The question of integration is a pressing one both in the business and political domains. Integration efforts predominantly fail. One of the core problems behind these efforts is confusing integration with unification. This is worth having a quick look at.

Unification means that everybody’s forced to become the same.

Attempts of unification inevitably result either in revolution or cynicism and sabotage, depending on the temperament of the people involved and the prevailing conditions. Why? Because the foundation of unification is a lie, which suggests that we are all the same.

Since A will never equal B, this effort can not succeed.

The style element of the unification process is manipulation. The agents of unification operate with lies, and much more dangerously: half-truths. Opposition to the process results in brutal suppression, eliminating those who question the validity of the system. Since tyranny is frowned upon, the unification process is always sugarcoated, which means that its agents are almost always schizophrenic, psychopathic (see http://bit.ly/9vhd6j ) or at the very least they suffer in an identity crisis.

Unification does not tolerate leadership while it generously rewards bureaucrats. People in systems of unification never become more than what they are; in fact leadership roles often serve as excuses to become even less (involution).

In polar opposition to unification stands the concept of integration.

The integration process starts with differentiation; differentiation is encouraged, respected and valued. A=A, B=B. A should be as much A as possible: pure, uncorrupted A. When A tries to be B, it is decline: weakness that is based on false views and ultimately on intellectual inferiority.

The result of integration is unity. Unity is an actualized concept; a true concept that is based on principles and not on an individual’s fantasy. Integration is inevitably hierarchical; the person higher in the hierarchy incorporates the principles that provide the foundation for the concept to a larger degree than the person lower on the hierarchy. The style of interaction between them is respectful. Respect is never geared towards another individual but towards the principles represented by them. Naturally there is nothing to respect in an individual that doesn’t represent / manifest any principles.

In an integrated system there is no individualism. The roles people fulfill are bigger than the individuals, thus they provide an “upward pull”, a chance to become more.

Mix-up

While some leaders recognize the need for differentiation, they continue building organizations whose purpose demand unification. Their messages about diversity are received with suspicion and cynicism; rightfully so. Visions, missions and strategies remain pure abstractions since they are merely individualistic concepts that lack any trace of principle.

While the need maybe there, leaders are not in a position to create the right conditions or influence existing conditions favorably for integration.

It should be obvious that integration is necessary and it calls for radical change.