640
B. Giesenbauer and M. Tegeler
In the following the four relevant worldviews are described and linked to sustainability. The four relevant stages are preceded by a short description of the prior
worldview to better frame the evolution of worldviews.
2.1 Pre-traditional Worldview: No Sustainability
Early kingdoms and great empires were shaped by a power-focused worldview. Power
was often used haphazardly and although there were strict rules, these rules were
often changed at a glance (Beck and Cowan 1996). This kind of egocentrism and
despotism can still be found in its pure form in organizations such as street gangs,
patriarchal organizations and dictatorships. To a lesser extent its basic worldview
can still be found in modern organizations and express itself in abuse, in fights over
power or in a strong drive for market dominance. This value system is based on a
short term, impulsive, hand-to-mouth a thinking and thus has no real understanding of
sustainability issues. In fact, this worldview has no problem with abusing natural and
social resources. Therefore, it will be disregarded in the discussion of HEI evolution.
2.2 Traditional Worldview: Sustainability 1.0
as Environmental Compliance
The traditional worldview tries to mitigate the fleeting and arbitrary nature of the pretraditional worldview and is focused on order, absolute truths and standards. This kind
of thinking values the group more than its individuals. Its major breakthroughs for
humanity are a basic understanding of cause and effect and the ability for long-term
planning, supported by strong hierarchies and a strict division of labor (Laloux 2014).
These innovations made it possible to build large and lasting organizations. It can be
found in its purest form in military organizations and Christian religious institutions,
where roles are clearly stated and each individual is thought to be replaceable.
Indeed, the traditional worldview is more focused on establishing stable processes
and norms rather than on taking care of nature or people. Organizations and societies that gravitate around the traditional worldview are often quite gruesome to
minorities and alternative thinking individuals. Following a fixed set of rules is more
important than the rules’ content (Beck and Cowan 1996). Therefore, traditional
minded organizations are very compliant to regulation—for example with regards to
waste management and safe work conditions—and at the same time very reluctant
to changing existing rules in favor of sustainable development.
B. Giesenbauer and M. Tegeler
In the following the four relevant worldviews are described and linked to sustainability. The four relevant stages are preceded by a short description of the prior
worldview to better frame the evolution of worldviews.
2.1 Pre-traditional Worldview: No Sustainability
Early kingdoms and great empires were shaped by a power-focused worldview. Power
was often used haphazardly and although there were strict rules, these rules were
often changed at a glance (Beck and Cowan 1996). This kind of egocentrism and
despotism can still be found in its pure form in organizations such as street gangs,
patriarchal organizations and dictatorships. To a lesser extent its basic worldview
can still be found in modern organizations and express itself in abuse, in fights over
power or in a strong drive for market dominance. This value system is based on a
short term, impulsive, hand-to-mouth a thinking and thus has no real understanding of
sustainability issues. In fact, this worldview has no problem with abusing natural and
social resources. Therefore, it will be disregarded in the discussion of HEI evolution.
2.2 Traditional Worldview: Sustainability 1.0
as Environmental Compliance
The traditional worldview tries to mitigate the fleeting and arbitrary nature of the pretraditional worldview and is focused on order, absolute truths and standards. This kind
of thinking values the group more than its individuals. Its major breakthroughs for
humanity are a basic understanding of cause and effect and the ability for long-term
planning, supported by strong hierarchies and a strict division of labor (Laloux 2014).
These innovations made it possible to build large and lasting organizations. It can be
found in its purest form in military organizations and Christian religious institutions,
where roles are clearly stated and each individual is thought to be replaceable.
Indeed, the traditional worldview is more focused on establishing stable processes
and norms rather than on taking care of nature or people. Organizations and societies that gravitate around the traditional worldview are often quite gruesome to
minorities and alternative thinking individuals. Following a fixed set of rules is more
important than the rules’ content (Beck and Cowan 1996). Therefore, traditional
minded organizations are very compliant to regulation—for example with regards to
waste management and safe work conditions—and at the same time very reluctant
to changing existing rules in favor of sustainable development.