Systems of Thinking

The idea of this article was suggested by Jura Voskresensky while we were discussing the “NETOCRACY” book. After discussing the idea that control over information is the main source of power control over resources, I said “I don’t feel comfortable with such a system of thinking”. Comfort can frequently be an important hygienic factor and it is desirable that you feel comfortable. The very thought that you can choose a system of thinking concerning Your convenience or comfort criterion seemed original and I will try illustrating it via several examples.

I do not feel happy when I think that the most effective way to dominate people today and tomorrow is by control over information, which has finally surpassed taking over natural resources in the postmodern economic systems. Information is an amazing resource and copying it costs almost nothing. However, I am much more at ease when I think that our future is a “netocracy”; where trust based on values and reputation is the predominant power. I often ask myself the question – why is it that the leaders are so eager to share their “success secrets”? I suggest that it is done with a hint of lucre – it is knowingly less effective to play other people’s rules. Intellectual property protection and lobbies are just transition mechanisms in transition economics.

Let’s examine two companies in the same industry. One of them keeps losing US$ X a year and has a Y turnout, the second one has 10*X profit and Y/3 turnover. Which of these companies is “better”; whose strategy is “more effective”? I don’t like the “obvious” answer. I feel more comfortable studying which company creates more added value; finding out how this value is distributed later on is a different matter. And what if the reason for the losses of the first company are a huge R&D budget, through which fundamental science is financed and interest payments are made for state guaranteed bond issues that make it possible to preserve tens of thousands of workplaces and keep the national economy afloat during times of crisis? If somebody is able to maintain a system in which the money goes not to investors but to scholars, engineers, workers and partners, it is not at all bad. It is much more comfortable for me to think this way. Because it looks very similar to the founder and the major owner at the company where I work.

When a professional conducts his/ her professional activity he/she has a little justification or reason to make a mistake”. “10% unsuccess” is a figure close to critical. It would be good not to have more than 3%. Let’s imagine the same professional started to make “his/her own marketing”- went to ask for a promotion, decided to protect his/ her idea and obtain a part in a challenging project. 10% success in marketing and sales is often a very good figure. To get a result we have to make no less than 10 tries before we can judge whether we were successful or not. A rare professional switches his/her thinking mode from executive to marketing, most of them feel complete losers after two to three losses in a row.

When I meet a manifestly formal approach I always try to remember two criteria of any effort effectiveness – completeness and sufficiency. The formal approach always accounts for completeness, but never assures sufficiency by itself. That is why it could be easily regarded as senseless.

Although the informal approach gives wonderful results though it rarely accounts for completeness. This was best illustrated by one manager when he answered accusations that he sometimes forgets tasks, “I do everything that I can remember”. And started laughing at himself.

 We rarely think about the price that highly-developed organisms have to pay for preserving their identity, or selfness”, to speak Russian. Our immunity protects us from cancer cells, bacteria and viruses. The very same immunity rejects a donor’s heart or can lead to allergic reactions. Very often the conduct of companies, especially major, can be easily explained as an analogy of the immune system. The spirit of a good company can be noticed in each department, the personnel competence lies on the levels of understanding and care about execution of duties. But… The attached companies get rejected as a alien organ; you have to eat and digest them. You can witness allergy as well – at the customers and markets, at the interest and bribes, at the bureaucracy and chaos.

When I face something that is widely spread and “works”, but irritates me, I try to find an appropriate way to think of it. I do not pretend to know a universal truth but I am looking for internal comfort as a way of personal effectiveness. Yes – to understand is to forgive, only if it is not an illusion of understanding. I would be very pleased to communicate with those who are ready to unite their efforts in search for these saving illusions or that universal truth.