the efficient delivery of activity, while relevance is the effect of activity to the external environment. The task of the organization is thus to organise activity and produce outputs that have a favourable effect to the environment. The environment may create disruptions such as competition, poverty, politics, conflicts, problems etc. These will affect the functioning of the organization. Orgtology then says that this disruption creates disorder (Force of Entropy) which in turn will threaten the existence of the organization.

Orgtology states that an increase in disorder increases the need for strategy and disruptive innovation. Efficiency by itself cannot combat the Force of Entropy. This means that even if the organization may be extremely efficient, that is, process intelligence and resources that deliver activities are beyond comparison, but this will not stop disorder. Efficiency, which is 'doing the things right', will not be able to change the people's perceptions of the organization. The only way to work out disorder is through strategy and disruptive innovation. 

To create disruptive innovation, the organization will assess its people. Orgtology explains this through Organamics. Organamics is an arm of Orgtology, which looks at people or human dynamics. This is the X-Factor in the organization. Organamics provides understanding about how people contribute to performance and relevance. Innovation therefore only comes through abstract thought, which people are the only source. Organamics thus cultivates a relevant and performing individual (RPI). Organamics does this through four theories, that is, Theory Ix on Intelligence, Theory Ex on Identity, Theory Px on Paradigm, and Theory Dx on RPI. 

Theory Ix on Intelligence explains how people solve problems, mitigate risk, deal with trauma, influence others, etc. Intelligence helps individuals to be relevant and performing. This intelligence comes in a number of ways. These include physical intelligence; logical (cognitive) intelligence; emotional intelligence; creative intelligence; contextual intelligence; and spiritual intelligence. Performance shows how useful people's intelligence is to produce outputs for the organization. Relevance on the other hand shows how people help the organization respond to complexities of the environment. 

According to Theory Ix, Physical intelligence is about people exhibiting the ability to grow old and to stay healthy. An organization with high physical intelligence has greater power to fight or flee its environment. Theory Ix, on the other hand, also defines Logical (cognitive) intelligence as the power of the brain to create neural networks and to process data. An organization that has people with this skill can use math and language to solve complex problems from the environment. An organization with such skill in its people will respond adequately to complexities of the environment.

Theory Ix also introduces emotional intelligence. This is the skill to be happy, to move on, and to create meaningful relationships. An organization that assesses and discovers people with intrapersonal and interpersonal awareness within itself can build meaningful relationships with stakeholders and shareholders. This relationship is important to determining and controlling the strategic direction and relevance of the organization through investor and sponsorship confidence. Emotional intelligence is priority skill for managers of organizations.

Theory Ix defines creative intelligence. This manifests itself as people disturb current norms and relate to the world's objects and subjects in ways that others cannot in the organization. Such people can project to systems intelligence and influence profitability of the organization. People with this skill work best with marketing; advertising; product development; strategy, etc. This intelligence builds profitability confidence to shareholders and investors.

Theory Ix further provides that there is contextual intelligence. This is where people in the organization, understand the environment that surrounds the organization or status quo, and predict its future. An organization will use this intelligence on strategy for the organization. Strategy pollinates the operations of the organization so that performance is relevant. Executive teams, boards of directors or any person who has leadership role in the organization will have this intelligence.

The last is spiritual intelligence. According to Theory Ix, this intelligence manifests through values, that is, a person with this skill does not compromise their values even if they have oppressing personal needs. This intelligence is about ethics and values. Ethics works in cases of business dilemmas, where the organization's decision maker(s) face a choice between two or more options that have to do with the organization's profitability and competitiveness, shareholders, and stakeholders. Business dilemmas seek for excellence in people, and values that outweigh personal needs for decision-making.

Organamics, on a separate note, introduces human dynamics that goes beyond intelligence. This looks at key attributes in people. According to Organamics, people identity is important in an organization. Through Theory Ex on Identity, people identity means the variety and uniqueness between people. The people identity helps distinct and identify that a leader is one who drives change whilst a manager ensures transformation. Knowledge of people uniqueness helps one to know the effect people may bring to the organization. Jointly, these would help the organization to perform and stay relevant.

Organamics also provides Theory Px on Paradigm. This appraises the mindset of people. Theory Px on Paradigm is the window through which one views the world. It defines the reality of the 'mind'. Theory Px on Paradigm is the understanding of the thoughts and emotions that drive people behavior. According to the Theory, people receive from the outside, process on the inside, and project back to the outside. An organization, therefore, must monitor compliance and supervise behavior. It has to monitor the thoughts and emotions of people and find out what drives their behavior.

Theory Dx, of Organamics, is one that builds a relevant and performing individual (RPI). Management and leadership are two roles individuals provide for the organization to perform and stay relevant. The organization judges RPI against ability to lead and manage. Hypothesis 2x, states that managers govern the receptive elements, and leaders drive the projective elements of the organization. Theory Dx, therefore holds that managers 'run' the work of an organization whilst leaders 'change' the work of an organization.

Managers, according to Theory Dx, empower the organization with focused process flow and drive efficiency. The process flow for management involves focus, containment, and empowerment. Leadership, on the other hand, influences through negotiation and changing things and ensuring effectiveness. Performance is essentially an element for managers, and relevance is essential element for leaders.

The work of a leader is non-repetitive, meaning they work with projects that have clear goals. A project work must last for as long as needed to solve a problem. It also resolves a conflict; exploits an opportunity; mitigates chances of risks; and avert disasters. The work of the leaders must submit to 'processes'. 'Processes' involve managers, who then will focus on the repetitive work and ensure that performance of the organization is nonstop. 

PRACTICAL APPLICATION

Having reviewed the appropriate literature, the paper established that, without doubt, corporate governance is necessary for organizations. Corporate governance helps to seize opportunities and solve problems of organizations. Literature, however, has not provided how 'corporate governance' is 'self-capable' to delivering the benefits that come with it. It has also not put to rest the issue of 'applicability' of 'corporate governance' in strengthening the 'checks and balances' in organizations. 

In view of the findings, Orgtology has theories relating to the role of 'corporate governance'. Orgtology has stated that an organization has self-consciousness within its anatomy that knows the opportunities that need grabbing and how Force of Entropy may be controlled. 'Purpose' in Orgtology is the main organ in the organization. Through 'systems intelligence' the organization creates networks that feed to the 'Purpose' so that it survives. 'Corporate governance' therefore must exist to sustain 'Purpose'. This means it must submit to 'process' and be held through 'systems intelligence' of the organization so that it suitably influences the working of the organization. 

In that connection, the '4Ps of Corporate Governance Framework' is useful for this paper as it puts 'Purpose' at the centre of the organization. Literature has shown that several frameworks mostly give description of the objectives and benefits of corporate governance. The 4Ps of Corporate Governance Framework is more useful for practical application of Orgtology. In doing so, 'systems intelligence' and 'human intellect' become the tests for performance and relevance, respectively.  

'Systems intelligence' drives the algorithmic work in the organization, and provides a set of rules that drives activity, and hence the organization will be able to deliver predictable outputs. Human intellect or tacit intellect, on the other hand, is the abstract thoughts, which are ideas and plans that create disruptive innovation to influence work in the organization. 

Orgtology through Theory 2I, provides means of implying tacit intellect or fluid intelligence through 'processes' held within the 'systems intelligence' of the organization. In this way, the organization will have ownership of the tacit intellect/fluid intelligence. The organization can therefore explain, record, and then transfer the tacit intellect into a 'process' and be held through rules within 'systems intelligence'. 'Corporate governance' represents tacit intellect of organizations; and the organization must imply it. Using the 4Ps of Corporate Governance Framework with 'Hypothesis 2x', a cycle of projective and receptive activity will submit 'corporate governance' within the 'processes'. 'Hypothesis 2x' is the cycle of conscious interaction between receptive and projective elements or activity.

A receptive element is the consistent and predictable activity of the Organization. 'Purpose' is the part of the organization that holds the receptive elements of an organization. Driven by 'Purpose', the receptive element binds the behavior of the resources of the organization. A receptive element creates rules that it holds within systems intelligence. It empowers repetitive processes of the organization. The way in which it does this defines efficiency and performance of the organization. 

Meanwhile, a projective element is the random and unpredictable activity of the organization. 'Intent' is the part of the organization that holds the projective elements of an organization. Driven by 'Intent', the projective elements create abstract and innovative behavior within an organization. A projective element designs and defines the future of the organization. It does this by defining the effectiveness and relevance of the organization. 

The "2" in Hypothesis 2x, shows the existence of duality between receptive and projective elements. The "x" in Hypothesis 2x, represents the X-Factor in an organization. The X-Factor is the abstract thoughts of people. The result of 'Hypothesis 2x' and 4Ps of Corporate Governance Framework is in Figure 3. 

Figure 3: Augmented Framework of 4Ps of Corporate Governance  

Figure 3 is an 'augmented Framework of 4Ps of Corporate Governance'. It shows duality of projective and receptive elements. In so, the augmented Framework has the following interrelationships:  

Implying 'corporate governance' means creating authority to be 'self-able' and delivery of 'corporate governance' benefits. Through 'self-ability', corporate governance will enable good decision-making, supervision mechanisms, and compliance enforcement, which will direct the organization to be an RPO. 'Corporate governance' will have four (4) ways of measure as follows:

• People driven by ethics must create relationships; and systems (intelligence) must ensure equity (fairness) that maintains relations.
• Purpose must give definition to mission through operations; and Intent must define vision through strategy.
• Processes must lead to compliances through management; and projects must drive innovation through leadership.
• Performance and relevance will be results of efficiency and effectiveness respectively, which jointly will lead to growth of the organization. 

CONCLUSION

Much of the literature reviewed explains corporate governance that it works with organizational structures, boards of directors, rules, procedures, performance, and ethics in organizations. Other studies, on the other hand, talk about strategy, profitability, disclosure, shareholders' interests, and stakeholders as manifestation of the work of corporate governance.

The paper ascertained that while corporate governance has the role of creating transparency, accountability, fairness and ethics, the reputations of organizations have continued to wane, which has mostly led to unsuccessful organizations. The recommendation is therefore to use 'Hypothesis 2x' and create duality of interaction of projective and receptive elements in the 'Framework of 4Ps of Corporate Governance'. 

'Hypothesis 2x' will help find the equilibrium or sweet spot of the "instructor and instructed" elements in the Framework of 4Ps of Corporate Governance. In so, decision-making, supervision mechanisms, compliance enforcement, transparency, accountability, fairness etc. will be mechanical. 

This paper was an attempt to use the two arms of Orgtology, which are Organamics and Orgamatics, to support the 4Ps of Corporate Governance Framework. Orgamatics contributes to corporate governance in terms of a 'construct'. A 'construct' originates from 'Purpose', and in Orgtology, a 'construct' is a blueprint for the flow of activity that creates outputs, outcomes, and relationships in the organization. The 'construct' is a conscious organ in the organization that shows how things are undertaken. It is through the 'construct' that the organization organizes, sequences, creates logical order of activities etc.

Finally, Organamics contributes through the X-Factor, which is the abstract thought of people, and the disruptive innovation that create the relevant and performing individuals. Through 'Hypothesis 2x', the Framework of 4Ps of Corporate Governance will have interaction of dual activity. This is important because it will create feedback loops of all the activities in the organization. It also will help enable good decision-making, supervision mechanisms, and compliances enforcement, which all organizations require to become RPO, as well as mould RPI.

REFERENCES

1. Abdullah, H. and Valentine, B. (2009). Fundamental and Ethics Theories of Corporate Governance: Journal of Faculty of Economics & Management and Graduate School of Management, University of Putra, ISSN: 1450-2889 Issue 4 [online]. Putra, Malaysia, p. 93. Available at: http://www.eurojournals.com/MEFE.htm.
2. Anbalagan, T. J. (2020). Meaning_of_Corporate_Governance, Academia: Ethics Management. Published by the University of Delhi, Department of Commerce [online]. Available on www.academia.edu.Rohini, New Delhi, India, p 1.
3. Goergen, M. (2012). International Corporate Governance. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Pearson Publishers [online]. United States of America, pp. 1 – 2.
4. Gouiaa, R. (2019). Corporate Governance in Canada: A Review of Regulation and Practices. Corporate Law & Governance, Volume 1 (2). University of Quebec [online]. Qutaouais, Canada, p. 42.
5. Hendrikz, D. (2018:2020). International Orgtology Institute – Orgtologist Certification Programme: [online]. Pretoria, South Africa. Available athttps://orgtology.org/index.php/orgtology-commercial-items/ioi-training
6. Jhaveri, H. (2008). Disclosure of Corporate Governance–Building Investor Confidence - A Case of Infosys Technology: Shri Chimanbhai Patel Institute of Management & Research [online]. Ahmedabad, India, pp. 2-3.
7. Kiradoo, G. (2016). The Increasing Role of Corporate Governance in Managing the Interest and Benefit of Stakeholders of an Organization, Vol. 03, Issue 7: International Journal of Information Research and Review. Depart. Of Mgnt & Techno., Govt. Engineering College, Rajasthan, India, p 2643.
8. lcgc.lifeforeveryone.com, (2020). Corporate Governance – A Prologue – Mirror: [online], pp. 20-27. Available at http://lcgc.lifeforever.com/webpage/3406 and at http://www.lcgc.com.
9. Ramakrishnan, R. (2007). Inter-relationship between Business Ethics and Corporate Governance among Indian Companies: Institute of Management, NIRMA University [online]. Ahmadabad, India, p. 2-12. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1751657.
10. Ramalho, A. (2016). King IV Report on Corporate Governance for South Africa: The Institute of Directors in Southern Africa and the King Committee on Corporate Governance [online]. Johannesburg, South Africa, p. 20.
11. Yusoff, W. F. W. and Alhaji, I. A. (2012). Insight of Corporate Governance Theories, Volume 1, Issue 1: Journal of Business & Management. Published by Science and Education Centre of North America [online]. Tun Hussein Onn University, Malaysia, p 53.
12. Zuva, J. and Zuva, T. (2018). Corporate Governance and Organizational Performance, Volume 12(1): Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development, Harare, and Vaal University of Technology, Johannesburg [online]. Zimbabwe and South Africa, pp. 17-18.

Join the Orgtologist Certification Program (OCP) - Empowering Executive Teams Worldwide