Consciousness is the level at which an entity is aware. Such an awareness is only meaningful if it enables performance and secures relevance. All entities are aware at some level. A tree for instance, will develop a root structure that can accesses water and nutrients with ease. Yet, a tree does not know that it is a tree. This lack of self-awareness will limit its ability to respond. Therefore, all its actions are mere subconscious reactions. To make a conscious choice, an entity must be self-aware. In absence of self-awareness, choice becomes locked within purpose. A hawk for instance, can decide to catch a rabbit or mouse, but it cannot become a vegetarian. This means purpose controls the intelligence of a hawk. Such purpose will always manifest within a predictable process.
One could argue that all human action are reactions. However, humans can create intent beyond purpose. In other words, we can decide to do more than survive and procreate. In modest terms, we are not only subconsciously part of a process. This means that we can consciously begin, fix, or end processes. Abortion is a good example of how we can disrupt an extremely powerful and natural process. No other living thing can do this. As humans, we control our own intelligence. To my mind, an entity must be self-aware to create intent beyond purpose.
The question then - is Org self-aware? In absence of that, it will not be able to control its environment. The consciousness of an entity is a deciding factor in how much control and power it has.
Consciousness begins with clarity of purpose and heightens through intent. Popular psychology often discourages the idea of "ego". Yet to have an ego means that you can distinct yourself form other entities. This is a sign of being self-aware. In so, it shows intelligence. Without such ego, you will not be able to predict and manipulate your future.
An awareness of present and future unveils two types of consciousness. These are consciousness of purpose (CoP) and consciousness of intent (CoT). Consciousness of purpose (CoP) creates a state of contribution. Therefore, it defines a present moment. Consciousness of intent (CoT) creates a state of incompletion. Therefore, it defines an awareness of journey. In Org, the point of measure is always purpose since that will assess its ability to perform. Its boundary of measure will be intent since that will assess its ability to stay relevant.
There are two question sets that helps us to grasp the consciousness within Org. They are:
In orgtology, we can trace all activity back to purpose and intent. CoP and CoI is thus the origin of Org. CoP defines mission and drives processes. CoT, on the other hand, shapes vision and ignites strategy. Together they create a duality without which Org cannot exist. CoP ensures performance while CoT secures relevance.
It seems that CoP is inherent to the mere being of any species. With that I imply that a process owns their consciousness. Through birth they inherit an implied process that encapsulates their purpose. Humans are self-aware, which is an implied consciousness. But not all self-aware humans can build empires and create wealth. Crocodiles are for example, extremely conscious of what to eat and how to catch their food. Yet, a crocodile is not conscious of what an aeroplane is. This is because an aeroplane is not relevant to the implication of being a crocodile.
Although not biological, Org follows the same route. It is born through purpose, which implies all its activity. The advantage that Org has, is that it does not have a biological form. In that, it can become something else without much physical constraint. To change its purpose, it must shift consciousness. For humans this is not possible. We are stuck within our physical form.
To create intent beyond purpose is what separates humans from other animals. Humans can anticipate a future. In that, they can manipulate and change the same environment which gave them life. Other animals serve the cycle of life. E.g., A lion devours an antelope, which eats grass, which grows from soil, which is fertilised by the lion's flesh. There are other intelligent species that can plan and strategize. Primates such as chimpanzees often expand their territory for the mere sake of power. Yet, compared to humans, their CoT is still quite primitive. The boundaries of their purpose control most of what they do.
My observation is that CoT strengthens the desire to have that which you do not have. A dog, for instance, can never have the goal to live somewhere else, or dream of being a police dog. It is happy to be within the moment. One could argue that a Buddhist monk is similarly content to be in the moment. But unlike the dog, the monk must work extremely hard to resist the temptation of intent. It takes immense effort for humans to resist the desires that their minds can conceive. For most animals, this is a natural state. This might explain why goals and targets drive successful organisations. Desire and a sense of incompletion are the shackles that intelligence must bear.
CoT is tacit, meaning that it has the power to be irrational and abstract. Evidence of that, is the diverse desire that similar entities have. In so, the entity, and not a process, owns consciousness of intent.
The aim of CoT is to keep purpose relevant. To do so, its task is to deliberately disrupt the processes that enables purpose. Through such disruption it will revitalise purpose. E.g., a hunter who becomes a farmer, disrupts an established process of getting food. This creates new processes, but it does not change the original purpose. In so, CoT increases the relevance of CoP. Yet, if there was no CoP, there would be no CoT. They exist in an interdependent way.
Org exists within a dual relation between purpose and intent. This duality will enable its performance and secure its relevance. To grasp this, is core of orgtology.
This is an impossible question to answer. Especially since we do not even know where the consciousness of a human exists. However, the idea of collective consciousness is not new. Org is no more than a network of human minds connected through systems intelligence. It makes sense to conceptualise Org as a brain, with humans being its neurons. If you agree to that, then yes, Org has its own consciousness.
As with humans, the consciousness of Org is dual. The processes within its systems repeat a known past. In that, systems own the CoP of Org. But to stay relevant, Org must control its future. It does so by doing what it has never done before. This is the power of intent. Human minds drive and own the CoT of Org.
The life span of Org will depend on its ability to learn and deal with problems. Human minds will help with both the creation and resolution of these problems. There is only one way to curb external threats. That is to think in an innovative and disruptive way. The greater the threat, the more one will need abstract thought. In precis, human minds help organisations to change. This is quite an energy intensive process. Yet, there is evidence that old organisations tend to master slow change. As with old species such as crocodiles, old organisations do not change much. Religious institutions are the best example of this phenomenon. To not change is not necessarily a dreadful thing. In fact, it might be the sole reason for the longevity of many organisations. Reluctance to change often shows an extremely stable CoP. Yes, I know, many organisations fail because they do not change. But the ones I speak of are older than 2000 years. According to a McKinsey study, the average organisation has a life span of 18-years. If you begin an organisation today, you will have to change constantly and rapidly to survive. As Org grows older, it will need less of you. Human minds tend to lose their relevance within older organisations (100-years+). These organisations have algorithms that others find hard to break. Mostly the Pope does not do much more than smile and wave. Yet, I am quite certain that the Roman Catholic Church will outlive both McDonalds and Coca Cola.
The speed of CoP is much slower than that of CoT. CoP transforms from one state to another in a slow and consistent way. In so, it efficiently produces something meaningful. Its movement is evolutionary, and its purpose is to efficiently perform. CoT, on the other hand, is unpredictable, inconsistent, and it moves fast. Its power lies in revolutionary activity with an intent to keep Org relevant. The aim of revolution is to change the course of evolution. CoP maintains and guards the current consciousness of Org. The task of CoT is to shift such consciousness to a more relevant place. Jointly, they create the consciousness of Org.
We devise strategy to make sure that our operations stay relevant. A business owner's only desire might be to make profit. But this will only happen if such business can offer something relevant to its environment. So, purpose is never to make money, but to deliver something meaningful to an environment. This is CoP, as defined in your statement of purpose. Org will implement such purpose through operational processes. Yet, to ensure that you stay sponsored, you must be relevant. This often implies change. You will most probably define such change within a strategy. This is CoT, as guided by your statement of intent. Therefore, strategy must pollinate operations so that performance will stay relevant. This is the consciousness that keeps Org alive and going.
© 2019-09-12: CFT Hendrikz