Abstract
Owed perhaps to its peculiar name, ‘Human Systems Management’ or HSM, this unconventional, international business journal challenges both potential contributors and reviewers, grappling with the processes of managing human systems and human systems management. HSM is poised to reflect the fact that the research pertaining to business enterprises and other societal organizations has moved past the pervasively mechanistic and organismic or medieval-corporatism views of humankind’s recent past, and far beyond the technocratic information age, into the high technology of truly societal human systems. Ergo, HSM aspires to archiving business research manuscripts that track the transformation of pioneering business enterprises and other societal organizations into self-organizing and self-governing societal human systems.
Keywords
Introduction
It would be rather presumptuous to talk of the need to humanize all journals that archive research pertinent to business enterprises and other societal organizations, such as, for example, local, regional and federal governments. Yet is both practical and beneficial to all concerned human beings and systems, to make it so in the context of emending the content of research manuscripts submitted, revised and re-submitted to the Human Systems Management (HSM) journal.
The editorial function at HSM entails not only the analysis and synthesis, but also the anasynthesis, of issues that prevail in the sphere of business enterprises and other societal organizations, both nationally and internationally, so that the research articles archived in HSM truly contribute to the in-formation of a learned research community. Thanks to its: inspiring Founding Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Milan Zeleny, Professor Emeritus, sagacious Book Review Editors and outstanding Editorial Board, and self-development support by IOS Press, HSM embarks on its volume 37 trek, with a healthy backlog of about 30+ accepted research manuscripts.
It is most challenging standing sentinel over what becomes archived in HSM and what does not. Both for potential authors and HSM reviewers and editors, the challenges spring from attempting to comprehend the coupling of words that comprise the name of this rather unconventional, international journal: ‘Human Systems Management’.
For example, looking at the processes of controlling or dealing with the staff and the stuff of business enterprises and other societal organizations, etymologically, both the noun ‘management’ and the verb ‘to manage’ stem from the latin noun ‘manus’ or hand and the italian verb ‘maneggiare’ or to manage, denoting the process of putting horses through the paces of the ‘manège’, namely the arena or confined area, where horses and riders receive hands-on training. It is beneficial to discover that HSM pertains to hands-on learning or learning on the job, yet individual learning is insufficient for business enterprises and other societal organizations planning to survive and to prosper, as they also require institutional or organizational learning, a true education, and what is conventionally called ‘knowledge management’ or ‘KM’.
Equally challenging is the word ‘systems’. Historically, building on Aristotle’s idea of the ‘ὅλον πρότερον’, hó lon pró teron or whole erstwhile, researchers in multiple disciplines have successfully defined what a system is and what a system is not [1–4, p. 1-1, 5].
Etymologically, the word ‘system’ stems today from the 17th century french entry ‘système’ or the late latin one: ‘systema’. Both terms rise from the compound hellenic noun ‘σύστημα’ or sý stē ma, from the preposition ‘σύν’, sý n or with, plus the verb ‘ἵστημι’, hí stimi or to stand unwaveringly steadfast.
A system is an entity or unity of components or members that act collegially, within the ecologically societal structure of their mutual interactions and reciprocally causal interdependencies, with the humane intentionality and purposefulness always to promote their collegial, common or general good. Humane people do not ever pretend to ostensibly design a true system, be it agile or dull, when the only thing we actually design is the societal structure required for a system to emerge by or of itself, each and every time human beings, with their human intentionality and purposefulness, interact with said requisite societal structure [5, 6, pp. 95–99].
The research manuscripts submitted to HSM frequently stumble on the word ‘system/s’, as if all things around us truly were systems, standing together unwaveringly steadfast. Yet what their authors mostly refer to as ‘systems’ are régimented artifices that produce a delusion of organization, namely bureaucratically-hierarchized pyramids or ladders, of central or vertical authority and power, respectively.
These invariably iffy artifices are akin to the left-center-right particracy dogmas, which craftily and successively produce each inhumane ‘crisis’, wherein what ‘the markets’ purportedly will is just what a few lustful for authority and power tyrants covet. Ergo, the research manuscripts submitted to HSM keep pouring in, calling a ‘system’ everything under the sun, inadvertently perhaps promoting the propaganda by the totalitarian régime of laquoabsolute Despotismraquo and laquoabsolute Tyrannyraquo [7].
Turn your inhumane submission into a humane manuscript
Perhaps owed to poor writing, submitted manuscripts often become conceptually murky, confusing, for example, environmental sustainability with the sustainability of consumerism, an economic-societal disease. As if the Human Systems Management journal were about to start publishing manuscripts that propagate the sustainability of consumerism, in lieu of environmental sustainability.
Such dark and gloomy submissions are not that frequent, yet many inhumane terms, promoted profusely in conventional business journals and textbooks, turn manuscripts submitted to HSM inhumane too. Behold these eleven, most frequently occurring inhumane notions and terms, listed along with some humane ideas and words that can easily rescue a manuscript, rendering it fit for archival in the HSM journal.
1) In many parts of our cosmos, the inhumane verb ‘to understand’, as well as every inhumane term that ensues from it, commands a person or people ‘to stand under’ the bureaucratically-hierarchized authority and power artifice. Potential HSM contributors can easily remedy a manuscript by deleting this inhumane verb and its derivatives, replacing them with humane verbs and their derivatives, such as, for example, to comprehend, to decipher, to fathom, to gain insight into, to [mentally] grasp, to interpret, to make sense of, to see, to take in, to undisclose and to unravel, depending, of course, on the particular manuscript’s context and subtext.
2) Another glaringly occurring falsity entails using the term ‘relationship/s’ instead of the proper word ‘relation/s’, to describe the way in which two or more insentient constructs or variables are connected. Pragmatically, only human beings and other animals are capable of building and maintaining relationships.
To wit, let X = consumerism and Y = environmental sustainability. If you seriously think that, ceteris paribus, constructs X and Y are capable of having a relationship, then you must immediately start working on your family and societal life. Before you do that, however, when it comes to the way two X and Y insentient constructs or variables are connected in your research manuscript, you must first replace the glaringly false term ‘relationship/s’, with the proper word: ‘relation/s’.
3) Nothing perhaps is more inhumane than a research manuscript talking of ‘human capital management’, ‘human resource management’ and their associated acronyms ‘HCM’ and ‘HRM’, respectively. The ‘human capital’ and ‘human resource’ notions fraudulently degrade us, human beings, to a mere commodity.
Recognizing the fact that the only possible development is self-development, some learned business journals and textbooks are trying to remedy this human degradation. In lieu of the inhumane ‘HRM’ acronym, for example, they have started using the humane ‘HDRM’ one, which stands for ‘human-development resource management’. All potential HSM contributors must make a note of that.
4) Most conventional business journals and textbooks propagate the inhumane imposition of ‘aim/s’, ‘goal/s’ and ‘objective/s’ on human beings and organizations. The authors and editors of these journals and textbooks must have skipped their required philosophy and theology classes, and thereby ignore the fact that human beings and organizations can function properly only with human intentionality and purposefulness.
The inhumane terms ‘aim/s’, ‘goal/s’ and ‘objective/s’ are somehow still acceptable for programming automata and robots, yet once imposed on human beings and organizations, they invariable cause, within reality, dysfunctional and often disastrous results. In lieu of these inhumane terms, authors submitting manuscripts to HSM must use humane nouns and their derivatives: aspiration, desire, intent, intention, intentionality, plan, purpose, purposefulness, volition and will.
5) Another common phenomenon that can discombobulate potential readers to sheer madness entails the glaring misuse of the ‘technology’ notion [8], when what is actually researched is laquosequestered techniqueraquo and laquotechnocracyraquo, the latter stemming from sequestered technique [6, pp. 301-305]. Potential HSM contributors, who research either technology or technocracy and sequestered technique, must show a keen awareness of the fact that true technology is a societal human system, with multiple causal and mutual interdependencies among its hardware, software, brainware and support network or net components [6, pp. 301-305, 8].
6) Many potential HSM contributors confuse civic, ethical and moral principles and values, with civic, ethical and moral ideals. Yet these are distinctly different notions.
Principles and values change continually through time, depending on prevailing circumstances. Conversely, owed to their peculiarly unattainable nature, civic, ethical and moral ideals do not change through time, no matter how insistently a society-specific culture pursues them.
7) A related inhumane misappropriation occurs when potential HSM contributors talk of some allegedly ‘business ethics’ or ‘business fairness and justice’. As if business enterprises and other societal organizations must adhere to some kind of ethics or fairness and justice that are specific to them, but unknown and unknowable to the rest of our human species.
8) The text, subtext and context of some research manuscripts submitted to HSM seem to miss the fact that the only possible form of human and organizational development is self-development. Yet all business enterprises and other societal organizations can do is facilitate their employee, customer and partner self-development, just as educational institutions can only facilitate their faculty and student self-development.
9) In the same context and subtext, since 1945, it is becoming increasingly apparent to business and other organizational researchers that, improving the components and parts of a system, i.e., individual employees, departments or distinct economic sectors and industries, does not necessarily improve a system as a whole, i.e., a business enterprise or other societal organization, such as, for example, a nation. And within the business and organizational reality, more than 80 or 90 percent of dysfunctional and disastrous organizational behavior is caused by the inhumane, top-down imposition of the aye-unnatural and faulty, bureaucratically-hierarchized authority and power sham, a delusion of organization that subjugates and enslaves people, in lieu of a pragmatically ecological decision-making structure of collegial control and responsibility.
In a worldwide response, pioneering business enterprises and other societal organizations are transforming themselves into truly ecological decision-making structures of collegial control and responsibility. Behold just a few examples [6, Chapter 8]: The AES Corporation, Virginia, USA. The ESBZ, ‘Evangelische Schule Berlin Zentrum’ or Evangelical School of Central Berlin, Germany. FAVI S.A., Hallencourt, France. RHD or Resources for Human Development, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Buurtzorg, meaning ‘neighborhood care’, The Netherlands and USA. Heiligenfeld, Bad Kissingen, Bavaria, Germany. HolacracyOne, LLC, Spring City, PA, USA. The Morning Star Packing Company, Woodland, CA, USA. Patagonia, Ventura, CA, USA. Sun Hydraulics Corporation, Sarasota, FL, USA. Zappos.com, Inc., Las Vegas, NV, USA. DAC or David Allen Company, Ojai, CA, USA. INET Oxford or the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, Oxford, UK. PN or Precision Nutrition, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Conscious Capitalism®, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA. Medium, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Used both in journalism and in street talk, many terms are inappropriate for a business research manuscript. To give but a couple of examples, potential HSM contributors must not informally use the terms ‘factor/s’ and ‘key/s’ in their submitted manuscripts.
10) A large segment of HSM’s readers are formally trained in statistics and are, therefore, most familiar with the statistical techniques of factor analysis. It is most insulting to these people to see the term ‘factor/s’ used in a manuscript, wherein a statistical technique of factor analysis is nowhere to be found. Unless they are using factor analysis, in lieu of ‘factor/s’, depending on a manuscript’s peculiar context and subtext, potential HSM contributors must use one of the following nouns: aspect, characteristic, circumstance, component, consideration, constituent, element, feature, influence, ingredient, item, part or strand.
11) When it comes to the rather childish use of the noun ‘key/s’, in lieu of a proper adjective, potential HSM contributors must instead use one of the following adjectives: critical, crucial, essential, important, indispensable, main, major, pivotal, primary, prime, principal, significant or vital. Again, choosing the most befitting adjective depends on the peculiar context and subtext of a particular manuscript.
Conclusion
This essay is a brief attempt to humanize the Human Systems Management journal, for the collegial, common or general benefit of all concerned human beings and systems. Surely, its chivalrous intent deserves a much more thorough investigation than the current essay, into what might take to truly humanize all business journals and textbooks that archive research articles, pertinent to pioneering business enterprises and other societal organizations.
It is critical that the research manuscripts submitted to HSM explicitly acknowledge whether they are focusing on learning and KM under the ubiquitous, yet highly problematic in our epoch, bureaucratically-hierarchized authority and power artifice. Alternatively, they can investigate learning and knowledge management in and about the statically complicated and dynamically complex, self-organizing and self-governing societal human systems, of pioneering business enterprises and other societal organizations.
Otherwise, their authors and HSM readers remain trapped in the pervasively mechanistic and organismic or medieval-corporatism views of humanity’s recent past. Consequently, these people fail to advance the high technology of truly societal human systems, which define the epoch in and about which we all live.