We begin by introducing the key words: “institution”, “institutional compass” and “ideological orientation” as they will be used here. We then briefly discuss how the book is organised and finally introduce some arguments to the effect that existing methods for decision making are inadequate, and therefore it is worth considering a stronger alternative. Lastly, the purpose of this introductory part of the book is to air the concepts of the compass in a flowing manner to give a first impression. The concepts will be refined in the following parts.

1 Institutions

An institution is any of: a habit or custom, an ethical norm or standard, or a formal institution (Vatn, 2005, 6–7). A habit is something we change as an individual. A custom is something we change as a group, for example we might change from an imperial to a metric system of measurement, or change our custom of watching the television in a group to watching small screens individually. An ethical norm or standard is a social construct, and so an individual who breaks it, risks social condemnation. To change it we have to change our collective norms of behaviour. What is considered to be rude or provocative at one time becomes accepted and banal at another time. A formal institution has explicit rules and these can be enforced. To change it, we have to change the rules or measures of enforcement. Examples of formal institutions are legal systems, schools, governments or factories.

In this book, we shall be mostly concerned with formal institutions.

2 Institutional Compass

An institutional compass is used to holistically and comprehensively evaluate an institution by assigning a quality to the institution, represented as a direction. The purpose of the evaluation is to guide policy decisions. If an institution is going in the wrong direction, decision makers and policy makers are given guidance by the compass construction as to how to make or modify policy.

The evaluation is represented as a direction on a coloured circle. Unlike a normal compass with four compass points, here there are three: harmony, discipline and excitement. These are general qualities that are identified with institutions and data points, and are represented by a suggestive colour on the compass.

The three compass points come from the idea of the three gunas of Jain, Hindu and Buddhist philosophies. In these philosophies they are spiritual virtues. Each person exhibits one more than another, and might be unhappy about the particular guna that he, or she, exhibits. A guru will assess a person spiritually in terms of the three gunas .

A guru will have a meta-attitude towards the gunas . Some think that what guna is beneficial will depend on each person and on his, or her, stage in life. Another guru will favour, say, harmony over the others. Depending on the guru’s assessment and his, or her, meta-attitude, he, or she, will then guide the disciple towards the guna that is best for that person.

Kumar treats the gunas more as simple general qualities than as virtues, although each is virtuous and good in the right quantity and in the right balance. Kumar’s insight is that when we think of them as general qualities, we are conceptually free to attribute them to objects, organisations and institutions as well as persons with a spirit. They are demoted from virtue to quality in order to extend the scope of the guna concept. In this book, we adopt Kumar’s insight.

This concept of the three gunas was chosen for the compass for four reasons. One is that it belongs to several old philosophical and religious traditions and so has stood the test of time. A second, is that it discourages our dichotomous and scalar thinking in terms of good and bad. Too often this is all that we are asked to do – to rate something, an experience, in terms of: good, bad; like, dislike, , and so on. To rate something in this way, we hardly have to think. We re-act intuitively, instinctively and immediately. Again, this is to be avoided. The gunas are not: good, bad, and neutral. They are three different qualities that are important, necessary and have their place. We might at times in our lives favour one over another, but this reflects our meta-attitude, maybe our ideological orientation, or our particular situation and not the descriptive state of the institution under question. Each of the gunas is good. We need each. In Oriental thinking, if they are in perfect balance we have stagnation, a type of death. The slight or dramatic predominance of one guna over the others is what brings movement and change. The most general, philosophical question that arises from the compass is to decide what balance or imbalance we need or want, and what general quality is desirable. To sum up, being asked to think a little differently i.e., in terms of three general qualities that are not arranged on a scale, affords us a little conceptual distance, and this enforces a reasoned, more rational thought, as opposed to a mere gut reaction.

A third reason is related and this has to do with how our brain works. The numbers one, two and three are primitive numbers for our brains. Even infants and many animals grasp these numbers. Four or higher numbers require more parts of the human brain for us to work with them. So, three is neither dichotomous nor does is require more abstract or language-based parts of our brain. It is still intuitive.

Related to this is the fourth reason to choose three qualities. Three is good for a two-dimensional representation. If we had only two qualities: good and bad, say, then we would have a linear representation, a simple scale. The representation we use in the compass is simple, but not quite as simple as a scale. It is a compass direction. The very slight complexity of the representation gives pause for thought. The simplicity makes it a good tool for communication and negotiation. The balance of complexity and simplicity elicits good philosophical reflection.

Why do we need ancient wisdom, a slight change in thinking (reasons two and three) and a quite but not completely simple representation? This will be answered at length throughout the book, but briefly: the policy decisions that the compass is designed to help with are taken in complex situations where it is not obvious that one choice is better than another tout court. They are better according to some measure or some consideration, and which consideration is pertinent depends quite often on ideology. We are also making decisions in situations where there are increasing amounts of uncertainty.Footnote 1 Uncertainty can be compensated for by sharing responsibility for decisions and by consulting widely to ensure that we – policy makers or experts – have not overlooked something important.

Like a normal compass, the direction of an institutional compass can have any degree, showing nuance between the three compass sectors. That is, the direction represents degrees of a quality with respect to another secondary quality. Unlike a normal compass, the direction-arrow can vary in length, and this indicates the strength, momentum or intensity with which the institution is heading in that direction.

We construct an institutional compass by aggregating a table of data to give us a unique and comprehensive reading (given the data) of where an institution lies in terms of the three general qualities. We can then say that overall, and given the data we have, our institution displays the general quality of excitement, for example. We can say more: it might show the quality of excitement, but tend towards discipline, for example. We can comment on the length of the arrow, that it is very exciting, or closer to being in balance with the other two qualities.

2.1 Uses of the Institutional Compass

In the first instance, an institutional compass can be used for: making policy decisions, critiquing policy, communicating policy choices and justifying policy. It’s uses can be extended to: compare different present institutions, compare the same institution over time – thus testing past policy decisions. It can be extended to compare future policy options or function as a qualitative accounting system. It can be extended and adapted to evaluate an institution or several institutions according to particular ideological orientations. These are explicitly normative extensions. They depend on an ideological orientation.

3 Ideological Orientation

An ideological orientation is a tendency towards a worldview.Footnote 2 It is less precise than a theory or particular ideology. It might be more or less scientific. Either way, it is recognised to be politically important. Formal institutions are set up to play a political role. They are also subject to internal politics. Evaluators, consultants and policy makers have political ambitions and worldviews. It is possible to make compasses for the same institution according to different, or opposing, ideological orientations.

Ideologies are sometimes distrusted as belonging to idealists or dreamers; or worse, they might be associated with extremists who are willing to sacrifice lives to realise the ideal – be it a political organisation of society or a religion.

Here, ‘ideology’ is contrasted to ideological orientation. An ideological orientation is more banal than an ideology. We all have some values that are shaped by our education, culture, upbringing and experiences – whether we accept them or rebel against them. We might value: scientific research, modern painting, comfort, family, community, honesty, logic, order, our historical identity… all sorts of things. Our values are also shaped by our beliefs. Some of these are well supported, others are just “common sense”, yet others are just intuitive. We cannot always convince others to share our values. An ideological orientation, as the term is used here, is just a default way of orienting oneself in the world. It includes, emotions, values and beliefs. To compare the two: an ideology is a complete, or well thought through system, whereas an ideological orientation is a tendency towards an ideology, but it might have gaps, be only partly thought through, and is likely to change as we experience and as we are exposed to alternative ideological orientations. Most of us have an ideological orientation and not an ideology.