It should be obvious by now that the theory presented in this paper sees no solution to the problems of organizational viability in the development of institutional, social, and cultural values of high generality. According to the theory herein, we can expect always to have people at different levels and we can expect always to have different value systems in our world. The solution to such problems lies not in the production of values of high generality but in the application of a relativistic point of view in relevant situations.

Level theory says we do not have a problem of creative innovation versus the conservation of traditional values. Creative innovation and conservation of values can occur at any level. Creative innovation can harm an organization that is viable and not ready to move and conservation of values can help or hinder depending on conditions. Our question is not how can we assure vitality through creative innovation and through overcoming the tendency to conserve. Our question is: "Will we maintain organizational viability by a conservation of traditional values or will we maintain organizational health by creative innovation?" After all, Lincoln Electric has long remained viable through conservation and Non-Linear Systems has recently become viable by innovation.

What kind of creative innovation does a sick organization need to become viable and what people at what level must we bring into an organization in order to increase the probability that the needed innovations will occur is another of our questions. Still another question is: "Does the organization have within its confines people whose pre-existing values will allow them to accept an idea if it is created?" And if not, we must ask how can one operate so as to move people to a level where the needed idea can be accepted. If an organization needs new ideas for utilizing mechanical energy then third level people must be brought in or freed within the organization. If the organization suffers because managers cannot accept participative innovations then fourth level inputs are needed. If analysis indicates that viability exists because fourth level managers fit well the needs and beliefs of their third level people, then our question is: "Are there enough potential fourth level managers and enough third level applicants in the management and labor market to continue our ways?" If the answer is yes, then the problem is a simple selection problem. If, on the other hand, there is a scarcity of applicants needed to conserve the viable relationship then the organization must change or it will stagnate or it will perish. Cautious we must be lest we innovate when conservation is the key. The wise man may select to retain what the foolhardy is ready to change. This belief in general values as the solution is much too questionable to warrant such faith.

<< back  | 11 |  next >>