MANAGEMENT BY DECEPTION (MBD):

THE NEED FOR DESIGNING A VIABLE STRATEGY

Qeis Kamran

Kamran Management GmbH

Pfraundorfer Weg 33

83026 Rosenheim

Germany

Phone: +49-17666814739

email: qeiskamran@aol.com

Doctoral Student of University of Latvia

Abstract

Calling organizational effectiveness a strategy is just as much a scientific flaw as navigating

organizations in accordance with so called “strategies”, based solely on military minded-, share-

holder oriented-, and financially reduced tactics and surgical measures. [21, p. 1] Dysfunctional

organizations per se are not the only problem moreover; we severely violate our perception of

organizational and environmental reality. In this state of chaos we not only do not understand

what we are doing but most importantly why we are doing it. We ignore the “main duty of busi-

ness”, namely “survival” [9, p. 46], and additionally we observe the reality of the world as we

can see it, via „reduction ad absurdum“of mere tactics and measures. Additionally we violate

our perception of reality by limiting our awareness of the problems to be defined and the action

taken to solve them. These actions regarding the managerial problems we have observed are

largely dependent on the view that we as individuals or as groups who have encountered them

have of “the system and perception of reality” to which they refer. [27, p. 199] The doctrine of

today’s management1, its value and strategy is viciously directed towards the mass

2 to under-

score its effectiveness as the one and only embodiment of truth to be observed for the mass3 not

by mass and not by its real meaning but by its deceptive certitude. [12, p. 83-84] This distorted

perception of reality played a vital role in Orwellian Newspeak [19, p. 3], a ubiquitous applica-

tion of indoctrinated managerial truth. Our Business Schools may not become “The Ministry of

Truth” [19, p. 3], but as the reader might observe, this has already been successfully manifested

by a discipline called business administration.

We as management scientists must be aware of this and not violate the most fundamental prin-

ciple of scientific discourse, which has always demanded the separation of the observer from the

observed as the principle of objectivity required for a scientific discipline. [27, p. 4] Actions

according to the principles or ethics cannot be articulated, as Wittgenstein rightfully observed as

they always reside in the action itself. [28, p. 5-6] Then morals cannot be separated from facts

[8, p. 1], since facts, truths and actions based upon the empirical perception of reality and the

preconditions created by organizations in the interests of claiming organizational viability and

achieving its objectives are the embodiment of viable strategic management. This paper intends

to foster awareness of the points mentioned above via a cybernetics lens in its creative circulari-

ty.

1 The author is referring to stakeholders 2 The author is referring to shareholder value doctrine

3 The author is underpinning the created falsification of an untruth

2

Purpose – This paper attempts to underpin the theoretical and practical4 claim that we need to

change our perception of our environmental reality and our perception and model of organiza-

tional structure, its identity and strategy as the necessary and sufficient preconditions and meas-

ure of organizations viability.

Findings – The evidence documented in the paper both examines the current problems and pro-

vides sufficient evidence for a vital need in changing our perception of organizational manage-

ment, the model, and its strategy.

Originality/value – The problems shown exemplify the unparalleled loss of direction, identity

and strategy in management. Managers are today dangerous agents of the society. This misdi-

rection and misperception must be corrected. Management is the most vital, most essential, and

most rewarding vocation of the society, but it has been reduced to obscuring the society by

clouding the perception of reality. This paper examines this misdirection and claims that a radi-

cal change in management doctrine and its strategy is much overdue.

Key terms: Organization, Cybernetics, Reality, Strategy

'We are aware that the many techniques of cybernetics, by transforming the control function and

the manipulation of information, will transform our whole society.

With this knowledge, we are wide awake, alert, capable of action; no longer are we blind, inert

powers of fate.' (Beer, 1985, after Pierre Trudeau)

Pierre Trudeau

Harrison Liberal Conference

21st November 196

1. Introduction

Viability5 is not a matter of choice for the firm, it’s its necessity

6. Reducing viability only to

shareholder value7 as the fitness indicator of a firm and measuring its health and longevity only

through the lenses of financial analysts is not only a dangerous practice to the firm and the soci-

ety, but it’s unscientific, too.8 Both doctrines the shareholder value and it’s generally observed

salvation as the stakeholder approach, the first one, which has failed as the corporate and West-

ern economical system collapses tell their own story and the later, which is just taking a step

backwards have group interests [15, p.11]. Group interests differ from the interests of the com-

pany, its health, and survivability.

When Peter Drucker, the doyen of management argued that “the purpose of a business is to

create a customer” [9, p. x], he knew that other definitions will not have the seeds of survivabil-

ity of the organization within their system. He went further and stated another definition of what

needs to be done after the customer is created and a profit is made, “profits are the costs of stay-

ing in business” [9, p. 40]. Here again he embedded survivability as the main purpose of a busi-

ness. Thus the main purpose of profits is to stay in business and everything else comes second.

Science as an observer of probable truth must act and correct its way ubiquitously by errors

detected and new insights gained. “We have described’, says Reichenbach, ‘the principle of

4 As the examples will prove and describes through-out the paper

5 Viability is used as a cybernetics term and means: able to maintain a separate existence after (Beer,

1985) 6 An organization is viable if it can survive in a particular sort of environment. For although its

existence is separate, so that it enjoys some kind of autonomy, it cannot survive in a vacuum (Beer,

1985). 7 A stock market’s valuation of a company’s shares

8 Financial analysts can only judge the current situation of a business, in the last three months and may be

one or two more months ahead

3

induction as the means whereby science decides upon truth. To be more exact, we should say

that it serves to decide upon probability. For it is not given to science to reach either truth or

falsity . . . but scientific statements can only attain continuous degrees of probability whose

unattainable upper and lower limits are truth and falsity” [23, p. 6]. Here we approach a major

problem; business administration, which has not emerged because of scientific pursuits and

curiosity of the scientists, but moreover from the training and educational necessity of the prac-

titioners, was nothing more and didn’t want to be anything else. Only by the want of scientifica-

tion of the field by the teachers, who wanted to make themselves a place at the university has

the process began [26, p.17]. However, since, most of the Professors after achieving their objec-

tive still adhered to their prior objective of teaching a practical and useful knowledge to the

practitioner and their students, we have achieved a state of chaos9, which took away the field of

business administration its scientifically deserved place among its older sister, the field of

“Economics” and additionally it did not give the practitioner a needed craftsmanship to navigate

businesses’ [26, p.17]. The purpose of the teaching of the field has to be to prepare a scientific trained and practical

handling human, who is a problem specialist (26, p. 24), not a part, nor is he the cause of the

problem, whose whole power and training is directed towards solving a problem. The burden on

the field is high, since it is not any function, but has to be the most essential societal function.

[16, p.52] The author intends to reduce the current gap between the scientific and the practical environ-

ment of the field, while enhancing its scientific depth and practicability for the creation of viable

organizations, healthier business environment and successful societies.

2. Uncrowning the beast

As this interdisciplinary scientific field lost its way and made the declaration that the creation of

shareholder value [13, p. title] by all means’ as the for profit enterprises’ main objective, it

paved the way for misguidance in manager’s behavior as, deception, illegality, beautifications-

surgery and obscuring the reality in their accounting called also as financial engineering, delu-

sion of youth and children also called as ‘social engineering’, behavioral and psychographic

manipulations as a part of marketing, breaking most of the social structures as schools, health

care, public transportation, energy- and water companies, etc., which a healthy society needs

called as privatization and deregulation.

Following the Chicago boys’ doctrine [13, p. 94] and economical school; “… a society which is

socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom” [10, p. 7]. ”Clearly, economic freedom, in and of itself, is an extremely important part of total freedom.”

[10, p. 7], has pushed the rate of uninsured Americans to 16.7 percent in 2009, when there were

46.3 million uninsured [11, 2010]. What a perception of freedom.10

In scientific and educational literature problems are handled in terms of a) what has been done

in the field before, b) what real and useful knowledge exists in the present time, and c) what

should be done [1, p.142]. Reviewing the literature in the business administration we see none

in the first category, a little in the second and many in the third category but sadly without the

9 Note: the author emphasizes that in the field, we have descriptive analysis, generalized experiences,

illustration examples for hypotheses and much more. Additionally the want of modernity in the

literature, creates additional problems because it adds more to the unproved models and thesis. 10

“The citizen of the United States who is compelled by law to devote something like in per cent of his

income to the purchase of a particular kind of retirement contract, administered by the government, is

being deprived of a corresponding part of his personal freedom.” (10, p.1). What if

somebody let’s say a police officer limits my car speed, because of some governmental law, is he

depriving me, too…?

4

needed scientific standing, supporting evidence and proper investigation. This published bulk

sadly does not qualify to the terms described above [11, p.142]. Popper observed that scientists,

whether theorists or experimenters have to put forward statements, or systems of statements,

and tests them step by step (23, p.3). “In the field of the empirical sciences, more particularly,

he constructs hypotheses, or systems of theories, and tests them against experience by observa-

tion and experiment.”[23, p.3]

In business administration we do case studies, which are anticipated generalization of a single

case and which must be rejected at the university level, without reducing the worth of the expe-

rience described in it. [26, p.28].Business is changing rapidly, but textbooks and cased don’t

[18, p.22-23]; [Ulrich, p.28].Business education must set prerequisites and requirements in the

practitioner’s capabilities to mainly solve the problem of tomorrow, which the business world

has not experienced before [26, p. 28]. In addition, looking closely at the Enrons

11 by observing the pursuit of immediate shareholder

value or called the darkest side of shareholder value12

and the scandals of Enron, WorldCom,

Tyco, Adelphia, Rite Aid, Health South, Arthur Andersen, Earnest & Young, J.P Morgan, Mer-

rill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Xerox, and Boeing Corporation, called as corporate misconduct

[20, 2010-2011], Lehman Brothers, called the spectacular failure of the devil’s casino [Ward,

2010], the most recent BP13

corporation’s saving for the shareholder value on the costs of em-

ployees’ lives and the environment and causing the worlds deadliest environmental crises of

Deepwater Horizon or the very recent Fukushima nuclear disaster, as the summaries’ of TEP-

CO’s14

nuclear scandals, misconducts, failure of the safety checks and the absence of having a

corporate culture that requires employee’s to strictly observe the code of ethics [14, 2004], re-

veal much empirical evidence that the author did not need to do his own additional empirical

research to substantiate his claim. In the case of later, TEPCO suffered much in public’s eye in

200415

, and 2011 reveals that nothing has been learned and all those statements by Mr. Kurda

the CEO of TEPCO in 2004 were false as claimed by at that time. We need just to look at the

news today16

and will have all the needed scientific evidence as required in science to put the

following hypotheses into examination by observing the environment and the behaviours:

The management profession is seriously in trouble.

The insatiable greed, lust for money and power, and the ‘predatorism’ of free market economy

with its most spectacular case of bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers during the 2008’s financial

market crisis, the collapse of Iceland’s financial system17

, which is especially intriguing as Ice-

land is not an underdeveloped country18

[2, 2011, p.1], not only ruined these organizations and

country by dismantling them as card houses due to a ‘short period of discontinuity’, observed

for the mass as the ‘financial crises’, which in fact was nothing more than a ‘management cri-

ses’, it more a regulation and system crises and which heavily wounded the society at large.

However, it is to doubt that shareholder value thinking alone has lead to the financial crisis. It is

rather a lack of regulation of the financial markets, poor corporate governance, and management

incentive schemes as status and salaries and bonuses with, which favored short term thinking.

Shareholders are among the big losers’ in this crisis, since they need regulations which protect

11

Enron was the 7th

largest US corporations 12

See also (Burton 2002) 13

British Petroleum PLC 14

Note: TEPCO stands for, ‘Tokyo Electric Power Company’ 15

TEPCO, has a history of noncompliance and environmental disasters 16

Fukushima disaster achieved the level of Chernobyl Catastrophe (INES) Level 7 17

See also the cases of Ireland and Greece 18

Iceland ranked third in the United Nations’ 2009 Human Development Index

5

the long term interest of the shareholders not depriving them of their assets in their name. (17,

2010)

This ‘policy of perversion’ of the capitalistic economical system has done irreparable damages

to society and in particularly to the small investors. The two major scams (Harshad and Ketan

Parekh) in the Indian stock market and major brokerage houses in the US as Smith-Barney and

Merrill-Lynch have betrayed their small investors with inflated stock recommendations [20,

2010- 2011] and Lehmann’s betraying its employee’s out of their lifetime savings and itself out

of existence.

The reader might notice that the author’s focus is not only on the board of management or the

CEOs19

of the firm, but more on a doctrine, the ultimate doctrine of so a called scientific field

the business administration. It’s easier to blame the managers or politicians and bankers, etc.

However, it requires a bit more in depth analysis to find the real monster with an unquenchable

lust and thirst. This member of the society claims to be a legal persona, it wants to have all the

rights of a natural person under the human designed laws, wants to be able to immigrate from

country to country, wants to be protected under human made law, wants to be secure, wants to

gain from the society, to have children or sisters20

, but it still calculates if obeying the human

and environmental laws is necessary or if caught to pay the fine is cheaper, it acts destructive to

the society, it creates slaves and brain washed members of its own organization although it is

itself a slave of a false doctrine, which is the maximization of profits under all costs in a short

time period. This doctrine creates wars, manipulates policy makers21

, causes the delusions of

our children22

, restricts humans in their privacy23

, invest more in creating and manufacturing

diseases24

by disease mongering and in its marketing than in finding cure for real diseases, but

above all it strictly declines and refuses to serve the society and humans. If any service has been

done, it was only if a scandal arouses and if the companies’ products were boycotted, as the

19

CEOs are slaves of the doctrine of shareholder value themselves and have been mostly blamed as

problems of the late management crises, but looking deeper into the roots of the problem we can see

the problems also in their training 20

Note, the author refers to organisational immigrations, M&A’s, Joint Ventures, etc. 21

See Atom Lobby in Germany 22

Sophie Bissonnette's documentary film ‘Sexy Inc. Our Children Under Influence’, analyzes the hyper-

sexualization of our environment and its noxious effects on young people. Psychologists, teachers and

school nurses criticize the unhealthy culture surrounding our children, where marketing and advertising

are targeting younger and younger audiences and bombarding them with sexual and sexist images. These

stereotypes treat girls of all ages as sexual objects, and exercise a damaging effect on their identities.

Because they see degrading images of sexuality on the Internet, some children confuse sexual relations

with pornography (Bissonnette, 2007). www. http://www3.onf.ca/sg/100522.pdf 23

See: “Big brother, big business”(www.cnbc.com). The story of the EU Security Research Programme

is one of “Big Brother” meets market fundamentalism. It was personified by the establishment in 2003 of

a“Group of Personalities” (GoP) comprised of EU officials and Europe’s biggest arms and IT compa-

nies. The GoP’s concern was a simple one: European multinationals are losing out to their US competi-

tors because the US government is providing them with a billion dollars a year for security research – it

recommended the EU match this level of funding to ensure a “level playing field”. The European Com-

mission has obliged with a “preparatory” budget for security research 2004-6, with the full ESRP to begin

in 2007, and appointed an EU Security Research Advisory Board to oversee the programme. This makes

permanent the GoP and gives profit-making corporations an official status in the EU, shaping not just

security research but security policy. (Hayes, 2006, p. 1) 24

Disease mongering is the selling of sickness that widens the boundaries of illness in order to grow mar-

kets for those who sell and deliver treatments. It is a process that turns healthy people into patients, causes

iatrogenic harm, and wastes precious resources. Disease mongering is the contemporary form of “medi-

calisation.” It is a process now driven by both corporate and professional interests, and it has become part

of the global debate about health care. International consumer groups now target drug company–backed

disease mongering as a wasteful threat to public health, while the global pharmaceutical industry has been

forced to defend its promotion of “lifestyle” medicines for problems like slimming and sexual difficulties

6

cases of Nike by tolerating and enhancing inhuman conditions and abuse of the labour force in

Malaysia and Shell by wanting to sink Brent Spar [22, p.1]

Ladies and gentlemen welcome to our modern ‘Corporation’ misguided by so called monetarist

managers [15, p.10], who are trained by Ivy League Business Schools teaching business admin-

istration (by case study methods) with an objective of maximizing shareholder value, and who is

unable to distinguish between dealmakers and genuine entrepreneurial manager or between the

company as a productive social system or an object of financial scams [Ulrich, title]; [15, 2006,

p.1].

But, now it’s time to call an end to the tyrant’s actions designed by a false doctrine [15, p. 9 ]

and to correct a self-destroying thing claiming to be a being. Only science can do what needs to

be done, since it deals with the meta‘s25

of management. Nevertheless, the science itself has to

purify itself from the dust of betrayal, blindness and misconduct. However, only science is ca-

pable to create that something ubiquitously present in human being and in his affairs, called

conscience26

and the need of standing by and revealing of the truth to our future managers. In

our case this we speak of a genuine management27

, which is the profession of control28

, which’s

science is cybernetics29

as the science of control

[7, p. 319] And the author emphasizes that: control is the ethos30

of management.

3. Man31

and management

The evolving man today however overwhelmed by challenges created by himself or others in

the so called higher clans of society for him to control him, is still able to reflect. This quality,

which is sadly mostly taken for granted differs him from other animals. But this unique capacity

of man is in danger. The situation is highly alarming and we can surely consider that the man’s

evolution may have taken a wrong turn. [6, p. 23]. Every man made problem of society is a

management problem, since management is the most vital profession of a society.

Reality especially, managerial reality on which a manager must perform his three main tasks as

1) setting business policy, 2) making decisions 3) control32

[3, p.10] , can only be understood

and measured by an interdisciplinary awareness and understanding of the scientific trained

manager. This we observe as a holistic approach. Although the job of the manger is undeniably

of an intellectual art [3, p. 9], nevertheless it is sadly to say that this approach has been chunked

in our business schools into departmental compartments. This approach fosters not the ability of

problem solving specialist but it is to restrict him of his managerial freedom. This training by

limitation creates problems of reflection and observation thus reduces the manager’s ability to

navigate correctly. Man and management require a control system, which not only makes the

organization safer but him too. This control system can only be trained by the quality of the

manager’s reflection and his most accurate judgment of the environmental reality in which he

navigates his organization. “The Environment as We Perceive It Is Our Invention.” [27, p. 212]

The way in which a problem is defined or a question is asked, is the way in which an answer

may be found. Therefore we create as we proceed and may not separate; 1) fact, 2) moral and 3)

consequence form the action itself, thus in managerial actions responsibility must be embedded

25

Means; after Beer ‘identity, intelligence, control, audit and coordination in an organization’ 26

Control is used as a cybernetic term, which means; the righteous navigating a firm 27

Management is not Business Administration 28

Used as a cybernetic term. Means: navigating and steering a firm 29

“Cybernetics: or the science of control and communication in the animal and the machine”, was coined

by its founder the late MIT mathematician Norbert Wiener. See also 4. On management cybernetics 30

Means; the ability in the firm to guide its actions 31

Note: the author uses man synonyms to human 32

Used as a cybernetic term means: steering and navigating an organization

7

by design in its system as a whole within the organizations system recursively and it can not be

imposed on it from the outside.

“The definition of a problem and the action taken to solve it largely depend on the view which

the individuals or groups that discovered the problem have of the system to which it refers. A

problem may thus find itself defined as a badly interpreted output, or as a faulty output of a

faulty output device, or as a faulty output due to a malfunction in an otherwise faultless system,

or as a correct but undesired output from a faultless and thus undesirable system. All definitions

but the last suggest corrective action; only the last definition suggests change, and so presents

an unsolvable problem to anyone opposed to change” [27, p. 199 after Herbert Brün, 1971].

Management as a system of control must be of an autonomous nature. This we call self- organ-

izing. Social-self-organisation means the self-regulation of order as an emergent phenomenon in

a social system as a firm. This order has a spontaneous and unintentional character and is the

result of multiple experiences, interactions, expectations, actions, plans, perceptions and deci-

sions (24, p, 34). In this view, order emerges all by itself; it is not made or planned consciously

or intentionally by managers. Self-organisation deals with endogenous, unintended emergence

and differentiation of order in social systems independently from interventions, i.e. as the dicta-

tion of shareholder value as a whole reality for the manager’s lens to see the environment and

steering as a tool to bring the organization to achieve this objective at all costs. Thus we become

problems of survivability and viability, which are not a cause from environmental disturbances

but moreover from management failure. Managerial self- organizing- and self- control- systems

are recursive and can be only based and function by feedback. But here we come to appoint

where we are present with a problem. A self organizing control system must be designed to

receive feedbacks, which are essential to its survival. These feedbacks must be of the highest

quality33

and be transmitted ubiquitously. We can only achieve a state of control by ubiquitous

communication of the organization with its environment in which it’s embedded and within its

internal recursive systems of organization.34

4. Complexity^3

Absorbing variety also coping (Schwaninger, 2000) with complexity is at the heart of manage-

ment and leadership in the turbulent environments faced by the organizations and societies…..

Managing complexity lies at the soul of management.35

Taking about communication in the

above part of the paper, we should first understand the definition of complexity in an organiza-

tion before we try to solve it and proceed to communication.

To define complexity, let us go back to the Latin root complexus, which means entwined or

embraced. Complex systems are 1) two or more distinct parts 2) that are joined in such a way

that it is difficult to separate them.36

3) they function as a whole, and 4) they have Eigen behav-

iours.37

To understand a human being viable by his embedded recursive subsystems to create a

whole inside his organism, we can not understand him if we chunk him only to hands, feet or

his nose. They are a part of his system but to understand him as a whole and to deal with him

we must be deal with the whole human. “The laws of viability lie at the heart of any enterprise.

So too do human beings.” [6, p. x] Here we find the basic duality between parts which are at

the same time distinct and connected. Therefore, the analytical method alone won’t allow us to

understand a complex, as by taking apart the components it will destroy their connections and

33

Quality here means the essentiality and order of importance of the feedback to the managerial self-

regulating System of the organization 34

See the “Viable System Model” 35

Note. At the next paragraph the author would command you to the soul of organization 36

See also Heylighen on Competity and complex systems 37

See (von Foerster, 2003, p. 321)

8

we are ended up with a dismantled system.38

Complexity, in addition is also a system’s proper-

ty, which enables it to assume a large diversity states or modes of behaviour

[Schwaninger, vs, 2009, p.2 after Malik, 1996].

Fig. 1 agent and environment connected to amplify complexity

Source: [Schwaninger, 2009]

Complexity^3

= Managerial complexity to navigate a complex adaptive system in a complex

and turbulent environment by the increase of complexity and unpredictability of the future due

to many factors not yet known to the manager. Furthermore, we have to work on an additional

problem, which we are facing. This is the save the environment and the future from the mone-

tarist manager [Malik, 2006, p. 10]. He has had more than two decades of training in a false

doctrine namely the pure quantification of money; his sole purpose for the business is profits

and he will sacrifice even organizational survival for it. He can show us leadership and charisma

in times of continuity, but his training makes him ridicules if it comes in managing complexity

and uncertainty, where precise decisions must be made and where the wheel of the organiza-

tional ship needs to be taken to steer it in stormy waters.

38

The same is true about our dismantled and chunked into pieces business administration, which

therefore has nothing to do with management

9

Fig. 2 the showmaster and monetarist manager [after Beer, 1967-1969]

“If I know an object, then I also know all the possibilities of its occurrence in atomic facts.

(Every such possibility must lie in the nature of the object.) A new possibility cannot subse-

quently be found. In order to know an object, I must know not its external but all its internal

qualities.

Wittgenstein

5. Conclusion

(Wittgenstein, 1922) rightfully observed the logic of knowing an object in its environment. For

us to know and to navigate in management we have to understand management and its envi-

ronment, internally and externally. (Hofer, 1951) He dealt in depth on the peculiarities of mass

movements; his conclusions were more in terms of religious and social revolutions and national-

ist movements [12, p, xxvii]. Times have changed and we are no longer threatened by the totali-

tarian communist doctrine, we have created an additional threat of islamistic fundamentalism.

This threat has brought many gains to corporations as Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, etc. These

corporations are large and are manipulating not only the policy makers but do not care about

environment and above all about their customers. This is because they know how to control

them by fear, since they manage by deception. They are manipulate the youth and spending

more on the marketing the products than on the effects their products will have on the society,

especially the next generation. Our governments act more for the benefits of corporations39

than

on the behalf of the environment and the society.40

The author emphasizes that there is an aca-

demic institution, on which’s shoulder a heavy burden is laid, and which needs to wake up and

organize itself as whole and train the future managers as the only real safeguards of tomorrow,

as (Drucker, 2007) rightfully observed. (Wittgensten,1989) observed we have to set on the falla-

cy and convey it to the truth, which means we have identify the routs of all delusion, otherwise

the knowing of the truth does not help us, if something else has taken its place. The solution was

given to us by (Darwin, 1859), who claimed: Only the organisms that are fit will survive. We

have to define fit for our corporations and our academia. This fit can and must only be design-

ing an organizational conscious system, embedded to maintain the ethos of the organization not

only for its own survival (Beer, 1972) but for the survival of the environment in which it needs

to be embedded in to exist….

Amen to that…

39

See the decision of the German Government, which was subject to the Atom Lobby in Germany 40

See the case of Fukushima, the governmental authorities knew that TEPCO has security problems

Definition of uncertainty according Webster’s New

Twentieth Century Dictionary gives the following six

clusters of meaning for the term uncertainty:

not certainly known; questionable; problem-

atical;

vague; not definite or determined;

doubtful; not having certain knowledge; not

sure;

ambiguous;

not steady or constant; varying;

liable to change; not reliable or dependable

Here we can taste the qualities of the manger, who

rarely are trained in the skills to navigate construc-

tively. Managers must construct an accurate reality

for the organization as they navigate.

10

Literature [1] W. E. Arnold; W. B. Castetter, Problems of Business Administration, Review of Educational

Research Vol. 20, No. 2, Apr., 1950

[2] P. Bagus; D. Howden, Deep Freeze, Alabama, The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2011,

Harvard Business Review Article

[3] S. Beer, S. Cybernetics and Management, London, The English Universities Press, 1959

[4] S. Beer, S. Decision and Control, The Meaning of Operational Research and Management

Cybernetics, Chichester, Wiley, 1966

[5] S. Beer, S. Designing Freedom, Chichester, Wiley, 1975

[6] S. Beer, S. The Heart of Enterprise, Chichester, Wiley, 1979

[7] S. Beer, Brain of the Firm, 2nd edition, reprint, Chichester, Wiley (First edition: 1972,

London, Penguin Press, 1981a

[8] J. Bopry, and S. Brier, Forward: The Ages of Francisco Valera, Cybernetics and Human

Knowing, Vol. 9, 2002

[9] P. Drucker, The Practice of Management, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1954

[10] M. Friedman, Capitalism and freedom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002

[11] P. Galewitz; A. Villegas, Number of uninsured Americans hits record high, Kaiser Health

News; URL; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39215770/ns/health-health_care/ 12.04.2011

[12] E. Hoffer, The True Believer, New York: Time Reading Program Special Edition, Time

Inc., 1951

[13] N. Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, New York: Picador

Publishing, 2008

[14] H. Kuroda, Lesson Learned from TEPCO Nuclear Power Scandal, Corporate

Communications Dept. Tokyo Electric Power Company, 2004, URL:

ttp://www.tepco.co.jp/en/news/presen/pdf- 1/040325-s-e.pdf, 12.04.2011

[15] F. Mailk, Top Effective Management, Weinheim: Wiley verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2006

[16] F. Mailk, Managamenet, Das A und O des Handwerks, Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 2007

[17] F. Malik, marketobservation.com, URL: http://www.marketobservation.com/blogs/index.php/2009/02/08/the_financial_crisis_and_share

holder_val?blog=10 12.04.2011

[18] H. Mintzberg, Managers not MBA’s, San Francisco: Berett- Koehler Publishers Inc., 2007

[19] G. Orwell, URL: http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Orwell1984.pdf/ ,

27.01.2011 13:02 pm

[20] B.P.Patra, University course ‘BUSINESS ETHICS PGCBM VI TERM-III, 2010-2011 URL:

http://www1.ximb.ac.in/users/fac/bppatra/bppatro.nsf/pages/PGCBM-BE 11.04.2011

[21] M. Porter, What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, Reprint 96608, by the President

and Fellows of Harvard College, 1996

[22] M. E. Porter, M. R. Kramer, Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive

Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility, Massachusetts, Harvard Business Review

Prod. #: R0612D-PDF -ENG, 2006

[23] K. Popper, The logic of scientific discovery, New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005

[24] Probst, Gilbert J.B. : Selbstorganisation – Ordnungsprozesse in sozialen Systemen aus

ganzheitlicher Sicht. Berlin-Hamburg: Paul Parey, 1987

[25] A. Rappaport, Creating shareholder value: the new standard for business performance,

Michigan: Free Press University of Michigan, 1986

[26] H. Ulrich, Die Unternehmung als produktives soziales System, Bern, Stuttgart, Wien: Paul

Haupt, 1968

[27] H. von Foerster, Understanding Understanding, New York: Springer Verlag, 2003

[28] H. von Foerster, Ehtics and Scond-order Cybernetics, Pascadero California/ Lecture in

Paris, 1994

[29] V. Ward, The Devil's Casino: Friendship, Betrayal, and the High Stakes Games Played

Inside Lehman Brothers, New York, Wiley, 2010