Holistic Management and a Paradigm Shift
About six years ago I was introduced to the work of Allan Savory by a good friend who is a regenerative farmer. Allan Savory is a fellow Zimbabwean farmer/scientist/thinker who is considered to be the “grandfather” of regenerative practice. He is pragmatic, clear in the expression of his learning, with a no-nonsense approach to life and his work. His message of Holistic Management in land-use applies to life in general, and his outlook can be, and is being, applied to every human-conceived system. As with anyone who threatens a given narrative, Allan has been vilified and denigrated, especially by those who hold a stake in propagating a given paradigm for their own gain, such as academia, corporate “greenies” and agricultural industrialists.
I watched and analysed one of his lectures on YouTube recently, and I have been inspired to write this blog. Quotes made are those from the video itself unless otherwise stated. Although Allan’s speech was directly referring to the complex issue of desertification, his insight and paradigm are directly applicable to all other complex human problems including politics, education, technology and every other aspect of existence.
Allan’s message is simple - the source of all our planetary problems is the management of them, and each individual is a manager. In other words, there is no hero or rescuer, we are each responsible for the management of our life and resources. It is in dealing with big issues that humans form organisations. Indeed, the forming of these “organisations” or institutions is the most efficient way of dealing with a problem, however, the moment an organisation is formed, it takes on the state of an entity that is no longer subject to the same accountability as an individual human being. For example: an army has sanction to essentially murder thousands without accountability, or corporates who damage and kill are essentially slapped on the wrist and fined, but that’s it.
It is organisations that propagate and lead the prevailing narrative, and this seemingly makes individuals with a differing view powerless to create change within that system. These entities do not rely on individuals to remain in place, they literally take on a life of their own. For example, if a Board is wiped out by an accident, they are simply replaced and the organisation/entity continues on. In system science any system that is self-organising is considered as a complex system. Human organisations and Nature are two complex systems. These are the two complex systems we deal with in management.
When a problem occurs within an organisation or in Nature, it is referred to as a “wicked problem”, meaning that these problems are almost unsolvable due to the complexity of their make-up. It takes a complete paradigm shift in order to change the narrative. However, when the prevailing paradigm is challenged by an anomaly (usually an individual or a minority) or a different paradigm, organisations close ranks and lead the ridicule, and the destruction of the challenge and its promulgators, often going to extreme lengths. As Allan says, “...and nothing has changed since Galileo”. We see this playing out, right before our very eyes at the moment. Institutions cannot change until the general public perception changes, and then and only then, does authentic change happen.
Because of the complexity of the power dynamics within an institution, communicating is a tricky business. Individuals are rendered “stupid” and inhumane because of fear of losing their position within said organisation. In other words, the narrative isn’t challenged within institutions because of the risks associated with challenging it. Following on with this is the virtual inability of an organisation to admit to being wrong or having perpetrated any wrong doing. Often, an institution would rather go against their original visions, directions or intentions than admit error or misjudgement, even when faced with irrefutable evidence. Never has this been more obvious than in the past few years.
Institutions have led us to enormous “blundering” throughout history. The Age of Enlightenment/Reason led by Voltaire brought in the paradigm that all organisations would be led by “experts”, scholars, “highly trained, professional, competent people”. You would have thought this would have solved the problem of “blundering” through history - it only made it worse! This can be seen in John R Saul’s work, “Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West”, where case study after case study proves this. Here’s the thing though, these organisations are filled by “good” people. People like you and me. People with noble aspirations and well-intentioned ideals.It is the complexity of organisations that render us inept and “stupid”. We cannot blame institutions and organisations, because they are made of us! It’s time to get off the blame and shame gravy train. Expert leadership (politicians, universities, etc.) has failed miserably. It’s time to step up as leaders in our own lives. We are “the only leaders that there can be.” It is up to us as individuals, families and communities to create change.
In order for us to be able to create change we have to understand our management options and then what we can do as individuals.When the onion of management types is peeled down to its most basic level there are only two types or forms of management: reductionist and holistic.
Management itself is motivated by improving our lives in some respect. We manage our families, businesses and institutions with the intent of improving our lives (be it altruistically or not). Everything we try to manage is complex in nature. Every management action we take to improve our lives is to meet a need, meet a desire or solve a problem. We do this by taking the “web of complexity” and reducing it in order to meet the need or desire, or to solve the problem. This is reductionist. All policy is reductionist in nature. It cannot embrace the complexity of a situation and accept it for what it is and use the variety of solutions within the complex system to be responsive to continual change - policy is created to solve a specific problem and is essentially inflexible and unresponsive to change. For example: humankind is a tool-using animal. Technology has evolved over a million years. With the advent of fire (being able to make it and control it), technology has become an integral part of our existence, becoming more and more complex. Today’s technology is much vilified, but indeed, it is not the technology’s “fault” for the issues and perceived problems that have arisen, it’s our management of the tools we have created. Our institutions have created a myriad of policies about various aspects of technology, none of which have reduced or solved the original problem for which they were conceived. All policies have unintended consequences. Reductionist management creates more problems than what it solves. In short, reductionist management is convergent in nature; it isolates information to solve a problem.
What is holistic management, then? Firstly, holistic management begins with observing the big picture. Who and what are we dealing with? The complexities are not reduced to meeting needs and desires, and solving problems. This will have to be done, but the complexity is respected and not lost in the process. In holistic management creativity is absolutely vital, along with context relevance - “the people involved develop a new idea, a new concept,...a totally new concept of developing a holistic context. One context, or reason for improving our lives.” So a holistic management model is developed for that particular context; it’s about the people involved, their situation, how they want their lives to be and the continued sustenance of further generations. All ideas and “science” are considered in solving particular models. Any agreements made are run through seven simple questions to ensure that they are made in the appropriate social, economic and environmental context, and are sound both in the short and long term. "There is no prejudice employed at all in the process: “...it’s a hundred percent what you want, and zero percent how to get it.” It is the building of “a context for all your actions and decisions.” There are no compromises and there has to be a hundred percent agreement. In other words holistic management is divergent in nature; it expands outward looking at all information available to solve a problem.
The concept of leadership changes completely within the holistic management model. Again it is divergent in nature. Everyone involved is seen as a leader, however, their roles may differ or change as needed. There are no heroes. No particular person is coming to make decisions and “rule over the land”. When a particular person is needed to step-up at a particular time due to their knowledge or talent, then they lead for a time. Leading does not mean becoming an authority, leading means serving the community with whatever they have in that particular context.
There is so much more to learn about this particular model of management. It has layers and layers of relevance and application, and I believe it could be the answer to our many woes. Allan Savory is convinced that all our woes are down to reductionist management, and I tend to agree with him. He is a farmer. His passion is the land. However, holistic management is a model that can be applied to life in all its contexts.
In my next blog, I will discuss how holistic management could look like as applied to education and governance.
If you would like to find out more about Allan Savory and the Regenerative community, please visit our “Always Learning” page, here.
