World Wide Consulting

1999 John Perkins

There is no piece of paper which justifies what the beggar has and what I have. Standing naked beside the beggar-there's no difference between her and me except a difference in luck. I don't actually deserve to have a thousand times more than the beggar has. I don't deserve to have two crusts of bread more.

- Wallace Shawn,
The Fever

I proposed in my learning agreement to study leaders or consultants could do to help a particular company become leaders in their field. As I considered the topic and literature a larger concern overshadowed this original intent: can consultants help raise the questions necessary for a global set of values for sustained human and environmental maintenance? This paper explores many possible places consultants may join in to help build sustainable global values, behaviors, and relationships.

Articles about the growing inequalities in the distribution of wealth (Bluestone 1995a and 1995b) and the social disruptions caused by disproportionate wealth and power wielded by corporations (Marris 1996, Yankelovich 1994, Turknett 1997) abound. How can consultants support a reconsideration in the West of the concept of "growth" of material wealth, privately pursued? This concept seems to be the justification of corporate policies of massive "down-sizing" "outsourcing" and so forth. What characterize many of these painful "change" events may be their obvious disruption and overturning of previously tacit understandings of community and reciprocity (Marris 1996, Turknett 1997, and Yankelovich 1994). In other words, one "side" unilaterally breaks the tacit "rules of community" whether that community be understood as a company, nation, or our community with nature.

John Adams suggests in "Working Today as if Tomorrow Really Mattered: A Challenge to the Profession" (1996 Internet) that it's time that organization consultants went beyond their narrow concerns with business and took on global crises. Adams recounts a common set of statistics about the minority of humanity-primarily in the Western nations of Europe and the United States and Canada and Australia and Japan-consuming disproportionate amounts of Earth's resources. The vast numbers of people are either very poor and tied into this so called global economy or they are poor and outside of it, still in a village or subsistence economies.

Adams locates the "doing/having" way of living as the greatest threat to our well-being. Adams affirms Daniel Quinn's (author of Ismael) observation that the human species' "master plan" apparently is to "go on consuming until there is nothing left to consume!"

The ideology of growth, as in, "grow or die,", doesn't say anything about what is of value to "grow." Upper management in corporations announce that it means that return on investment, or profits. Stockholder returns, and CEO salaries, must grow without attending to what is permanently consumed in the process. This has spawned some painful paradoxes as corporations seek to increase the participation of their workers in increasing efficiency or reducing waste while at the same time limiting their ability to share in the gains of this increased return on investment (See Freeman and Rogers 1994: Internet).

The undiscussed phrase "grow or die" virtually requires single-minded selfish concern with our personal, private material comfort. Perhaps it is a zero sum world to the degree that the more we think solely of "growth" as being material, we crowd out thinking that the immaterial can be grown as well. It may be at the expense of the immaterial; it may be at the expense of relationships-to nature, to each other, to our own soul's and our spirit.

So, what if we reversed one of the consultant field's metaphors, just for fun, and we said we have to learn to live inside the box, Let's play with this concept of staying inside the box, staying inside limits, staying inside the material well being of everyone, so its not just that I'm worried about myself but, if I can work my life so that I am reasonably well fed, well housed, well transported, whatever, but, I exercise it with the knowledge that everybody else is playing along in such a way that we actually are able to restore some forests, that we're able to restore the rivers, that we're able to restore the air to breath-ability, that we're able to restore time-another intangible to grow.

Let's say an organization rethought their whole way of being and they established a certain level of work load for their employees and they felt with that work load they could maintain a fair income for all and any efficiencies would be rewarded with a shorter work week. Everyone must work and everyone would have to get the same income to avoid divisive resentments. But with the changes, rather than people working harder, harder and harder, the "system" rewards smarter effort and increase efficiency with more time off. The company continues to "grow" but it grows time for the workers.

Norms. We need two sets of norms, one set for structuring conversations and another for day-to-day behavior and its associated feedback for improvement and corrections. As a norm for structuring conversations, I suggest Open Space (Owen, 1992). It offers the possibility of letting people understand what their mind is across the planet by the ease that it can be used, the ease that it can be taught and adapted, and its facility for working across all cultural conditions around the world. As a first start at what global principles might be, of course would be open space technology four principles of:

1. Whoever come are the right people.

2. Whenever it starts is the right time.

3. Whatever happens is the only thing that could have.

4. When it's over, it's over. (Owen 1992: 70).

If Open Space norms succeed in helping the people on earth discuss policy concerns, what would be the norms the rest of the time? Egalitarian communities have been laboratories of new norms for centuries. If inequality of wealth dampens hope and increases injustices and environmental degradation, then the balancing philosophy of egalitarianism offers more hope than the laissez-faire capitalism which belies our current "global economy."

Ganas community in New York has been experimenting with simple norms since their founding in 1980. Ganas in Spanish means "enough desire or motivation to act." They live with a limited set of rules:
We limit ourselves only to four firm rules:
1. Non-violence to people or things.

2. No exploitation. Everybody is required to work productively or pay their expenses.

3. No illegality, including illegal drugs.
4. No non negotiable negativity. This is a new rule. It requires that people bring their complaints about the community or people in it to the group, where the problem can be discussed and resolved with the people involved or a member of the core group, who will bring their issue up before others for them. If that doesn't work and they are still unhappy with their life here, they are asked to either adjust without negativity or complaint or to leave (About Ganas 1993: 24).

Ganas, and other egalitarian communities actively experiment with building interactions based on fundamental equality in all regards, especially in the material or "stuff" domain. Interestingly, egalitarian communities have a special IRS category, 501(d), which requires each member to file identical income tax returns.

A tremendous role might be carved out for organization development (OD) practitioners of simply helping the world have a few explicit norms like those at Ganas. Above all I suggeste two meta-norms: (1) we will abide by our explicit norms or explicitly work to persuade people to amend them (similar to Ganas's Rule #4), and (2) new norms can be added at the request of anyone at any time, provided the world agrees. As a start I will discuss three potential global norms: cooperation, reciprocity, and reflexivity.

Cooperation. To move from global competition to global cooperation will be a controversial change. Non-violent controversial social change draws on deep human values of mutuality and cooperation. For Austin (1997), controversial social change
is change that challenges organizational norms and broader societal norms. Generating peaceful, controversial social change in an organization is difficult, and doing it well is important. Organizational change theorists recognize the importance of organizational traditions and norms, but few examine the important role societal norms play in organizational change attempts. Controversial social change in an organization directly challenges widely accepted organizational norms, and, to be successful, it must change not only the members' behavior but also the members' interpretation of societal norms (p. 102).

Using this as a frame, Austin shows how Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson integrated major league baseball using a profound understanding of the role norms play. Branch Rickey deliberately and publicly sought to "put his intellect to work on issues that 'mattered outside of the park'" (p. 103). This lifted his thinking to the rare level of triple-loop action-learning. Neilsen (1993) used the term triple-loop action-learning to explain a procedure first developed by the eighteenth century Quaker abolitionist John Woolman in Pennsylvania. In single loop learning change occurs within understood values and constraints. "In double-loop action-learning there is a change in the governing value and the action strategy," Neilsen notes, but organization ethics remain unexamined (p. 120).

In the Rickey/Robinson effort to integrate baseball, the unspoken ethics of racism silently supported the continuation of segregation. This is where triple-loop action-learning makes its value known:
The governing values that drive actions can be nested within embedded social traditions. In triple-loop action-learning, the embedded social tradition system is both criticized and treated as partner in mutual action-learningThe agent considers changes in actions, governing values, and the embedded social tradition system within which governing values are nested. More specifically, the agent holds open for learning and change the effectiveness of the action strategy of not talking about controversial issues, the appropriateness of the governing value of short-term conflict suppression, and potential positive and/or negative biases in the embedded social tradition that might be causing individuals inappropriately to accept the governing value of short-term conflict suppression (p. 121).

The OD field could start within itself by demonstrating how an discipline with wildly divergent theories and methods learns to cooperate for larger social benefit. Edmondson (1996) in an article in Human Relations recounts her experience of observing the interactions of three well-known OD gurus: Edgar Schein, Peter Senge, and Chris Argyris. Though the three men decided to collaborate at the new Center for Organizational Learning at MIT, differences in their theories and methods impeded their success. Each has carved a separate intellectual discipline and approach for himself: Schein emphasizes corporate culture; Senge focuses on system dynamics; and Argyris pushes a theory of action (p. 592).

By modeling the ways in which the three approaches might be integrated, Edmondson essentially rediscovered Woolman the hard way. Notice the similarities in the following chart.

woolman chart

Reciprocity. My second candidate for a universal norm is reciprocity. Rebalancing power relations to increase felt and demonstrated reciprocity would help to ease many of the destructive drives disturbing human and ecological interactions. Most tribal and traditional peoples understand reciprocity; they cannot survive as a people without it. It would take a great deal of discussion and airing of suppressed conflicts in the Western nations, however, but part of the intent of proposing it is to build contexts for the ensuing discussions. One "safe" goal might be conversations to simply define it in appropriate local language and behavior worldwide.

Among organizational theorists, William Torbert is the most passionate visionary for a peer-based world, or as he calls it, for The Power of Balance (1991). "The power-of-balance model postulates that power can be exercised to balance oneself in relation to others and to cultivate the capacity for such mutual self-balancing, if lifetime efforts are committed to developing such power" (p. 5). Torbert makes a strong claim for this new power: "whereas other types of power corrupt and require balancing by one another to limit corruption and injustice, the exercise of the power of balance generates increasing self-balancing, increasing personal integrity, increasing institutional efficacy, and increasing social justice" (p. 13).

Balancing of power would provide the opening doors to fresh forms and structures for human experimentation and sharing. We would find the freedom that Mary Parker Follett calls for:
New surges of life are pounding at circumference and centre; we must open the way for their entrance and onflow. Today the individual is submerged, smothered, choked by the crowd fallacy, the herd theory. Free him [sic] from these, release his energies, and he with all other Freemen will work out quick, flexible, constantly changing forms which shall respond sensitively to every need (from the New State, cited in Martin 1994: 115).

Reflexivity.1 To solve our planetary puzzles will take a different order of reasoning than the scientific method which seeks ultimate "truths" in the "objective" world. Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, felt that for a society to continually improve, it must remain "open" so that conjecture and refutation can be freely engaged in. Through this process of thinking and correction we would grow our knowledge ever closer to the ultimate Truth. But can the global "truths" we need for a sustainable world be refuted in the same way scientific theories can?

George Soros believes that they cannot because they are of a different order of reasoning. Soros claims to have used Karl Popper's ideas about epistemology to make his fortune. He has certainly made a fortune-the foundations he has founded annually give away over $350 million. Financial articles which reference him always put "superstar" before his name. But it is in the area of philosophy that he would like to leave his contribution. Soros, writing in the Atlantic Monthly about Popper's ideas about the Open Society, said this about the vexing difficulties of refuting social theories:
I was driven to delve deeper into Popper's philosophy and to ask, Why does nobody have access to the ultimate truth? The answer became clear: We live in the same universe that we are trying to understand, and our perceptions can influence the events in which we participate. If our thoughts belong in one universe and their subject matter in another, the truth might be within our grasp: we could formulate statements corresponding to the facts, and the facts would serve as reliable criteria for deciding whether the statements were true.

[Beyond the natural sciences] the relation between statements and facts is less clear-cut. In social and political affairs the participants' perceptions help to determine reality. In these situations facts do not necessarily constitute reliable criteria for judging the truth of statements. There is a two-way connection-a feedback mechanism-between thinking and events, which I have called "reflexivity" (pp. 46-47).

Soros wants us to leave the binary, two value thinking of true and false by introducing his third value, reflexive:
How does this fit in with our generally accepted notion of truth? It seems that we need more than the two recognized categories-true and false. The logical positivists asserted that statements which are not true or false are meaningless. I thoroughly disagree. Theories that can affect the subject matter to which they refer are the opposite of meaningless. They can change the world. They express the active role that thinking can play in shaping reality. We need to adjust our concept of truth to account for them. I propose that we need three categories: true, false, and reflexive. The true value of a reflexive statement is indeterminate. It is possible to find other statements with an indeterminate truth value but we can live without them. We cannot live without reflexive statements. I hardly need to emphasize the profound significance of this proposition. Nothing is more fundamental to our thinking than our concept of truth. (Soros, 1995, Internet).

Adding reflexivity offers some insight into any global process of norm discussion and adoption. Not only must people, governments, and institutions master new mechanical or social system procedures, they must also master the meaning of that change and what it means about our world and our place in it (reflexivity).

Harrison Owen understands that the "effective power of an organization is directly and fundamentally related to the quality of its mythology" (1994: 95) and Krysl (1991) reminds us that "sometimes a person need a story more than food to stay alive." Though not literally true, such mythic communications generate a reflexive force much greater than literal scientific truths. The Third Reich offers one disturbing example while Mississippi Freedom Summer demonstrates a hopeful one.

OD consultants can contribute by helping people understand how reflexivity works and to help us all think clearly when we use theories, symbols, metaphors, and analogy. These symbols, metaphors, and theories influence how everyone, plans, acts, and reacts. Neustadt and May (1986) offer an excellent exercise of clarifying just where the analogy fits or mismatches the topic under discussion. The goal would be to help people see that the tools of thought that they are using can be adjusted, they're not given from outside and if they don't quite work with what you need to do in the local situation they can be modified or replaced.

Love is the glue. What if we lived without fear? Deming's fifth point is drive fear out of the work place, but why stop there, why not the whole world? What if we listened anew to the messages and practices of Robert Owens, the early 19th century Scottish cotton mill owner who pioneered many enlightened practices. Owens believed that happiness is the greatest human drive, but this can only be secured through the happiness of the community. The production of wealth, then, ensures happiness for all, while poverty and consequent unhappiness, results from mis-distribution of wealth. One's own happiness followed from the building up the happiness of others, not the accumulation of one's own material wealth. (Harrison 1968: 13-18; also see Nicholson 1907, Internet).

Could "community happiness" become the unifying global belief? That we will add joy to one another, add joy to those with less joy? This is not outside the realm of what is possible. Merck Drugs, for example, has distributed at its own expense Mectizan, a drug which cures "river blindness" to the million people affected by the disease around the world (Collins and Porras 1994: 47).

Gathering Information. Gannon and Associates (1994) wrote an excellent introduction to global cultures by using a cultural event, ritual, or game as a symbolic metaphorical expression of a nation. For example, the marketplace in Nigeria was used to understand much about that culture, while football helped to interpret the culture of the United States. I think another tremendous important global goal would be to survey every identified culture that would like to participate and to find out what are four or five qualities about its way of living that cultural members want to share with humanity as a "global treasure." For starters, some questions worth exploring might include: What are three things about how you raise children you want to communicate? What are three things about how you make decisions? What are three things about how you deal with differences of opinion, conflict, and disagreements? What are three things you appreciate about your courtship rituals? What foods do you like, and how do you like to obtain them (hunting, gathering, farming, etc.)?

Composing that list of questions and asking communities, through their customary way of making decisions, to add into this list would be a tremendous project. This would help do-good projects work with local values and traditions as they address cross-cultural international concerns. At minimum, it might alert well meaning helpers that others have their own, well-loved values which might not match those of the helper's native culture.

Second, we need to simultaneously articulate global "big, hairy audacious goals" (BHAGs) (Collins and Porras 1994), and small wins (Weick, 1984) objectives or missions. The methods and specifics of these goals and wins must be continually and openly discussed. We do need time frames which are elastic, with continual reminders that our goals are just our best estimates of how long something will take. We work sincerely with good heart as well as we can as coordinated as we can and we push on. A national or international organization of consultants could manage the discussion, dissemination and tracking of the BHAGs and small wins.

A Theme for Getting Started. When King George II granted a charter to the "governor and Company of Adventurers trading into Hudson's Bay," or the Hudson Bay Company, on May 2, 1670, he created a new institution, the corporation. Every corporation starts with a built-in moral flaw. By making the abstract concept of "corporation" a legal "person" corporate law undermines the pressures on the "governor and adventurers" of corporations to suffer the personal penalties they would if committing the same acts as private citizens since the corporation would suffer any legal repercussions, not themselves. Since the purpose of corporations has been private gain and not community happiness, corporate leaders and their counsel have sought to exempt corporations from reciprocal expectations between corporations and workers, corporations and the communities where they operate, and corporations and the natural world they consume on their way to making money.

The year 2020 will mark the 350th anniversary of the first corporation, and the intervening years between now and then could be used to discuss the concept of corporation and ways to reconceive it so that the people who manage and own them have better grasps of their social, moral, and environmental reciprocating roles and responsibilities. The philosophy of capitalism, that the few will benefit from the work of the many, and the mantras on ownership, home ownership, owning share, shareholders, stakeholders, a lot of ways we touch on ownership. OD consultants can host permanent conversations on ownership and the responsibilities incumbent on current owners and holders of wealth as the species shift from a owning to a stewarding role.

In closing. Consultants and other "leaders" need to look at how we add joy in all arena. Consultants can begin with a private, personal vow to where their heart calls them to service and stewardship, include a short announcement of their passion, when appropriate for the remainder of their careers and allows others with like passions to find them this way, to learn to work together with other consultants so that we model working with diverse methods and understandings.

We might create a loose network of consultants working on this project. We need to commit to supporting one another, either through procedures such as re-evaluative counseling or using whatever skills they have for therapy or listening or feedback or just bumping along and learning how to support as we go. The network's role would be to foster learning, sharing, mutual support, and dissemination of discoveries.

We also need to stretch and play in order to create room for greater cross-disciplinary synergy. What if we reverse one of the popular OD metaphors, just for fun, and we said we have to learn to live inside the box? We could learn what "enough" means and how to grow spirit by adding to the happiness of the community.

Branch Rickey found his appropriate "symbol" in Jackie Robinson, but he also found a human being. If we can find our symbols of our peer-steward selves in the human qualities that we express, and in the symbols of humanity we uphold as "leaders" or heroes, this would "grow" our reflexive wealth. We can learn to appreciated the immaterial and delight in accepting the limits of the material world, and allow it to be sustained by accepting self-limitations of our materialistic desires. The best inoculation to our fears of insecurity is not more "stuff" which only increases the instability of the overall system, but in high-quality human interactions-a deep and sure reciprocity.

Let's make this planet a shining place of joy and laughter, adequate material comfort, music, dance, art, storytelling, mutual benefit and global safety, lush forests, and abundant clear air and water. May ourselves, and all our relations enjoy the dance of life without fear of extinction.

So be it.



Austin, John R. (1997). A Method for Facilitating Controversial Social Change in Organizations: Branch Rickey and The Brooklyn Dodgers. Journal of Applied Behavoral Science, 33(1): 101-118.

Collins, James C., and Porras, Jerry I. (1994). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. New York: HarperCollins.

Gannon, Martin J. and Associates. (1994). Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journeys Through 17 Countries. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Hamel, Gary and Prahalad, C.K. (1994). Competing for the Future: Breakthrough Strategies for Seizing Control of Your Industry and Creating the Markets of Tomorrow. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Harrison, John F. C., editor. (1968) Utopianism and Education: Robert Owen and the Owenites. Classics in Education No. 37. New York: Columbia University Teachers College Press.

Hawley, Jack. (1993). Reawakening the Spirit in Work: The Power of Dharmic Management. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Henderson, Cheri. (1992). Putting on the Ritz. The TQM Magazine. November/December, 1992: 292-296. Reprint.

Kearns, David, and Nadler, David. (1992). Prophets in the Dark: How Xerox Reinvented Itself and Beat Back the Japanese. New York: HarperCollins.

Krysl, M. (1991). Sometimes a person Needs a Story more than Food to Stay Alive. In Curriculum Revolution: Community Building and Activism. New York: League for Nursing, pp. 29-39.

Labich, Kenneth. (1994). Is Herb Kelleher America's Best CEO? Fortune, 5/2/94:44-52.

Magnet, Myron. (1994). The Marvel of High Margins. Fortune. 5/2/94:73-74.

Marris, Peter. (1996). The Politics of Uncertainty: Attachment in Private and Public Life. New York: Rutledge.

Martin, Emily. (1994). Flexible Bodies: Tracking Immunity in American Culture-From the Days of Polio to the Age of AIDS. Boston: Beacon Press.

Nadler, David A., Shaw, Robert B., Walton, A. Elise, and Associates, editors. (1994). Discontinuous Change: Leading Organizational Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Neustadt, Richard E., and May, Ernest R. (1986). Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision-Makers. New York: The Free Press.

Neilsen, Richard P. 91993). Woolman's "I am We" Triple-Loop Action-Learning: Origin and Application in Organization Ethics. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29(1, March 1993): 117-138.

Owen, Harrison H. (1987). Spirit: Transformation and Development in Organizations. Potomac, MD: Abbott Publishing.

Owen, Harrison H. (1992). Open Space Technology: A User's Manual. Potomac, MD: Abbott Publishing.

Owen, Harrison H. (1994). The Millennium Organization. Potomac, MD: Abbott Publishing.

Partlow, Charles G. (1993). How Ritz-Carlton Applies "TQM." The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly. August 1993, 34(4):reprint/no pagination.

Peters, Tom. (1987). Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution. New York: Perennial Library.

Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company. (1994). Application Summary for the 1992 Malcolm Baldrige Award. 1992 Service Quality Winner. Atlanta: Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company. also see Henderson, Partlow

Senge, Peter M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.

Senge, Peter M. (Fall 1990). The Leader's New Work: Building Learning Organizations. Sloan Management Review, 32(1):7-23.

Senge, Peter M. et al. (1994).The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.

Shawn, Wallace. (1992).The Fever. New York: Dramatists Play Service.

Soros, George. (1997). The Capitalist Threat. In The Atlantic Monthly, February, 1997: 45-58.

Spechler, Jay W. (1993). Managing Quality in America's Most Admired Companies. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Srivastva, Suresh, and Cooperrider, David L. (1990). Appreciative Management and Leadership: The Power of Positive Thought and Action in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tichy, Noel M., and Stratford, Sherman. (1993). Control Your Destiny or Somebody Else Will: How Jack Welch Is Making General Electric the World's Most Competitive Company. New York: Doubleday.

Torbert, William R. (1991). The Power of Balance: Transforming Self, Society, and Scientific Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Toffler, Alvin. (1985). The Adaptive Corporation. New York: Bantam Books.

Weatherford, Jack. (1988). Indian Givers; How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World. New York: Fawcett Columbine. hudson bay 5/2/1670, p. 22

Weick, Karl E. (1984). Small Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social Problems. American Psychologist, 39(1):40-49.

Whyte, William Foote, and Whyte, Kathleen King. (1988). Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.


Adams, John. (1996). Working Today as if Tomorrow Really Mattered: A Challenge to the Profession. Available 4/5/97 at

Bluestone, Barry. (1995a). The Inequality Express. The American Prospect 20 (Winter 1995): 81-93. Also available 4/25/97 at:

Bluestone, Barry. (1995b). The Polarization of American Society: Victims, Suspects and Mysteries to Unravel. New York Twentieth Century Fund Press. Also available 4/7/97 at

Freeman, Richard, and Rogers, Joel. (1994). Worker Representation and Participation Survey-Final Findings. Available 10/17/96 at

Nicholson, J. S. (1907). The British Economists. The Cambridge Modern History. Volume 10. Available 4/25/97 at

Soros, George (1995). A Failed Philosopher Tries Again. Speech text. Available 2/6/97 at:

Turknett, Carolyn. (1997). Revitalization and Downsizing: A Briefing for Leaders. Available 4/3/97 at:

Yankelovich, Daniel. (1994). The Unwritten Contract at Risk. Available 3/22/97 at:

1 Note: portions of this section adapted from my "Presearch" paper for another component of my learning agreement.