In the 1880s, Nietzsche wrote “On the Genealogy of Morality” (1887). In these works (there is a series “Beyond Good and Evil”, “On the Genealogy of Morality”), he seeks a reversal of values. He attacks the opposition of good and evil, of good and wicked. He traces this genealogy properly speaking to a historical opposition of class, of power groups. Etymologically he explains that the “good” is in many languages, the noble, the warrior, the master. The one who dominated, who fought, who enjoyed, the strong. The one who did not question good and evil, good and wicked, because that was not his subject, it was not a subject, he lived. It is in opposition that the oppressed created this definition. For Nietzsche, the weak had only this weakness left. And the weak, the oppressed, the non-noble, the non-strong, the one who did not enjoy life, tried over the years to transform this weakness into strength. He decreed himself the good, because for him it was the subject. And from his weakness he tried to make a strength. That he could not enjoy life he called this patience for example, that the weak, the non-noble, be legion vis-à-vis the noble, and as he suffered, he made solidarity, benevolence, between people into virtues. Virtues that do not even come to mind for the noble, the warrior, the strong, because it does not concern him. Thus Nietzsche explains an inversion of values: the “good” originally, the knight, the warrior, the noble, the strong, the chief of the horde, became the wicked in the eyes of the non-nobles, the non-warriors, the non-strong, the non-chiefs. The “wicked” is the opposite of the one who thinks himself “good”. And in Nietzsche’s account it is indeed historically the weak who won, and therefore the “good” historically became the non-strong, the non-knights, the non-warriors, the non-chiefs of horde. And the virtues they granted themselves became more widespread values (patience, benevolence, solidarity, etc.). “Virtues” that are virtues in name only since they were defined in reaction, and they were created with the only available material of the weak in Nietzsche’s eyes. This inversion of values appears fascinating to me, because it brings complexity back to all levels. Even in the virtues that some drape themselves in a lot today (solidarity, benevolence), there is a combat, a struggle. In each of these virtues – solidarity, benevolence – hides a blade, a weapon.

About a hundred years later, Clare Graves describes a reading grid of our civilizations that he calls Spiral Dynamics. This reading grid is only a model, but the years have shown that it could be quite useful and that it was quite proven. Its objective is to describe different levels of civilization, behavior, culture, relative to the increasing complexity of the environment in which we humans evolve. For example the first level, beige (to simplify memorization, people quickly gave colors to define these levels), is that of survival, of the first hordes in the savanna. The complexity is low and behaviors remain quite simple: survive. When the complexity of the world evolves: we create tribes, groups, we go beyond surviving, we begin to imagine, to believe, the culture and behaviors change, it is the purple level. And the levels follow one another throughout the development of civilizations and the complexification of the world (today with the level of real-time connection, the globalization of the world, etc., the complexity is much greater than in the Middle Ages for example). Level is moreover a poorly adapted term: there is no better “level”, all the “levels” described by Clare Graves can be found today in different activities. If I’m talking to you about Spiral Dynamics now it’s because this shift of values between the strong and the weak-who-decides-to-become-the-good is a beautiful description of a change of civilization, a change of level, from blue to red to use the terminology of Spiral Dynamics, from warrior to priests to use the analogies given by Clare Graves, and which happens to also be the analogy made by Nietzsche, from warrior to priest. And in his inversion of values Nietzsche reminds us above all that there is no level and that’s the important information in my eyes. That the one who drapes himself in virtue only highlights his belonging without really perhaps having more virtue than another.

In “Beyond Good and Evil”, which is the foundation before “On the Genealogy of Morality”, Nietzsche had begun his inversion of values. With a courage we often lack he pointed out that from good sometimes came bad consequences, and that from evil sometimes came good consequences. He ultimately described – in my eyes – the rupture of this causality that we are too often fed: if I do good I will generate good. He tells us: on the one hand the notion of good and evil, of good and wicked, is only a perspective, and on the other hand, with an approach that I could describe as systemic: that doing good locally does not induce doing good globally, and vice versa. A criticism is then addressed to Nietzsche: if therefore nothing is clear, nothing counts, I am responsible for nothing.

My understanding on this last point, and I associate it with the characterized care that I observe in my supervisor (coaching) to recall the framework, the framework, the framework, is that we are leaving a classic cause and effect, and that we must constantly accompany our actions throughout the process beyond the action, through awareness. If from “good” can emerge “evil”, to guard against it we must constantly accompany this “good”: through your principles, through your convictions, and not only through your acts. It is something we accompany, not something we do. In any case, I read today even more than yesterday this importance of the framework through the incredible faculty of things to deviate.

An aside, there is a fascinating paradox to observe. If such is the case, I don’t see why something like SAFe (for those who don’t know: an imposture sold to organizations in the “agile” world in which I evolve) which is an “evil” would not become a “good”. This is where I bring in convictions, principles, and not just the follow-up of acts that are demanded by this doctrine like mantras to its zealots. And as soon as you accompany this with principles, and convictions, the SAFe house of cards collapses to give way to something truly consistent (and which already existed moreover, SAFe being only a masquerade (which masks)).

If I return to Spiral Dynamics. It is characterized by an alternation of civilization level facing complexity that highlights either an individual approach, or a group approach. We move from one level to the next by opposing the previous one as Nietzsche ultimately recounted about the “good” and the “wicked”. And we alternate individual and group dynamics.

The level that characterizes benevolence today is green, it is the level of community, of mutual aid, of belonging. It is a group level as you have understood. And perhaps according to Clare Graves’ research, the last one. Because the next one (yellow) would make us pass into a new stage where the individual and the group would be less in opposition. Where these oppositions would fade. Where there would be a more developed consciousness that would allow us to gain more height to extract ourselves from these oppositions. This would make benevolence the last great problem of our relationships. Paradoxically the last great weapon, blade, of opposition between different groups. Benevolence last tactic to differentiate a “good” and an “evil”, a “good” and a “wicked”, and ultimately oppose people, groups.

The conclusion of my point? That all the complexity we pride ourselves on to explain our approach to the world and organizations, that we also appropriate it to understand our postures, and our virtues with courage and lucidity (courage is perhaps Nietzsche’s greatest teaching).