Eigenvalue (Inherent Value) and Liability
The fact that what a system does, experiences, communicates, considers true and unalterable etc. is the result of decisions is unusual enough as a theoretical setting. When, however, that which is seen as the identity of the system, could also be different, then nothing remains unquestionable anymore and so it will also be criticisable.
Measures must then be taken against the vulnerability to criticism with regard to stability. In organisations these might be, ‘culture’, hierarchy, organisational rules, reasons for promotion and similar, in teams these can be norms, values, meeting rules, rituals, the right to be indignant etc. and people use concepts such as character, personality, peculiarity etc. to protect against criticism. As can be deduced from these examples, it will, nevertheless, become difficult, with such arguments, to achieve the required consensus. Because everything named above could also be different. And it could, maybe, be different for very good reasons. And the opponents of the existing (=chosen) usually also recommend the means for reform: culture change projects, team developments, coaching or psychotherapy.
So it is no wonder that (lifelong) learning, development, agility, reforms and flexibility become norms that are no longer viewed as one-sided but as good in themselves. However, systems need both, contingency and liability. Therefore, they urgently need concepts about how liability can be ensured in systems which are highly distinctive.