Natural systems, which show significant heterogeneities and anisotropies in structure at an early evolutionary stage, demonstrate the natural tendency of the Universe to even out differences.
For example, in the physical world, large rocks are broken down into sand by the action of hydro-thermal and gravitational fields. Similarly, in biology, plants that are selected for their desirable characteristics, become weaker with time and are soon overcome by dispersive influences, like parasites and weeds, when grown in monoculture farms. Over time, isolated human communities become genetically unstable, lacking what is known to biologists as hybrid vigor.
We recognize similarities in these patterns as manifestations of a unifying and underlying theme of Reality. Dispersive forces represent foundational (fundamental) aspects of the bio-physical world. In social organizations and societal structures, they are known as Diversity.
Human communities, however, are characterized by subconscious forces that reinforce skewed distributions, rather than equitable ones. In large organizations, as with countries and kingdoms, we believe implicitly that wealth and power should be inequitably distributed, with the leader(s) representing the community, and those serving in an executive capacity, as deserving more recognition and reward.
This is seen in management guidelines, both in the private and public sector, which routinely extol the need for teamwork to get the job done but fail to extend those ideas to equitable recognition and compensation. This inequality is an outcome of the mistaken proposition that the leader of an organization is of singular importance in critical decision making.
As with human identity linked to a singular Ego construct, represented as “I”, an organization is considered a singular entity, and its leader is considered the core of its Identity matrix (I).
Our innate tendency to conflate the ego construct of an individual with the leadership of an organization lies at the root of the persistence of inequity in human society. Social (societal) processes train our cognitive processes into accepting-believing that the individual representing an organization is the primary individual of significance, and therefore worthy of greater recognition and rewards.
By an implicit transference process, the person we see routinely – the one who speaks for the organization or community, the community’s primary decision maker – appears to us as the “organizational ego”. We do this implicitly, even though we recognize that many people have contributed significantly to the operations and decision making processes and outcomes, especially as organizations become larger.
Though organizations in capitalist societies may be awarded all associated rights and privileges available to a human being, relatively little thought has been given to the fact that human beings and organizations operate on different timescales and with different transition-transformation points during their existence.
In addition, while a human being’s relatively short life is governed by relatively immutable biological processes, an organization’s existence is governed by social constructs, i.e., legal contracts, which can be modified quickly, e.g., by negotiation.
As human communities have become more complex – evolving from small groups to tribes, to nations, and on to global systems of commerce and resource sharing – the need to study the nature of collective decision making processes has become more critical. These studies, in turn, may lead us to a more socially equitable distribution of recognition and reward.
How does a society, one that espouses the principles of Equality and Liberty for all, manage the provision of basic services to protect health and development opportunities for all its citizens? For example, should organization’s leaders in such a society earn 100-1000 times more than their lowest wage earning employee?
Or shall Liberty and Equality simply refer to biennial or quadrennial opportunities to vote?
Without in depth analyses, and the need for “equalizing” processes, we are heading for a major transition, e.g., the ecosystem level collapse of human infrastructure.
As with the punctuated equilibria seen in all natural systems, this is a societal transition that follows periods of apparent stability which, in reality, were inflated metastable equilibria.