Monograph
7
A
Dialogue with Dr. Henry Mintzberg
December 8, 2021
We
have been hung up for too long on a narrow view of development.
Is it not time to open our perspectives, beyond human greed,
to human collaboration and the energy that can flow from that? Imagine the economic and social potential. Maybe it is time
to reprogram our heads in accordance with the rich reality in
society, beyond left and right.
Henry Mintzberg
The focus of the seventh session of the ‘Who
Cares?’ dialogue group was an exploration of the ideas and
concepts contained in the paper developed by Dr. Mintzberg entitled
‘Getting Past Smith and Marx: Toward a Balanced Society.’
Dr. Mintzberg described this yet unpublished paper as a
labour a love and a polemic. Its
central thesis is that the political, social and economic sectors of
society are out of balance.
‘Toward a Balanced Society’ explores the historical
context for the current imbalance in society in which the private
sector has steadily expanded its influence to a point where it
frequently overpowers government and communities.
It examines how the current dominance of capitalist ideology
has impacted our interpretation of human behaviour, our approach to
development and how we interpret caring.
Dr. Mintzberg concludes his paper with an exploration of a
list of possibilities he has identified to make progress toward what
he described as a more humane, more balanced world.
Dr. Mintzberg’s list of possibilities is organized
around four broad categories.
-
Toward balance – This category includes ideas for
balancing across the sectors, building robust associations,
renewing respect for government and recognizing the need for
corporate social responsibility.
-
Toward engagement – This category focuses on
returning to responsible leadership and rehumanizing
organizations.
-
Toward democracy - This group of ideas suggests we
recognize democracy as a process (not a state), end the fiction
that corporations are persons, recognize the limits of private
property and free the press from private interests.
-
Toward mindfulness – This category is a call to our
personal responsibility to be conscious of our needs and values and
to challenge mindless consumption, measurement and dogma.
The dialogue group was invited to respond to these
ideas. The ensuing
discussion was thoughtful, provoking and inspiring.
Throughout the dialogue it became clearer and clearer that
just as Dr. Mintzberg stated early on in his presentation, the
wisdom, the experience and ultimately the ability to develop
creative responses to our social obligations clearly lay within the
dialogue group itself.
While the dialogue was free ranging it is summarized in
this paper under three general themes.
First there are some comments and queries related to the
analysis presented by Dr. Mintzberg.
In particular these focus on the potential and limitations of
the sectoral divisions of society he uses in ‘Towards Balance.’
Second, the group identified several challenges we face in moving
towards more balance amongst the sectors.
The third theme explores ideas of how we can move beyond our
current responses to caring and contribute to the re-balancing of
society.
Framework
for re-balancing
Discussion began by reflecting on the limitations of
the three-sector approach. According
to Dr. Mintzberg the three sectors of society are reflected by the
three kinds of ownership we have in our organizations: political
(state-owned), economic (privately owned) and social (non-owned or
co-operatively owned). Our
organizations, their ownership structures and the sectors they
represent need to be in balance.
Some participants suggested the sectors of society
might be too crude or broad a model.
One group member noted there is a hazard in declaring any
sector more virtuous than another.
Power can and has corrupted churches, businesses and
governments as well as individuals and families.
There were also queries related to a sense that Dr. Mintzberg
was suggesting a return to the past.
One participant shared that he prefers the over arching
concept of sustainability instead of a sectoral approach.
Sustainability presents a life cycle approach combined with a
set of values that include love, spirit, and nurturing.
A group member suggested possible key roles for the
three sectors are the private sector for innovation and energy, the
state for regulation and the social sector for monitoring. Another suggestion was that the social or ‘non-owned’
sector of society has a much larger role to play.
It acts as a cradle or container for the other two.
It is the fundamental source of the universal values of
society such as trust, courage, hospitality and love.
Dr. Mintzberg suggested that spirituality and universal
values underlie everything in his paper even though they are not
specifically mentioned. Balance
would lead us to a more human way of operating across the sectors
and a more balanced society would be a more caring one.
Participants in the group acknowledged that balance is
a significant issue today. In
searching for balance the voluntary sector finds itself struggling
to articulate its role. In
its search for balance government is trying to de-centralize and
figure out new re-distribution channels.
This sometimes results in calls on the social or private
sector to do things that are better left with the state.
In the search for balance there is often confusion
about the roles of the state and social sectors. There is a frequently a sense that there is too much reliance
on or control by government. While
there is truth in these comments we need to recognize at the same
time that the state has a crucial role to play. One participant
suggested we need to be ‘polyphrenic’ (able to hold two
different ideas or truths successfully).
A group member suggested that the state is vital for
the realization of higher principles such as re-distribution of
wealth and social justice. However
the challenge is how these principles are expressed.
They need to be implemented in a locally directed, intimate
way. Re-balancing will
need to recognize the public role combined with choice at the local
level.
Interestingly, however desirable local devolving
authority might be, it appears to result in more conservative
responses and actions. In
response to this Dr. Mintzberg stated that democracy is a function
of how moderate people are able to keep extremists in control.
Re-balancing will also need to take into account that
markets are not exclusively in the service of the private sector.
They can serve the social sector too.
We may however need to find new words for the social
sector’s engagement with markets.
For example, instead of privatization perhaps communization
or ‘mutualisation’ could work.
In addition we need to find ways to recognize and support the
important role the social sector plays in the development of trust
and reciprocity. These
are key factors in the health of any economy and society.
Challenges
in re-balancing
Shifting toward a balanced or more caring society will
require that we address many challenges related to the dominance of
the economic or private sector.
The group identified the challenges that arise when we try to
measure the success of our caring interactions.
Dr. Mintzberg noted that measurement itself is unbalanced
because it distorts towards economic priorities.
Costs are much easier to measure than benefits.
Related to this challenge is the language we use.
We may need to develop new terms or redefine words in order
to reflect the different priorities required to balance the sectors
and extend our caring responses.
Both of these challenges were discussed in depth in the
dialogue with Sherri Torjman.
Another challenge is the way public discourse is
presented in the media. We
are living in a time when only the most radical positions (angles)
get media coverage. Dr.
Mintzberg noted that the media is tragically insular, controlled by
a few very wealthy individuals.
Le Monde, Le Devoir and The Guardian were named as being
exceptions because they have different ownership structures.
Popular media cherishes extreme positions while good
investigative reporting is very limited.
Participants noted that individually we have choices about
what we read and watch. One
noted he ignores mainstream media in favour of Internet based
alternatives.
The legal status of corporations was raised as another
challenge to address in re-balancing society.
The law describes corporations as fictitious persons.
As such they claim to be citizens and claim the rights and
protections accorded to citizens. The issue is that corporations claim a higher level of
citizenship than individuals when it comes to rights and
obligations. The
struggle involves applying the obligations of citizenship as
forcefully to corporations as they are applied to individuals.
In cases of negligence, for example, the state cannot jail a
corporation. It might be fined or ordered to alter its practices, but its
structure is never threatened.
Explorations
in re-balancing
This theme in the dialogue is related to extending and
building on the ideas presented by Dr. Mintzberg. Throughout the dialogue questions related to how to
re-balance were asked. Dr.
Mintzberg and some of the participants suggested that the
pre-requisite task to re-balancing could be the act of ‘coming to
our senses.’ We have
to be willing to see the results of the decisions we have made as a
society. For example,
consider the effects of private corporations controlling
pharmaceutical research or the global media being owned by a handful
of individuals. One
participant shared the alarming statistic that two people per day
die prematurely because of poor air quality in the GVRD.
He wondered if a catastrophic event such as September 11th
would be required to bring people to their senses in order to change
their actions.
At the same time it was noted that we need to examine
our values related to life and death.
In our current thinking every death is viewed as a tragedy as
opposed to frequently being the natural culmination of the process
of living. This view of
death has contributed to an out of control health system in which 50
percent of health care dollars are spent in the last six months of
life.
A group member shared that from her perspective,
re-balancing society will require the giving up of power.
In order to do this we need to build trust and faith amongst
all sectors. Trusting
relationships have frequently been identified by the ‘Who
Cares?’ group as keys to change.
Another member noted that re-balancing society will
require more than trusting relationships.
The courage to consistently speak and act in ways that
reflect the values of a caring society is required.
Our work is to teach or inspire courage in people of
influence. A group
member added that esteemed educator Parker Palmer’s slogan is
‘divided no more.’ He
says our call is to have the courage to live on the outside the
truth we know on the inside.
Conclusion
Dr. Mintzberg closed the session with complementary
reflections on the series' design and a wish to have something like
it occurring in Montreal. He
described members of the group as visionaries who are open to
learning. Vision comes
from being aware of the present and having the courage to see it
differently.
Dr. Mintzberg was the sixth and final speaker of the
series. The group has accumulated knowledge and strengthened its
understanding of the challenges inherent in finding and implementing
creative solutions to care for each other.
A participant described the group as a massive intellectual
resource ready to address the challenges in meeting our social
obligations.
Accordingly, the next session will focus on looking
ahead to individual and collective actions to answer the series
question ‘Who Cares?’
Back
to Dialogue Introductions
Back to Actions