Section One: Theory Building
Major Themes of the Book
Welcome to the world of deliberate civilization building! The leadership of civiliza- tion building is an inspired act to which we invite citizens everywhere. In this Intro- duction we take you through some of the key ideas in the book that follows. We invite you to think of it as like warming up your muscles before a workout or a sports game.
A Great Achievement
Civilization, and its constituent culture, is one of the great achievements of humanity. It is a high achievement which comes out of barbarism and advances to the life of homo sapiens. The story of civilization is a tale with a past, present, and future. This is a story of the journey of the human race. It starts from the simplest hunter-gatherer societies; it advances to the deliberate pursuit of maximally civilized nations and asso- ciations.
A Textbook for 21st Century Citizenship
We call the process guiding this journey’s latest stage Civilization Building. Our books offer a manual, a handbook, and a curriculum for those who take a leadership role in the building of the civilization of the near and far future. Thus we present in the following pages a textbook for 21st Century citizenship.
Leaders Are Everywhere!
This does not mean “Leaders” with a capital “L” but all those who want to help the task of Civilization Building. These leaders of Civilization Building might be regular workers and citizens. They could be movie stars, elected politicians, innovative think- ers, and Five-Star Generals. And they might be students, teens, and senior citizens, the unemployed, prison inmates, and the chronically ill, as well as celebrities. Citizen Skills for the 21st Century are for all human beings.
An Epic Story
All of us who are alive today, were alive in all our yesterdays, and will be in all of our tomorrows are part of this epic story of the journey of the human race.
The journey towards civilization started, perhaps in a cave; it may end among the stars. Around a million years ago the human neo-cortex formed over evolutionary eons. Pre-historic man and woman together squinted up at the stars and wondered. These wisps of thought must have been distilled from eons of earlier wonder. They finally coalesced in a swirl of consciousness and burst into history’s most violent storm. It is a storm that still rages today: a storm in the human mind. It is like a persistent, tempestuous search. It continues to ask the most searching questions for those who live, as we all must, in an interdependent society. Examples are:
Who am I?
Where did I come from? Where do I fit in?
What is my role in life? What are we doing here? What’s it all about?
Where am I going?
What should we, what can we, what must we do?
Are we alone in an impersonal universe?
These are spiritual questions, which reach beyond the known into the unknown, beyond the personal into the transpersonal.
What Are We Doing Here; Where Are We Going?
Indeed, these questions of an individual’s “identity” and a group’s calling may be among the most important religious questions of the age. From that earliest cave dwelling, with man and woman working together, people first organized themselves into the basic and most enduring of all human leadership institutions: the family. Instinctively, they knew that together, through their “organization,” they could achieve more than either could ever do alone, because “organizations” are synergistic and can amplify human effort. It was then that humankind asked not only “Where am I go- ing?” but also, “Where do I want to go?” and “How can I get there?” The appearance of the human family as a natural social unit also led to the “I” questions being resolvable only in “we” questions. In other words, the meaning of life is social.
The Search for Civilization: an End of Pain?
So began the search for civilization. The human quest to discover and actualize the archetype of civilization was not only a search for beauty and love. It was also an anguished search for an end to chronic, apparently meaningless suffering. Thus was philosophy born. This was the search for the way out from the prison of pain, loneli- ness, and war.
The birth of society was followed by the birth of the study of society. Later this became sociology, social science, and social innovation. Civilization building occurs as civilization builders apply social innovation to social problems and as the builders awaken the genius of society and societies. Civilization building occurs as an answer to the organizational and societal quest of people working together to improve their future and that of the human race.
The Administrative Process
People create organizations and institutions to collaborate toward, and indeed to ac- complish their objectives together. Accordingly, every organization is involved in the administrative process.
Humankind has learned much about the dynamics of administration in the last few decades, just as it has learned much in psychology, sociology, education, and the physical sciences. Unfortunately most managers of organizations and institutions to- day, public and private, are still using management theories that are both erroneous and outdated. Leaders often create as many “human” problems through their inad- equate management styles as they solve in their preoccupation with physical, social, economic, political, and other problems.
The Ultimate Source of Power and Authority
One major problem we have identified standing in the way of building better organiza- tions, institutions, and, ultimately, civilization, is inadequate understanding of the na- ture of the administrative process of leading and governing. Another is a misunder- standing, or a forgotten understanding, of the ultimate source of power and authority. This ultimate source of power to govern is vested in the people being governed.
Thus, it is no accident that the preambles of both the Constitution of the United States and the United Nations Charter begin with the same powerful phrase, “We the people.”
Great Civic Values
The preambles to these historic documents are history’s clue to the ultimate source of power and authority. We believe this to be true of all organizations and institutions, public and private, everywhere in the world. Great civic values are operating here; they have engendered such civic ideals as the principles of freedom, equality, democ- racy, and justice. They are embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the Consti- tution, and the Bill of Rights. They enable the American people, working together as a people, “one nation under God, indivisible,” to enhance their various communities. They also allow Americans to participate, simultaneously, in the larger integrating activity of civilization building in other parts of the world. They point to a way of life in which members of the human race can work together as “global” citizens.
Communicate Their Vision of the Common Good
What is the responsibility of all citizens in their schools, churches, neighborhoods, cities, counties, states, and governments, and in their private organizations and work- places today? It is to discover and communicate their vision of the common good! This is an inalienable right and equally a responsibility! When people communicate their vision coherently and with growing consensus, then the vision itself begins to steer society toward that objective—naturally. This is how our conceptions of “civili- zation” grow and improve.
Many-To-Many (MTM) Communication
Today, we’re all familiar with “one-to-one,” and “one-to-many” communication (one person mails a letter to another, or sends e-mail to one or many persons simulta- neously). The world, though, is moving rapidly toward a need for what we call Many- To-Many (MTM) Communication. (This will be developed in Section Two.) Here, the “many” must be able to communicate to each other and respond to the ideas of their leaders and others symbolically (i.e., not physically) in order to understand the values of themselves, their leaders, and others. This is all done in a process that in- creases everyone’s own self-awareness about the world around them.
The Question for All of Us, Leaders and Constituents Alike, is:
How can citizens and constituents be enabled to communicate with each other and with their leaders constructively? How can we enable and inspire “the people” to be involved in their own governance and their own “pursuit of happiness” in ways that
result in a significant increase in the authority and legitimacy of their political, eco- nomic, and cultural organizations and institutions in the world?
We believe a solution to this problem will be found in “Many-To-Many Communi- cation” technology in the context of civilization building.
Here at Seattle’s Forum Foundation the essence of 30 years of research in pure and applied social science (other than the 10 administrative and three civilization theories, which follow), brings the following realization.
Big Meetings—the Achilles’ Heel of the Democratic Process
Big meetings at often-remote distances for people are the Achilles’ Heel of the demo- cratic process in a society, public and private.
People no longer have the time and energy to go to big meetings—especially at remote distances. Or, if they do attend, the logistics at such meetings are such that only a few people can talk and most people can only listen. This causes frustration, giving rise to the emotions and exhaustion that come from cumbersome efforts to gain consensus. For example, efforts to pass controversial resolutions using Robert’s Rules of Order are often highly frustrating experiences. As a result, people drop out of such meetings, prompting remarks such as, “Look at the apathy among the people; they are not coming to our important meetings.”
In fact, a popular complaint among leaders nearly everywhere today is, “People are apathetic!”
Our own analysis indicates otherwise; people simply get exhausted from their previous efforts to be responsible. They remember their frustration and exhaustion trying to get their ideas across in their organizations and institutions, and finally say to themselves, “These meetings are just not worth my time.” So, they drop out. Well, that’s not apathy.
How to Get the Attention of the Leaders
Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to petition, and the right peaceably to assemble are all hollow rights if people cannot be heard. And today citizens believe that organizational, institutional, and governmental processes are such that they can- not be heard. Indeed, good and dedicated people give indications of this every day. For example, they do this when they choose to march in the street or otherwise demon- strate. This is how they attract attention to a perceived injustice or worthy cause. They too often feel obliged to choose this method rather than use the normal institu- tional representative processes. There is a grave danger in the use of such dramatic,
confrontational, and “show biz” techniques to access the public agenda—if carried to extremes. A backlash and public cry for “law and order” may result in a call for even greater authoritarianism than currently exists. This could lead to dictatorship—the most depraved corruption of governance.
Universal Administrative Theories
Up to now, we believe no one has provided a comprehensive set of universal adminis- trative theories. Such theories should be able to conceptualize the realities of admin- istering human affairs. They should theoretically apply in most if not all contexts. They should be tools to help as we navigate, individually and simultaneously collec- tively and corporately, through life.
Maximum Contribution to World Society
Thus we introduce here the set of general administrative theories presented in Section One. We believe they are applicable in all human organizations. As practitioners and scholars, we have tried to craft them with the best values and knowledge of social science. We invite our readers to put them to work now for civilization building. You too can lift them up to help create new organizational and societal contexts, to train creative leaders of society. You can help leaders and their constituents achieve their maximum contribution to world society.
The Art of Successful Governance
Perhaps governance will always remain an art and not a science. But we should at least try to identify those principles and dynamics that can be understood and applied by every leader. Every individual citizen can also understand these principles. We need only first, to be interested, and second, to make the effort to understand!
We hope, too, that our collective works will help inform the enigmatic question of human purpose and destiny. For we, the human family, are on the move. We are heading from barbarian atrocities and wars of the past and present, to a future “civili- zation.” This is the highest purpose of our textbook. For it is a text for the builders of the “Civilization of Tomorrow.”
How to Collaborate! The Key to Civilization Building
Civilization Building succeeds—we repeat—as humankind learns how to collaborate. Collaboration is the way to grow. Collaboration is the way to enable the exercise of individual, societal, economic, religious, and political responsibilities. Collaboration is
the means to achieve organizational and institutional objectives in local, regional, state, national and international arenas, both public and private, governmental and non-gov- ernmental. Collaboration is the vehicle for building civilization so as to make it finer, more widespread, more enduring, more profound.
The Definition of Civilization Building
Religious leaders know that in every human heart there lies the hope of finding, or contributing to, true civilization. Yet few people, even academic social scientists and politicians, have tried to define or study civilization. As we enter the Third Millennium, there is a great need for leaders—indeed for all citizens—to understand civilization well enough to know its history, and to share in its ongoing creation and improvement. Our definition of civilization building is: the dynamic, historical processes of human innovation and social evolution that improve the survivability of the human race and the success of the human species through its enlightened organizations and institutions.
We believe that a person’s civic identity is one of the deepest components of hu- man nature. It is nothing less than the link between who we are and the civilization we build for ourselves.
Inspired Citizens of the World in Pursuit of Happiness!
This book, the fruit of social science research sponsored by Seattle’s Forum Founda- tion since 1970, presents a set of theories, challenges, and techniques for the admin- istrators and citizens of the future that we hope will provide vital energy for 21st Century citizenship and governance in the world. Inspired citizens of the world in pursuit of happiness!
For the most part this book is a rewrite of our previous books: The Search for Enlightened Leadership, Volume 1: Applying New Administrative Theory (1996) and Volume 2: Many-To-Many Communication, A Breakthrough in Social Science (1998), by Spady and Bell. The exception is that this book contains the Civilization Theories in complete form rather than in an intuitive form as was presented in the two prior books. Thus, our past research in administrative theory has brought us now to the science of civilization building.
Our late colleague, Dr. Stuart C. Dodd wrote:
“The first aim of science is the description of our world. Science seeks a system of categories that will capture the essential aspects of the entities under study. The second aim of science is the explanation of the origin of the entities. Science seeks to know the causes of the entities under study. The third aim of science is the prediction of the future. Science searches for accurate methods of predicting future events and structures of interest. The fourth aim of science is a general understanding. Science attempts to find basic structures and processes that model the behavior of entities at all levels and times. These four aims of science have been guides for my work in cosmic modeling.” 1
Section One of this book presents our ideas on Administrative and Civilization Theory. Section Two presents our ideas on Many-To-Many Communication and Zeitgeist Communication and discusses a technology we have developed called the Fast Forum® Technique.
My Personal Quest: Richard J. Spady’s Story
My co-author, Richard Kirby, and collaborator, Cecil Bell, asked me to write this story. They felt it was important to do so to help set the context for the research presented in this book. Many of my mentors have been religious and are listed here. However, the substan- tive content in this book is not religious; it’s about administrative theory and Zeitgeist Communication.
I didn’t start out with the idea of being a “civilization builder.” Rather, like most persons in the world do at some times in their lives, I was simply trying to volunteer and be of help where I could.
In 1965 I was asked to serve as Seattle District Lay Leader of The Methodist Church by the Rev. Joe A. Harding, the new Seattle District Superintendent.2 The district had about 44 churches and 25,000 members in what is approximately King County. When I visited churches I would ask people basically, “What is the problem in the church? What is the problem in society?” What I heard people saying in re- sponse was, “We have no way to constructively contribute our opinions that is 1) inherently beneficial to us as individuals—through a process that itself has a payoff for our time and energy, 2) that’s good for the church—which we love, and 3) that’s good for the society as a whole—we are not out on an island by ourselves, we are part of something bigger.”
Methodists traditionally have been very interested in social concerns—especially education. At the time we were going to big meetings of 200-300 people using Robert’s Rules of Order to pass resolutions. It wasn’t working well. Someone would grab the mike, sometimes getting emotional, and off he or she would go on a personal tangent about an idea strongly held. It’s probably a common experience of most people. We all have opinions, and some are very strongly emotional and important to us. But the
process itself was often frustrating both to leaders and to people participating. It was decided to do some social experimenting.
We had an executive committee of The Seattle District Board of Laity of about 20 men and women who conducted church affairs at the district level. We met monthly. But about every four months we held a forum among ourselves. However, we were not primarily interested in the issues—we were more interested in experimenting with the process itself. Sometimes we had a panel of experts, and sometimes we didn’t. Sometimes we would do “this”; sometimes “that.” Our question? How can individu- als in church and society be heard? It seemed that freedom of speech, religion, the press, and peaceable assembly were not working. People felt unable to be heard. Big meetings at often remote distances and typical legislative processes using Robert’s Rules of Order to pass resolutions posed barriers to communication among people in their normal societal contexts.
Race Relations
In the spring of 1968 we held our last forum before I left office. The issue was, “How can we reduce racial tensions in Seattle”? This was right after the racial riots in the Watts district of Los Angeles. Several good ideas emerged from that dialogue. I de- cided to try to implement them in Bellevue, Washington where I lived. It was a grow- ing suburb located just east and across Lake Washington from Seattle.
I met with the mayor, the superintendent of public schools, religious, chamber of commerce, and community leaders. The result was that a new group was formed, The Eastside Inter-Racial Clearing House. It conducted a very low key, people-to-people program. People interested were able to participate merely by phoning the sponsor’s offices at the Eastside YMCA. Participants were matched with others from different racial groups in Seattle for dialogue. They would meet in a picnic, recreational, or informal dinner setting and talk about the problems of race. About 400 people par- ticipated during the summer.
In the fall the clearing house board asked themselves, “What can we do now constructively in race relations”? We decided to conduct a series of Family Inter-racial Dialogues in which three black families and three white families would meet every Friday evening three weeks running from 7:00 PM to 9:30 PM.3 However, these dia- logues differed from the way the Church Council of Greater Seattle had conducted similar forums the previous two years. First, we involved total families. The youth who were too young to talk were in a gymnasium playing together under supervision, while the adults and older youth were in a nearby room at the East-Madison YMCA, the
Seattle Rotary Boy’s Club, or at a Bellevue school facility. Perhaps the play of the youngest children was not so important to black youngsters who see lots of whites, but may have been very important to white youngsters who would seldom get a chance to play with blacks. Second, we used the “Fast Forum®” technique that, as we under- stood it at that time, had emerged from our experimental forums conducted in the church.
At the end of the last Friday evening dialogue of the first group, I stopped the meeting 30 minutes before they were scheduled to leave. I said, “We have been talk- ing about the problems of race for over six hours. Now it’s time to take stock of where we are.” Then I gave everyone a 3x5 card. “Please print legibly on one side of the card what you think is the main problem in race relations or something that should be done to improve race relations, as briefly and concisely as possible.” After doing this, all the cards were given to me, and I numbered them consecutively. Then I gave all the cards back to the group together with a response sheet containing three columns labeled yes, no, abstain. I gave the instruction, “Please read the card you have and try to determine the writer’s overall meaning. If you can identify with the idea, com- pletely, without reservation, mark your response sheet ‘yes.’ If you cannot identify with the idea, also without reservation, mark ‘no.’ If you cannot give it a clear yes or a clear no—mark your response sheet ‘abstain.’”
Then they began reading the cards and responding to each card in turn. They sat in a circle, and as they completed responding to a card, they passed it on to their left and would get cards from their right. There was only silence as everyone contem- plated the ideas. It was all over in 30 minutes; people put on their hats and coats and left. The following week we met for a farewell potluck dinner.
I took my family home and hurried to my dining room table to tabulate the responses. I could hardly wait. I tallied individual responses by the categories of youth/ adult and black/white and transferred the totals to the back of each statement card. I then reordered them with the largest number of total “yes” cards at the top. After I had studied the category results and total results on each statement card in turn, I said to myself, “I think I understand how these people feel about race.” “No,” I said to myself, “it’s a stronger feeling than that—I believe I know how they feel about race.” Well, it was an interesting idea, but I dropped the thought from my mind.
The following Friday night the second group completed its third and final dia- logue. This was a new group; I didn’t know anyone. However, they all knew I was coming to administer their summing up of their dialogues. I repeated the process in the group. At home I tabulated all responses by the categories of youth/adult and
black/white, ranked the cards with the most number of yes answers on top, read each in turn, and then studied the responses on the back of each card. When I was through I said to myself again, “I think I understand how these people feel about race.” “No,” I said, “it’s a stronger feeling than that—I believe I know how they feel about race.” Well, it was an interesting idea, but it still didn’t ring any bells. I dropped the idea from my mind a second time.
But when it happened to me again after tabulating the responses of the third group, I remember sitting up straight in my chair with my eyes wide open and asking myself, “Why do I keep having this feeling of objectivity? I don’t just think I know how these people feel about the problems of race—I believe I really know how they feel about race.” Thereafter, I watched for this phenomenon. It happened again on the fourth group, the fifth group and on to the end. By that time I was highly frus- trated. I felt something very important was happening to me in my awareness of the subtle ideas being considered, but I didn’t have a clue as to what it was.
After nearly a month of full concentration on the problem, I concluded that the reason this phenomenon was observed was for the same reason that an electron mi- croscope can “resolve” or see more than an optical microscope looking at the same field—the unit of measurement is shorter. For example, the unit of measurement of an optical microscope is the wavelength of visible light, but that of the electron micro- scope is the electron. Many electrons go to make up the wavelength of visible light. I named the phenomenon “Social Resolving Power.”
How does this relate to people?
When people get together in big groups to convey their thinking, they first ask, “How are we going to proceed?” Most of the time they fall into using Robert’s Rules of Order as used in legislatures and in congress because it’s probably the democratic process with which they are most familiar. But that process has its own problems. The more controversial an issue is, the more likely it will just barely pass by a small major- ity after several amendments. Then this resolution, this single unit of measurement, will often go out in a press release announcing in banner headlines, “The xxx confer- ence of xxx organization says such and such.” And the more controversial it is, the more likely the proclamation will be printed as “news” by the media. The process is awkward and clumsy, and at times downright misleading, because while it conveys the majority opinion, it usually doesn’t convey the minority opinion or the degree of consensus. Was it passed by 51% or 95%? That makes a difference. The result is often confusion and hard feelings from such press releases.
In contradistinction, the Fast Forum® Technique (see Section Two) reports individuals’ responses to many different statements or questions. Primarily it presents the number of respondents answering yes, no, or abstain to every question, but it provides other responses too. In addition, respondents can be categorized by demo- graphic characteristics such as gender, age, or ethnic origin. These more detailed analyses of the same data result in greater Social Resolving Power and enable a “symbolic dialogue” to occur between and among the people in those categories as they study the feedback information.
We then presented the ideas generated by the dialogue groups to over 500 Bellevue church members from various churches in the form of a “survey.” The church responses were either yes, no, or abstain. Immediately, a new problem arose. What does it mean, for example, if 228 people respond yes, 153 respond no, and 207 abstain? The numbers were so vast it was hard to comprehend the data. On the other hand if I talked about “standard deviation” and “variance,” people would turn me off like a light. I reasoned that the most widely understood mathematical symbol was the percentage, %.
After much struggle, I emerged with a new statistical symbol that solved the prob- lem. We called it the “Polarization-Consensus Rating”. The Polarization Rating is a measure of the weight given to the item; it is the percentage of people participating who answered either yes or no out of the total number of respondents. People who abstained were not “polarized” thus they were not included. The Consensus Rating is the percentage positive of those who were polarized, that is, the percentage of yes votes out of the total polarized votes.
Graduate School of Business Administration
However, it was in the tabulation of these data that I learned how boring it is to count someone else’s “X’s” on a piece of paper. It put me to sleep. I realized the process would never work unless results could be tabulated accurately, swiftly, and economi- cally. The only thing I knew that could do this was the computer, but I didn’t know anything about the computer. So I went back to square one. I decided to become an inactive partner in my business,4 and in the Fall of 1968 I enrolled in the Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Washington, concentrating in the field of Administrative Theory and Organizational Behavior.
Two weeks into my first class on administrative theory it hit me that what I had perceived as a church problem—the inability to communicate—was not primarily a church problem; it was a universal organizational problem. It was bigger than a church problem. By then I was hooked—obsessed with the problem—and I still am to this day. One day Professor Cecil Bell lectured saying, “In an organization a kind of—
Zeitgeist—will emerge— which is the prevailing beliefs of the people involved.” Little did I know then that this innocent, academic statement would later set a new course in my life toward civilization building.
In an advanced course in Management Theory from Dr. Ted Barnowe, the class was given a term paper assignment to, “Just take anything in management theory and make it sound rational.” I thought it was a fun assignment. I came out with eight theories about organization dynamics and governance. Most were a paragraph long; one was just one sentence long. Each was then explained in two or three pages as I told the professor why I thought each dynamic was true. The term project focused my thinking. When I was through, I read my own paper and concluded, “If these dy- namics are true, to function properly a human organization or institution must have an effective feedback communication system.” I called this the “Zeitgeist (‘Spirit-of- the-Time’) Principle.” Most organizations and societies today have no such system.
Zeitgeist Communication has an exact definition. It is that field primarily con- cerned with communicating ideas, and opinions about those ideas, across and upward in organizations and society. This is in contradistinction to newspaper, radio, TV, magazines, books, lectures, speeches, sermons and the like—all one-to-many com- munication systems. Zeitgeist Communication can create a process of “symbolic dia- logue” between representatives/leaders and constituents. This is in contrast to most other mass communication media that are all primarily one-way downward commu- nication systems. I decided then that I wanted to devote much of my energy to im- prove administration and communication in organizations and institutions.
The Academic Computer Center, University of Washington
In 1970 I contracted with the University of Washington Academic Computer Center to write a computer program that would provide me with the communication tech- nology I needed to tabulate data. As a theoretician, I knew where to go but didn’t know how to get there. The computer programmer5 knew how to get there but didn’t know where to go. We designed and crafted the first Fast Forum® computer program; it has been updated six times since then. Now I had the technology to analyze large quantities of data, accurately, swiftly, and economically in a way that most people could comprehend.
The Forum Foundation
I established the Forum Foundation in 1970 as a non-profit Washington State corpo- ration dedicated to educational research in administrative theory and communica
tion methodology. My co-founders were Dr. Cecil Bell, my University of Washington advisor, the Rev. Dr. William Ellington, and a Board of Directors. Several years later I gifted the Fast Forum computer program to the Forum Foundation.
Now I had the organization I needed to continue and expand my research into administrative theory and Zeitgeist Communication.
Futures Research
From 1971 to 1990 I served as a volunteer on the staff of the Church Council of Greater Seattle that had 17 judicatories and over 300 local churches. I had the portfo- lio of “Futures Research” which we defined from the beginning not as forecasting but rather as the search for ways to influence the sociological and technological future. It was more a process of “forthtelling.” In this study of 1) people and 2) organizations we honed our research theories and technology. The Rev. William B. Cate, Ph.D., was president-director of the Church Council of Greater Seattle and the closest thing I, as a self-employed person, had to a “boss” during this period. It was here in the Seattle religious community that we continued our research. Progress was slow but we con- tinued to learn.
My portfolio in Futures Research at the Church Council gave me the opportu- nity to develop my interest in computer technology for Many-To-Many Communi- cation. I was able also to associate with people who were speculating about the future. At a national United Methodist communication conference in the early 1980s, I met the Rev. Kenneth B. Bedell, Ph.D. Dr. Bedell had written the first book on the use of computers in The United Methodist Church. We became friends. The follow- ing year the Church Computer Users Network (CCUN) was established as a grassroots group from the church. He was elected the first president of CCUN, and I was elected Vice President. We established the first “Circuit Writer” national network for United Methodist Communications (UMCom).6 This was a valuable and learning-filled association that continues to today.
I also participated in the founding of the Religious Futurists Network (RFN). This was formed as an outgrowth of the “First Global Conference on the Future,” co-spon- sored by the World Future Society in Toronto in 1980. I attended as the official represen- tative of the Church Council of Greater Seattle. The Religious Futurists Network later became the World Network of Religious Futurists. I was one of the original members. Fortunately, this membership allowed me to get to know the Rev. Dr. Richard S. Kirby of London who was subsequently elected as the international chair of the organization.
Stuart C. Dodd, Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
In the early 1970s I met Dr. Stuart C. Dodd, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Washington. He was 14 years head of the Washington State Public Opinion Laboratory at the university. He was the leading authority on typical polling in the northwest states.7 We met at meetings of the Evergreen Chapter of the World Future Society.8 This chapter wrote a letter to Gov. Dan Evans and suggested a fu- tures study for Washington State patterned after the Hawaii 2000 project. The result was the “Alternatives for Washington” project that is still considered a classic in citi- zen participation programming.
Stuart Dodd was a genius and yet as common as an old shoe. He treated everyone with consideration and respect; he was always just a warm, friendly human being. Dr. Dodd served on the board of the Forum Foundation from 1973 to his death in 1975 and did much to focus our research today. I recall the first time I met with him in his office and described our administrative theories and research. As I was leaving with my hand on the doorknob, he said, “Dick, don’t ever let anyone tell you that what you are doing is not important.” I replied, “Thank you. I won’t.” His support and encour- agement have been everything to me. Someday, I vowed, I will find someone with the scholarship and mathematical skills to pick up the traces of his ideas and run with them. All of his files are in the University of Washington archives just waiting to be studied—they are a social science gold mine for the human race.9
Founding the Stuart C. Dodd Institute for Social Innovation
I learned long ago that if something needs to get done, one has to get organized to do it. So in 1997 I helped organize the Stuart C. Dodd Institute for Social Innovation. It is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit, tax-exempt organization to encourage scholarly, interdiscipli- nary research in the archives of Stuart C. Dodd. Here is the story behind the Institute. An institute to continue the work of Dr. Dodd had been a dream of mine for many years. But Dodd’s work on mathematical cosmology is not for the faint of heart; few people can understand it, much less move it forward. My acquaintance with the Rev. Dr. Richard S. Kirby through the World Network of Religious Futurists told me he might be the person for the job.
I visited Dr. Kirby in London in 1994. He had finished his Masters of Divinity studies at General Theological Seminary of the Episcopal Church, New York (USA) in 1985 and his Ph.D. in Theology studies at King’s College, London from 1987-1922. Richard Kirby is an outstanding scholar. I judged he had the capacity to pick up the traces left in the archives of Stuart Dodd.
Dr. Kirby was open to my proposal, and he wanted to return to the United States. I offered him a home and office in Seattle (owned by my business firm and dedicated to public service) and invited him to be the Stuart C. Dodd Chair in Social Innova- tion at the Forum Foundation. He accepted, came to Seattle in 1995, and is now an American citizen.10 When the Stuart C. Dodd Institute for Social Innovation was formed in 1997, Richard Kirby became its first Executive Director.
He has been instrumental in furthering my understanding about civilization build- ing. I invited him to become my co-author as we worked together on this book after Cecil Bell indicated he preferred to be a collaborator.
Russia
In July 1990 the Goodwill Games were held in Seattle. More than 1,000 Russians were hosted by Rotary International’s Seattle District 5030. I am a member of the Bellevue, Washington Overlake Rotary Club.11 I hosted one young man from Kyrgyzstan, Marat Akylbekov. On a hunch, I gave him a copy of our most recent unpublished manuscript on Administrative Theory when he returned home. In April 1991 I received a letter from Dr. Almas Chukin who was a professor of economics at Kyrgyze State University. He had read the frontispiece of the manuscript (the same as in this book). He wrote, “Everything in the left-hand column is the philosophy of the communists. We need to understand what is in the right-hand column. Please come to Kyrgyzstan and lecture.”
Days after Gorbachev was restored to power following the 1991 Russian coup against him, I flew to Moscow and then on to Krygyzstan. My wife and I and personal interpreter, Leo Pavloff, were treated like royalty during our month-long trip because by that time Dr. Chukin was employed by the State Ministry of Economics. I met with many people; they were all friendly. They liked America and were extremely interested in democracy. Returning on the trans-Siberian railroad to Moscow, we passed within 30 miles of where my father had been born in Norka, Russia near where the railroad crosses the Volga River.12
At the end of 1991 I was invited to make a presentation at a conference on “Moral Education” at the University of Georgia (USA) where I met Dr. Tatyana Tsyrlina, professor of education at Kursk State Pedagogical University in Russia. She subse- quently invited me over the years to two educational conferences in Moscow and one in Kursk. In 1996 she introduced me to Dr. Arthur K. Ellis, Director, International
Center for Curriculum Studies at Seattle Pacific University. We, Dr. Cecil Bell and I, had just finished writing our first book on The Search For Enlightened Leadership, A New View of Administrative Theory (1996). Dr. Ellis arranged for me to go to Moscow with him in May, 1997 where I led a day-long workshop for university administrators hosted by Dr. Boris Bim-Bad, president of Russia’s Open University. I was asked to write a condensation of the book. This was published in Magister, an international psychological-educational journal of Russia, by Dr. Nikolai Nikandrov, who attended the conference and currently is the president of the Russian Academy of Education.
Professor Tatyana Tsyrlina has become an associate of the Forum Foundation and the Stuart C. Dodd Institute for Social Innovation and also an organizer of a Rotary club in Kursk with my help. We have provided her with the technology to tabulate data in Russia using the Fast Forum® technique. She has done some creative research in Russia including data tabulation from women’s groups throughout Russia on the issue of “sex trafficking” (white slavery). This was done through video conferencing made possible by George Soros. We continue to learn from these experiences. See her report in Chapter 5.
Social Principles and The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church
But one of the greatest influences in civilization building for me has come from two remarkable religious documents of The United Methodist Church: the Social Prin- ciples and The Book of Resolutions. The 2000 edition of The Book of Resolutions con- tains 338 public policy statements concerning The Natural World, The Nurturing Community, The Social Community, The Economic Community, The Political Com- munity, and The World Community, all based on the Social Creed. It is a reference book that is revised every four years by the General Conference, the highest govern- ing body of the church. When I read it, I am highly influenced by it because I know it is my corporate church trying to give me, the church, and our society a moral sense of direction in today’s complex world. “John Wesley (founder of the church) believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradi- tion, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason.” 13 This is known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Since our tradition is as Protestants, we are taught in our theology that our responsibility is directly to God through Christ and there is no other person or institution between us (including the church). That is very powerful theology because it means I am free, as every member of the church is free, to disagree with any part of the Social Principles or Book of Resolutions and not be ostracized from
the church. Why? Because it is not the corporate church that has the primary respon- sibility to effect this world in the direction of our theology, i.e., civilization building. It is each individual member who has that responsibility. That all translates directly in the secular world to the equal responsibility of a citizen in the world.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. These are some of the milestones in my journey. We welcome you to step with us now toward civilization building by looking at what some sages of the past have said in Pointers from History.
Toward The Solution: Pointers from History
The following quotations have inspired our search for greater understanding in the areas of administrative theory and governance, Many-To-Many Communication, and civilization building. We believe they contain great truth. They gave us insight into the problems to be confronted as we try to advance the process of civilization build- ing. We hope you will find them valuable as well.
Man is a being in search of meaning.
Plato
The minds of men are mirrors to one another…. Philosophy is com- mon sense, methodized, and collected…. The end of all moral speculations is to teach us our duty.
David Hume,
18th Century Scottish philosopher
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to dis- solve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Thomas Jefferson,
The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
The art of human collaboration seems to have disappeared during two centuries of quite remarkable material progress. The various nations seem to have lost all capacity for international cooperation in the necessary tasks of civilization. The internal condition of the nation is not greatly better; it seems that only a threat from without, an unmistakable emergency, can momentarily quiet the struggle of rival groups … . How can humanity’s capacity of spontaneous co- operation be restored? It is in this area that leadership is most re- quired, a leadership that has nothing to do with political ‘isms’ or eloquent speeches. What is wanted is knowledge, a type of knowl- edge that has escaped us in two hundred years of prosperous devel- opment. How to substitute human responsibility for futile strife and hatreds.
Elton Mayo,
Harvard Professor sometimes called the “father of the human relations movement,” in the preface of the classic Management and the Worker by Roethlisberger and Dickson published in 1939.
The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, inge- nuity, and creativity in the solution of organizational problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed in the population [Theory Y].
Douglas McGregor,
The Human Side of Enterprise
(McGraw-Hill Book Co, New York, 1960), page 48.
It is not essential that everyone participate … . The essence … is that participation should be an available option.
John W. Gardner,
Godkin Lectures, Harvard University, reported in
Christian Science Monitor, April 16, 1969
The ultimate disease of our time is valuelessness … rootlessness, emptiness, helplessness, the lack of something to believe in and to be devoted to.
Abraham H. Maslow,
Religions, Values, and Experiences (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1970), p. 82.
Science is the world of what is. Ethics is the world of what ought to be. … [There are those who are] in love with the aristocracy of the intellect. And that is a belief that can only destroy the civilization that we know. If we are anything, we must be a democracy of the in- tellect. We must not perish by the distance between people and gov- ernment, between people and power.
Dr. Jacob Bronowski,
The Ascent of Man (1973), award-winning book (page 435) and TV series.
As human systems and organizations grow ever larger, more com- plex, and more impersonal—in our schools, in our communities, in our churches, in our governments, and in our industries and com- merce—the individual shrinks toward facelessness, hopelessness, powerlessness, and frustration.
Dr. Stuart C. Dodd,
Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Washington,“Citizen Counselor Proposal,” with Richard J. Spady, The Seattle Times, November 10, 1974.
I would urge all of us as futurists … to devote some of our energies to finding new ways to destandardize, deconcentrate, descale, de- limit, and democratize planning.
Alvin Toffler,
Closing address, 2nd General Assembly, World Future Society, Washington, DC, June 1975.
No society can function as a society unless it gives the individual member social status and function, and unless the decisive social power is legitimate power. Status, function, legitimacy: [are] the es- sentials of the new order. (Emphasis added by Tarrant)
Peter Drucker,
Drucker: The Man Who Invented The
Corporate Society by John J. Tarrant (Warner Books, 1976), page 25.
The need [for leadership] was never so great. A chronic crisis of gov- ernance—that is, the pervasive incapacity of governments and other social institutions to cope with the expectations of their constitu- ents—is now an overwhelming fact worldwide.
Harlan Cleveland,
“Learning the Art of Leadership” reprinted from
Twin Cities magazine, August, 1980.
We believe that the reduction of the citizen to an object of protago- nists, private and public, is one of the greatest dangers to democracy. A prevalent notion is that the great mass of the people cannot under- stand and cannot form an independent judgment upon any matter; they cannot be educated, in the sense of developing their intellectual powers, but they can be bamboozled. The reiteration of slogans, the distortion of the news, the great storm of propaganda that beats upon the citizen twenty-four hours a day all his life long may mean either that democracy must fall a prey to the loudest and most per- sistent protagonists or that the people must save themselves by strengthening their minds so that they can appraise the issues them- selves. There can be little argument about the proposition that the task of the future is the creation of a community. Community seems to depend on communication. This requirement is not met by im- provements in transportation or in mail, telephone, telegraph, or ra- dio services. These technological advances are frightening, rather than reassuring, and disruptive, rather than unifying, in such a world as we have today. The only civilization in which a free man would be will- ing to live is one that conceives of history as one long conversation
leading to clarification and understanding. Such a civilization pre- supposes communication; it does not require agreement.
Robert Maynard Hutchins,
“The Great Conversation,” 1984, Editor-in-Chief, Great Books of the Western World, Encyclopedia Britannica, vol 1, excerpts page 13 through 58.
Managers do things right. Leaders do the right thing.
Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus,
LEADERS, Harper & Row, New York, 1985.
Our children long for realistic maps of a future they can be proud of. Where are the cartographers of human purpose?
Dr. Carl Sagan,
Prominent astronomer and scientist, “People Digest,” Dayton Daily News and Journal Herald, page 29, November 21, 1987.
The present tumult in our world is the natural and understandable result of a vigorous intelligence moving out of the savagery of our life form’s childhood. Instead of humanity’s demise, our era seems to be filled with evidence that we were meant to survive and evolve much further.
Gene Roddenberry,
Creator of Star Trek, “A Letter to the Next Genera- tion,” TIME, April 18, page 1, 1988.
But the more careful rationales for citizenship seem to agree in their emphasis on two ideals: democratic citizens draw conclusions about public affairs through critical, rational deliberation, and they partici- pate in community life to sustain or enhance realization of demo- cratic ideals.
Fred M. Newman,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, “Rational Deliberation and Social Participation? Why Bother?” Presented to the annual meeting of the
College and University Faculty Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies, Phoenix, Arizona, November 18, 1994.
We are living through the birth pangs of a new civilization whose in- stitutions are not yet in place …. We need to create a whole new structure of government capable of making intelligent, democratic decisions necessary for our survival in a Third Wave, 21st Century America …. The time has come for us to imagine completely novel alternatives through the widest consultation and peaceful public par- ticipation … to reconstitute America.
Alvin Toffler,
Creating a New Civilization (Turner Publishing, Inc., Atlanta, 1995), pgs. 82 and 90.
Through public policies, government is involved with every technol- ogy in a variety of roles. As a result, the president of the United States becomes the nation’s systems manager…. Since every technological choice poses ethical questions, outcomes are shaped more by the moral vision of political leaders and the electorate than by the techni- cal content …. To achieve the goals of a humane, democratic society, large numbers of people need to make thoughtful, realistic choices
…. We need to know who we are, where we are, and then decide on where we want to go …. Finally, we need to admit that facing the fu- ture is as much ideological as it is technological. The bedrock values that define the nation’s behavior depend on people taking responsi- bility. We are not just consumers of technology. In a high-tech world, we are producers, managers, investors, and sometime innocent by- standers and victims. We are voters. Unknowingly perhaps, we are all stewards of our natural inheritance and responsible for what we leave our progeny. We are citizens of the world.
Edward Wenk, Jr.,
Professor Emeritus of Engineering, University of Washington, Making Waves (University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago; 1995), pg. 198, 230,
237, 240.
Americans are thus beneficiaries of a miraculous confluence, the in- tertwining of democracy and technology, the “Double Helix ….” If information for governance is lacking, the nation may have the nec- essary propulsion but an inadequate capacity to steer …. For democ- racy to survive, the social capacity for responsive and accountable management of technology requires a new learning curve built not on business administration nor on technical virtuosity, but on hu- man qualities of moral vision …. Last, preserving liberty requires in- tense public participation. Democracy is everyone’s business …. As a moral compass, two institutions not previously mentioned seemed fit for that gigantic task, the universities and religious institutions.
Edward Wenk, Jr.
The Double Helix (Ablex Publishing Corp., 1999), pages 1-12.
Through historical circumstance, we are all heirs to the awesome op- portunity and critical responsibility to become authors, guides, and actors in the future of human evolution.
August T. Jaccaci and Susan B. Gault,
CEO, Chief Evolutionary Officer (Butterworth- Heinemann Publications, 1999), page 5.
Perhaps the most important factor in all these recent advances [in biotechnology], particularly as they continue to unfold, is the re- sponsibility we have concerning education. It is the public, through the power of the vote, that ultimately decides what programs, scien- tific or other, merit funding. Without education, a rift will emerge between the voters and the scientific community. The latter may hold in their hands the answers to all of the great genetic questions, but the voters will hold the cards. Voters will not pay for something that they do not understand.
Leroy Hood,
Founding chair, and William H. Gates III Scholar, Dept. of Molecular Biology, University of Washing- ton, Foundation for the Future Seminar, Bellevue WA, 1999.
Our current notions of business and trade are a fertile garden for re- thinking the human future ….
Because the ever-increasing power of global business is arguably the greatest planetary force of combined human creativity with the greatest potential for successfully weaving the web of peaceful hu- man unification, what synthesizing focus for business might we imagine? …To pull all this thinking together into a final consider- ation for CEOs [Chief Evolutionary Officers], I suggest that we fo- cus our imaginations on a business dedicated to creation of the larg- est working tool and guiding story that the planetary culture can have and now sorely needs: a new cosmology …. Imagine that every living human, all of us together, could find engaging mutual creative endeavor. Imagine that we could tell each is a gift of grace from and to the whole glorious and eternal purpose of evolution, and of the universe. This cosmological story has been within us all along wait- ing to emerge ….
Love is the unitive power and presence common to all religious and spiritual beliefs that gives them their deepest potential to heal, nur- ture, and to glorify with joy the human soul and spirit.
August T. Jaccaci and Susan B. Gault,
CEO Chief Evolutionary Officer, page 179.
But as world events reflect, we remain far from mastering the art of human relations. We have invented no technology that will guide us to the destinations that matter most.
Madeleine Albright,
Former Secretary of State, at the commencement address of the University of California, Berkeley, 2000. Reported in USA Today, June 2, 2000, page 19A.
Policy development for sustainable development may get its stron- gest push from community action. Over time, this can build the constituency needed to tackle sustainability issues on the scale of na- tions and the international community.
The grassroots approach to sustainable development also entails a powerful partnership with science. Because the issues at hand tend to have large technical components, scientists are called upon to diag- nose problems and define the range of policy options. Stakeholders [i.e., citizens] choose among problems and make policy recommen- dations. Solutions are based on intensive dialogue between experts and stakeholders. Civic science joins expert knowledge to sustainable development projects and policies (Schmandt 1998). Holistic scien- tific inquiry serving community goals can pave the road to sustain- able development.
Jurgen Schmandt,
“ From Idea to Action: The Role of Policy,” Sustain- able Development, The Challenge of Transition (Cambridge University Press, 2000, UK), page 219.
Man is scientifically a giant, ethically a pygmy ….
Religion without science is lame; Science without religion is blind.
Attributed to Albert Einstein