9 minutes reading time (1742 words)
Featured 

Hypothesis 2x – the Foundation of Orgtology

Hypothesis-2x-of-orgtology Hypothesis 2x - the Foundation of Orgtology

Hypothesis 2x opens the study of orgtology. It creates its theories and philosophy. Its basic premise is that an Organisation can only exist if activity interacts. In so, an organisation exists through relations and relationships.

To relate, entities must interact. Interaction is a cycle of projecting and receiving. When this happens, activity becomes reciprocal. This is the essence of existence. E.g., when I share a thought with a friend, I project it through language. In turn, she receives my thought by listening. The conversation will go on for as long we continue this projecting and receiving cycle. In nature, life without death is not possible. A plant must die for the antelope to live. In turn, the antelope must die for the lion to live, etc. Companies continue if they get money. Government will go on if citizens pay tax, etc.

Project = give or impose // Receive = take // submit. Where this is not reciprocal, in my experience, a relationship will self-destruct. Thus, without reciprocity, Org will not survive.


The Hypothesis

If Org exists through a cycle of projective and receptive activity, then it is a dual entity, because without this duality organisation is not possible. If abstract thinking is added to such duality, its nature will change, because abstract thinking will disrupt the repetitive movement of activity.

In so, the "2" in Hypothesis 2x shows the consistent mathematical construct of a duality, whilst the "x" shows the disruptor that will change its nature. E.g., Two organisations that run on the same processes with the same resources will differ in their results. This is because the human minds within these organisations are unpredictable, abstract, and inconsistent. That is what makes Org unique.

A duality will always hold something receptive and something projective. Receptive elements are feminine, containing, and nourishing. Projective elements are masculine, innovative, and aggressive. In practice, operations are receptive and strategy projective.


The study of Hypothesis 2x.

Through Hypothesis 2x, we can study two things. The first is the dual nature of Org. We call this study Orgamatics. The second is the X-Factor, which changes the nature of Org. We call this study Organamics.


In Orgamatics, we study duality through four theories. The table below show the theories and their dual nature:

The Four Theories of Orgamatics

The fourth theory brings them together through Theory O of the RPO. This is the theory of the Relevant and Performing Organisation.


In Organamics, we study the X-Factor through four theories. The table below show these theories.

The Four Theories of Organamics

The fourth theory brings them together through Theory D of the RPI. This is the theory of the Relevant and Performing Individual.


Defining the boundaries of Org – internal vs. external 

The boundaries of organisation are incredibly permeable, and it seems that in future, it will be more so. What is inside and what is out? Traditional thinking mostly measures this on a payroll. Employees are internal and stakeholders are external. Added to this thinking is that Org is a registered legal entity. I am quite convinced that the arising cyber-physical revolution will prove this thinking to be quite flimsy.

So, we've explained that Org has a dual existence. This is an energy between receptive and projective activity. In orgtology, energy equals people, money, and assets. These resources create one resource pool. In so, a resource pool creates the boundaries of Org. A body uses resources to sustain itself. In that, it defines itself as an entity. This is true for a human, a community, a country, a continent, etc. Jointly, the entity and its resources create an organisation. Org is not dissimilar to that.

Were a system draws from the same resource pool, its duality becomes inverse. This means that if you increase the receptive part, you inevitably decrease the projective part. E.g., If you increase your strategic activity, you decrease the resources available for your operations. In simpler terms: You have ten people, $10, and two cars to run your ops. You get new idea, which turns into a project. To execute this project, you will need 3 people, $3, and one car. Thus, you now have less resources to run your ops. The strategic project will show the intent of Org, whilst ops will show its purpose. This inverse duality between purpose and intent define the boundaries of Org.

Strategy is projective because it disrupts. Operations are receptive because it brings order. They oppose each other because they draw from one resource pool. One repeats the past, and in so, ensures performance. The other creates the future, and in so, secures relevance. Within that tension, they keep Org alive. They are an inverse duality.

One could think – this promotes scarcity and not abundance. The opposite is true. Understanding the inverse nature of duality brings inner balance. In turn this will enable effective relationships. In that "eco-system" Org will find its abundance. One must first grasp the inverse relationship between "give and take" before one can enjoy the abundance of an environment. Through this understanding, one will find that Org is no more than a dual consciousness. In so, Org must be conscious of two things. They are purpose and intent. The one ensures performance and the other secures relevance.


Hypothesis 2x - the origin of purpose and intent

Receptive activity enables Org to perform. Such activity is repetitive. It creates operational processes. Through operations, Org defines its purpose. Projective activity ensures that Org stays relevant. It creates the strategic projects of Org. Through strategy, Org defines its intent. Purpose and intent are forced into dual existence through a common resource pool. Understanding this is the essence of leadership.

Yet, even if two organisations have the same purpose and intent, they will still yield different results. This is because the humans who drive them are unpredictable, diverse, and abstract. Thus, each organisation will have its own X-Factor. Two organisations can have the same operations and strategy. They could hold the same resources and run within the same context. Yet, the abstract nature of the human minds inside them will force a deviation from their intended results. Through this deviation, there will be creation. This is the true power of Org.


The X-Factor

The unpredictable nature of "abstract thought" makes Org unique. Without the X-Factor, organisations will be predictable systems. They will lose their unique identity and become extinct.

Duality sets the table for a predictable organisation that can handle unpredictable dynamics. This enables us to run performance that we can absolutely control. In so, we will have energy and intelligence available to negotiate our relevance. Think of a hawk flying high, slowly gliding in a circle. It uses little energy and no abstract thought to do so. But once it sees a rabbit or mouse, it must have enough energy and a strategy to make the kill. It stays in "auto" mode until there is a need for "manual" operation. It therefore reserves energy through repetitive process so that it has enough energy to execute strategy. The way in which it uses its resources and skill will create its X-Factor.

In addition to functioning within purpose, humans can create future intent. This makes us an X-Factor of note. Org can learn quite a bit from biological structures. The human body especially teaches us a lot. It is an advanced construct that runs on algorithm and deviates through mind. You cannot experience much of what happens inside your body. Most of us have never seen any of our internal organs. We cannot precisely pinpoint them and do not really know what they look like. Not in any detail at least. All our senses are geared to experience and respond to an external world. Systems run our biological structure, whilst tacit intellect drives our relations and relationships. Org should do the same.


The Inverse Relationships of Org


Something is never absolutely projective or receptive. Activity is defined by the concept that it creates. E.g., for Org, anything that maintains who and what it is will be receptive. Anything that changes it, is projective. Therefore, Org decides what is projective and receptive. Projective parts will create its intent and receptive parts will endorse its purpose. Purpose is who you are, and intent is what you want to make of that.


The direct duality of Org

Projective and receptive elements create distinct positions within Org. These positions are all dual, but their relationship is not always inverse. In the earlier table I showed concepts that create the boundaries Org. Their relationships are inverse because they are contained within Org. The table below shows positions that hold direct relationships since their parts can decrease or increase independently. In these examples projective elements are not contained within the organisation. E.g., Org cannot control the profitability of a customer or the emotion of an employee. These items project from the outside. Such influence can be positive or negative.


The Direct Relationships of Org


Conclusion 

Where we add abstract thinking to a relationship, its nature will change. Humans give Org its X-Factor. In organamics we study the dynamics that create this X-Factor. Human minds are unpredictable in that they can create infinite possibilities. This makes human minds invaluable to any system. Yet, the extent to which humans can create chaos, will depend on the mathematical construct within which they function.

Org will always need both human intellect and systems intelligence. Their alliance makes Org possible. Hypothesis 2x will change the way we design Org and how we create its strategy. In so, it will change the way we understand leadership.


Hypothesis 2x on Inverse Duality

Hypothesis 2x opens the study of orgtology. It creates eight core theories; four for orgamatics and four for organamics. Its indirect claim is that an organisation can only exist through relations and relationships. To relate, entities must interact, which implies a cycle of projecting and receiving. This means that there must be an exchange betwee...
https://orgtology.org/index.php/2015-06-01-09-45-25/orgtology-blog/43-hypothesis-2x-of-inverse-duality
Empowering Executive Teams Worldwide

Copyright

© 2020-04-24: Derek Hendrikz

What is Orgamatics?
What is Orgtology?

Related Posts

 

By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://orgtology.org/