The Consciousness of Org

Consciousness is the level at which an entity is aware. All entities are aware at some level. E.g., a tree 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. 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.

There is evidence that the more self-aware any entity is, the more choice it has. The more choice it has, the more complexity it can create. Complexity brings problems, which in turn creates new consciousness.

It does seem that collective awareness is more powerful than individual awareness. I have read a few articles with evidence that an octopus has similar intelligence to a human toddler. Its dilemma is the absence of collective consciousness. The octopus can only survive through its own consciousness. It is thus all by itself. It seems that the ability to function as a collective embeds human superiority. E.g., a vaccine developed in Canada will also help people in Malawi. Thus, Org is what makes us superior. Without Org, humanity will relapse to being primitive primates. The question then - is Org conscious?

The basic assumption on organisational consciousness

If the primary task of Org is to perform and stay relevant, then it must be conscious of both past and future. Every moment reflects an endorsed past. In so the past defines performance. At the same time, vision of a future drives the present. In so the future crafts our relevance.

The past is mathematical, whilst the future is abstract. They do not run on the same rules. Therefore, in orgtology practice, it is key to separate repetitive from non-repetitive activity. The former aims to understand the past. It works with mathematical precision and is thus a measure of our performance. The latter aims to design the future. It works with abstract ideas and is thus where we design our relevance. In Org, awareness is only meaningful if it enables performance whilst securing relevance.

Two types of consciousness

Popular psychology often discredits 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. Ego drives the desire for self-preservation. To self-preserve we must solve problems. These solutions will drive intelligence and innovation. E.g., the current drive to go to Mars has already ignited a myriad of technological breakthroughs. These innovations help us to solve day-to-day problems. This has been going for a long time. E.g., without the space race, which began in the 50's, we would not have internet.

In Org, ego is identity. The battle for alpha identity has mostly been between governments. We saw this in the world wars, the cold war, the middle eastern conflict, etc. Yet, it now seems that this "Alpha Org" battle has shifted to those who have money. E.g., NASA no longer leads space exploration. This is now in the hands of Elon Musk of SpaceX, Richard Branson of Virgin Galactic, and Jeff Bezos of Blue Origin. It is not necessarily a terrible thing. The mentioned billionaires will most definitely help humanity survive. Egoistic identity drives all development. Through this, we can predict and manipulate our future.

To preserve its identity and purpose, Org must be conscious of what it must do. Orgtology suggests that Org does two things, which are to perform and stay relevant. From this perspective, purpose defines performance whilst intent drives relevance. Thus, we must be conscious of both purpose and intent.

An awareness of present and future thus 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. It defines a present moment. In turn it will ignite processes, which will deliver outputs. We measure purpose against efficiency. Consciousness of intent (CoT) creates a state of incompletion. Therefore, it begins a journey and defines a future state. In turn this will drive projects that will influence outcomes.

In Org, the point of measure is always purpose since purpose will assess its ability to perform. Its boundary of measure is intent since intent will assess its ability to stay relevant.

Two questions that help us understand the consciousness within Org:

• "What is our purpose and how efficient are we in executing it?" and
• "What is our intent and how effective are we in achieving it?"

The first question will uncover performance whilst the second will reveal relevance.

In orgtology, we can trace all activity back to purpose and intent. CoP and CoI is the origin of Org. CoP defines mission and drives processes. CoT, on the other hand, shapes vision and ignites strategy. CoP ensures performance while CoT secures relevance. Together they create a duality without which Org cannot exist.

Consciousness of Purpose (CoP)

It seems that CoP is inherent to the mere being of any species. I.e., consciousness exists within their process (DNA). 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 is the same. It begins in purpose. To bring purpose to life Org needs repetitive activity and resources. To ensure that activity flows and that resources are efficient, there must be rules. In so, processes, policy, and procedures are born. We must also protect our purpose against threats. In so, risk management is born. Etc.

Purpose creates organisation. Not understanding this often causes great loss to Org. It is not enough to define a mission statement, and then get employees to recite it. Purpose is a consciousness – a deep awareness of the part we play in a larger "eco" system. In so, purpose is not a semantic construct. It is an awareness of interdependence within a greater whole.

To change purpose, an entity must shift consciousness. For humans this is not possible. We are stuck within our physical form. Even when Org tries to do so, it is rarely successful. When we create rules and gather activity around resources to produce outputs, the system tends to get a life of its own.

Consciousness of Intent (CoT)

To create intent beyond purpose is how humans define intelligence. When we talk about "intelligent life", we refer to the ability to foresee a future. Without such ability Org would not exist.

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, etc. 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.

CoT strengthens a 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, people, and not a process, owns consciousness of intent.

The relation between CoP and CoT

The aim of CoT is to keep purpose relevant. To do so, its task is to 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 co-exist in an interdependent way.

In Org, purpose defines operations whilst strategy drives intent. 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 to orgtology.

Does Org have its own consciousness? 

This is an impossible question to answer. Especially since we do not even know where consciousness 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 as 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. 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 keeps 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.

Conclusion

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. 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.

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.