Zimpapers Logo

of the organisation. Yet egos, greed, excessive competitiveness, revenge, hate, fear etc also fight to get their way.
Whose decision? Why that decision? What if it does not work and I lose? What is in it for me? – are examples of the struggles within the soul of governance.
The victor becomes the dominant thought and belief system of governance in the institution. For instance, if greed is a dominant thought, then corruption will prevail. If fear is dominant, then amassment and hoarding prevails.
The intensity of this thought and belief systems, translate into a spirit of governance, if allowed to persist long enough.
In selecting board members and senior executives it is important to be cognizant of these tendencies. Thus quality and not quantity of boards and executives is really the key issue in shaping the soul and the spirit of governance in an organisation.
It is equally important for organisations, to define preferred dominant spirit. As directors and executives are recruited, they should have a certain defined aura about them, which fits in with organisational values and desired spirit of governance.
“The people that I trusted to run it and then maybe the people they trusted”.
These are the words of Rupert Murdoch addressing the UK Parliament, following the phone-hacking scandal at News Corporation. Driven by greed, these people, Murdoch trusted caused a 168 year old establishment to shut down instantly.
As names of policemen, private investigators and journalists were tossed about in this scandal, one could only question the selection criteria, of trusting these characters to run such an establishment.
Perhaps it is true that Murdoch and his executives were not responsible. It was the spirit of corruption that had taken over. Greed had been allowed to persist long enough to be like cancer and it ate away all of News Corporation’s 168 years of the goodwill.
Yet again if the Chief Executive and his executives were not responsible, then it is conclusive that the dominant thought, belief system and culture of the organisation were that of irresponsibility.
Crisis of governance always comes about when “self” overshadows “others”. If no one was responsible for the 168 year old establishment, then no one cared, for the company and for those in and around it.
A good spirit of governance is created values of love, care, truth, compassion, clemency etc. It allows for nurturing of systems and organisations. a good spirit of governance thrives in an environment of protection and persistence in doing good. These values can separate “self” from the needs of the organisations.
These values have an inbuilt ability to create more. Unlike for instance greed that assumes shortage and lack, the values of love, care, truth, protection and compassion assume abundance. According to the law of attraction, an atmosphere that thinks abundance attracts abundance, and vice-versa for lack.
Thus creativeness rather than competitiveness becomes the underlying current in governance.
Yet, love is not a common corporate language. It is in hospitals, churches and schools where care is a trait that love is perceived to be more appropriate. More dominant in corporate corridors are the hard, competitive, strategic thinking, critical path analysis, SWOT, Gantt and PERT charts etc type of language.
These are necessary masculine values and they have taken over corporate business, world over. Men dominate businesses and they bring with them male oriented values. Love and care are perceived to be feminine values of nurturing. An appropriate balance of these feminine and masculine values is what shapes the spirit of good governance.
In the confusion of an overdose of male values in organisations, and in some cases, women trying to adapt to these masculine tendencies, we have “falsified” organisational governance systems.
“Falsifying type” is a term invented by Carl Jung in 1926. This occurs when one develops and uses more competencies that are managed by one’s non-preferred functions and fewer managed by one’s natural lead function.
Are corporate businesses of today, being governed for their natural functions, or non-preferred? A common phenomenon in corporate governance is the issue of remuneration. For instance, institutions are made to function as banks as they finance executives’ lifestyles.
Diversification, sometimes when overdone, brings about “falsification”.
The cost could be fatal to the organisation.
I believe that there are crises of governance riding on the back of the current global crises and that love is the antidote.
People world over are seeking more meaning to life and work. It is as if the whole world has been operating under falsified governance systems, and Mother Nature is calling us back to be nurtured. Should we resist?
Although nurturing and love are regarded as feminine traits, it does not mean that only women can nurture companies. Neither does it mean that all women necessarily care, love and nurture.
However, I believe that all human beings can learn to be compassionate and caring to organisations.
A spirit of good governance is therefore shaped first and foremost through compassion.