Para enfrentar decididamente esa situación se sugiere, como una de las medidas que Patricia Janiot identificó al inicio del evento, la cosecha temprana que aparece en la tercera actualización de esta nota. Como sustento, a seguidas aparece una tradución de la síntesis de la cuarta actualización:
¿Vendrán las señales positivas en el bienestar y el crecimiento de la organización? Este es un resumen del evento en vivo 2015 Lima Banco Mundial: Desigualdad, Oportunidad y Prosperidad. Mientras el Dr. Kim, el Presidente del Banco Mundial, está en lo ciertto en que "las inversiones en salud y educación tienen un impacto directo en el bienestar y el crecimiento," sabemos que son el resultado de la redistribución de la riqueza que conducen a las señales negativas mientras le roban a los pobres por falta de organización. A medida que hacemos el caso de pasar de transiciones estructurales con capital financiero a corto plazo a veces bajo las privatizaciones a transformaciones estructurales con capital productivo a largo plazo para ser capaz de crear riqueza significativa, la organización traerá señales positivas sobre el bienestar y el crecimiento.Fourth update. Will positive signals on wellbeing and growth come from organization? This is a summary of the 2015 Lima World Bank Live event: Inequality, Opportunity and Prosperity. While Dr. Kim, the President of the World Bank, is right in that "investments in health and education have a direct impact on wellbeing and growth," we know that they are the result of wealth redistribution that lead to negative signals while stealing from the poor for lack of organization. As we make the case to shift from short run financial capital structural transitions sometimes under privatizations to long run production capital structural transformations to be able to create significant wealth, organization will bring positive signals on wellbeing and growth.
Will wellbeing and growth + signals @JimKim_WBG @WorldBank @IMFNews come from organization 2 #EndPoverty? http://t.co/MOMf2oh6jL #EuropeIN— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 7, 2015
Thanks @patriciajaniot @TheRulesOrg @mabreumalla @firestone_sarah @SimonHernandez @zdiamond_ @EdelmanAlex @RGrynspan https://t.co/jONADjDowL— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 7, 2015
Importantísimos aspectos que deberíamos considerar como país ! https://t.co/2Cz9SdnM9k— Daniel Vasquez (@DanielV2122) October 8, 2015
In support of the early harvest described on the third update, the tweets interchanges that follow are organized starting with the most recent to support the above synthesis.
Can financial capital @firestone_sarah @WorldBank be replaced w/ production capital 2 #EndPoverty in a Golden Age http://t.co/sZGc5ulGNx— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 7, 2015
2 start 2 address corruption & hijacking of political process @SimonHernandez @Oxfam please consider early harvest: https://t.co/gtyKbqrUlQ— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 7, 2015
Structural transition @zdiamond_ @JimKim_WBG send negative signals. Structural transformation positive http://t.co/MOMf2oh6jL 2 #EndPoverty— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 7, 2015
Is systemic corruption http://t.co/LIPYCe3qaJ @mabreumalla = 2 tackle corruption 1 needs 2 stop double standards all over? @patriciajaniot— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 7, 2015
It depends @EdelmanAlex @JimKim_WBG on what''s called for @globalvoicesau Structural transformation #EndPoverty reform (transition) doesn't.— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 7, 2015
Is @TheRulesOrg 1 of #MiddleClassIndignados? @PlataformaAlt #NoDaMas #AlternativaPeru #DesmintiendoElMilagroPeruano https://t.co/TjVUujRDxm— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 7, 2015
2 JAFuentesK @Oxfam, best example of non-monetary incentives from systems transformations that go from the 1st to 2nd curve @patriciajaniot— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 7, 2015
Education important! Organization important! Why organization systems transformation change not being consider 2 #endpoverty?@patriciajaniot— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 7, 2015
That transformation @patriciajaniot is because the transition proposal in article "Rumbo a Lima," April 2015, doesn´t work to #endpoverty.— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 7, 2015
Gracias @patriciajaniot #endpoverty. Propuse una cosecha temprana de transformación en vez de transicion para el #PactoElectrico dominicano.— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 7, 2015
Support early harvest to #endpoverty? @klugesan @jimmyfallon @oliviawilde @thefredsavage @WALKTHEMOONband @GlblCtzn https://t.co/rakmtPursG— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 7, 2015
Are #MiddleClassIndignados, such as #OWS #15M @occupy @OccupyWallStNYC committed to help #EndPoverty:as described in https://t.co/rakmtPursG— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 7, 2015
To J. A. Fuentes K. @Oxfam please consider early harvest requests https://t.co/rakmtPursG to @JimKim_WBG for #PactoElectrico @patriciajaniot— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 6, 2015
2 @RGrynspan @SEGIBdigital please consider early harvest requests https://t.co/rakmtPursG to @JimKim_WBG for #PactoElectrico @patriciajaniot— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 6, 2015
Thanks @patriciajaniot I already asked for an early harvest 2 #PactoElectrico https://t.co/rakmtPursG 2 @JimKim_WBG https://t.co/4txvMrsYcn— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 6, 2015
Third update. Early harvest 2015 Lima Annual Meetings: Electricity Pact strategy of trajectory. While the World Bank Group (WBG) President Jim Yong Kim is promising shared prosperity, the strategy he mentioned in his article Rumbo a Lima, in April 2015, is unable to do so because it lacks the transformation of the system required to change to a culture of institutional innovation. The strategy can be inferred from a translation of a sentence in his article that says:
This program seeks to find ways to improve opportunities for the poorest people in Peru, and the countries of middle income in general, through a series of economic, social and cultural discussions and direct interaction with citizens relative to the economic development of Latin America.It is unable to do so, because with the objective of Shared Prosperity the WBG "seeks to find ways," that keep Latin America in the First Curve. That First Curve is the same strategy of terrain being used in the Electricity Pact of the Dominican Republic. One early harvest for Latin America of this week meeting in Peru would be to suggest a change to the strategy of trajectory in said Electricity Pact.
To explain what's involved, I will repeat once again the quote of Henry Ford, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” As it is impossible "to find ways to improve opportunities," on better horses to make a car, it is impossible "to find ways to improve opportunities," on the First Curve to go to the Second Curve.
The difference between the transition metaphor that keeps us in the First Curve and the transformation metaphor that enable a big shift to the Second Curve was explained in the post Conclusive evidence: transformative deregulation is the key to electric service innovation. In order to change to the Second Curve, it seems that the WBG and President Kim might need help. In that regard, please take a look to the post Why global Middle-Class Indignados should unite to demand strategies of trajectory.
Second update. If First Curve restructuring increases inequality, Would Second Curve restructuring decrease it? The introduction of the World Bank press release Governments Should Focus on Shared Prosperity to Address Inequality—World Bank Group President, says: "WASHINGTON, October 1, 2015—World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim today called on governments looking to address growing inequality to work on boosting “shared prosperity,” with a strong focus on improving the lives of the bottom 40 percent of populations in developing countries."
If 1st Curve restructuring increases inequality, Would 2nd Curve @WorldBank restructuring decrease it? http://t.co/MOMf2oh6jL #EuropeIN— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 5, 2015
2 the consideration of @WorldBank @IMFNews @GDruckerForum #GPDF15 @rstraub46 @charleshandy25 @bill_fischer @jhagel https://t.co/C9koTWozTg— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 5, 2015
Why not agreeing on #SharedProsperity https://t.co/VFmtohp5a6 with #MiddleClassIndignados before thinking #InfraGap?@WorldBank @WBG_Energy— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 5, 2015
Repeating what is said in the initial text, "I suggest that 'great' is a way to define the 'second curve,'” I then also suggest that "shared prosperity," would decrease inequality if it is based on great restructuring. That is in accordance to what the press release says:
“A focus on GDP growth is simplistic,” said Kim. “We reject ‘trickle-down’ approaches that assume any undifferentiated growth permeates and fortifies the soil and everything starts to bloom even for the poor. We need to find an economic growth model that’s inclusive, that lifts up the poorest citizens rather than maintains those at the top.”One example of such a great restructuring model already found out is already available, but waiting for support. It emerged as the Valued Added Electricty Architecture Framework, which is introduced in the initial text as the Electricty Without Price Controls Architecture Framework. Next in the first update it recalls the finding that: "In order to sucessfully innovate, we need to introduce competive deregulation that emerges from transformation without privatization, as privatization leads to soaring inequality."
First update. As Handy is right on about privatization, Do we need deregulation? This is an ajustment that probably took on only one of the 16 essays written by Charles Handy in his book, which I must read to learn a lot from him and maybe update, where Fordism needs to be replaced by Jobsism, like in the first story, as suggested in the post From Electricity under Jobsism to a Golden Age. Of course that's the Golden Age of my friend Carlota Pérez, mentioned by Richard Straub in his PDF, while her insights are hidden many times inside this blog.
As @charleshandy25 is right on privatization, Do we need deregulation? @rstraub46 http://t.co/MOMf2oh6jL @GDruckerForum #GPDF15 #EuropeIN— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 3, 2015
It seems that we have a lot more agreements than disagreements. While Handy is an established concept maker, I am just trying hard since about 1992 to become one. That's why I feel guilty of being unfair, by jumping to the conclusion "while not with Handy."
So, I went back to Stern's book review to select an important agreement on "We also get this on the legacy of privatisation: 'The sale of public utilities in Britain has usually resulted in bigger subsidies paid by government, higher prices for consumers and, one assumes, comfortable profits for the suppliers.'," to recall the next story.
In the process of writing the post Conclusive evidence: transformative deregulation is the key to electric service innovation, just a week ago, I learned that grosso modo UK led privatization killed USA led deregulation as follows:
It was because a transformation scenario was not available or developed before deregulation, that we now have an excessive amount of regulations that block any opportunity to deregulate and innovate as statu quo interest came in control of the electric power sector. In fact, the incentives provided by the transformation are so large, that they might not need to be financial at all, as the customer becomes the industry center stage.
This is where the electricty pact of the Dominican Republic can apply the great opportunity to set up the country as the world leader in electricty innovation. In order to sucessfully innovate, we need to introduce competive deregulation that emerges from transformation without privatization, as privatization leads to soaring inequality. Earlier convincing evidence on the need for leadership can be seen in the 2008 post Leadership Answers What to do First.
What "second curve" for management? @bill_fischer in @GDruckerForum post The End of Expertise http://t.co/uOoDPqBgld #GPDF15 @JuliaKirby— Richard Straub (@rstraub46) October 1, 2015
Can we agree with @rstraub46 #Mgmt2ndCurve @bill_fischer, while not with Handy? http://t.co/MOMf2oh6jL @GDruckerForum #GPDF15 #EuropeIN— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) October 2, 2015
Being human is consciously to bring judgment, intuition, creativity, empathy and values into play. In business, it is the domain of entrepreneurial thinking and innovation, of weighing decisions, of collaboration and trust – qualities that are utterly different from the machine logic of networked sensors and processors.Then Fischer continued:
Not surprisingly, because they are so nuanced, these are also exactly the topics that are most difficult to master through a reliance upon a traditional business education. While most business schools offer coursework in entrepreneurship and innovation, there is considerable doubt as to what exactly these subjects mean and how best to convey such learning. Judgment and intuition are even more difficult to define, yet are probably even more important. When Straub suggests that “management is in need of a second curve that sets a new positive path away from the diminishing returns of the first” he is undoubtedly correct, but what might that second curve look like and how to prepare for it?Somehow, I found myself being pictured as someone who not only believes strongly in the end of expertise, but that has been practicing his own second curve, as can be seen, for example, in this Grupo Millennium Hispaniola Blog posts and on the tweets being continuously pinned on the Twitter account @gmh_upsa.
The aim is to socialize those posts intended as quality as opposed to typical quantity collaborations trying to introduce generative dialogues instead of debates. So the importance of the initial attraction was right on as I believe to have been practicing on the understanding that industrial civilization knowledge is being rapidly replaced by fluid knowledge on what I have been documenting as the systemic civilization.
In that sense I suggest that “great” is a way to define the “second curve.” Although this is an afterthought to support the suggestion, Collins’ book has praise given by Peter Drucker which says:
This carefully researched and well written book disproves most of the current management hype – from the cult of the superhuman CEO to the cult of IT to the acquisitions and merger mania. It will not enable mediocrity to become competence. But it should enable competence to become excellence.As the petition was approved, I became the interim chair of the first subsection at the end of 2012. However, I was unable to receive the needed support because as I found out after many tries that IEEE managers are no ready yet to believe in the end of expertize. As I continue to be a member of the IEEE, I hope that IEEE managers might learn something from what Richard Straub refers to his article Management’s Second Curve "...on the choices made by 'society’s leadership group’, as Drucker referred to managers."
This story now shifts to the next obvious step, which was to look at review of Charles Handy’s book “The Second Curve.” Here is a sharp contradiction to one of the key findings in what I have been doing by applying Jim Collins’ insights. The contradiction was found on a Handy’s quote in the book review Why you should have several careers instead of one, by Stefan Stern, which says:
'Second Curve thinking would accept that markets are useful, even essential, but that they need careful regulation and tight rules; that they do not work in all situations... that an unquestioning belief in the power of the market to organise our lives is dangerous; and, crucially, that the value of much of life cannot and should not be expressed in financial terms.'The best example shows up in the post Great electric service, which responds a comment posted under the article Energy: The smart-grid solution, by Massoud Amin, published online in Nature on 10 July 2013, in which Dr. Amin “…outlines how the United States should make its electricity infrastructure self-healing to avoid massive power failures.”
Systemic civilization “great” (in Collins' sense) markets, that result from an institutional innovation based on the post Great electric service will concentrate on what John Hagel calls ‘scalable learning’ to perform, better and better as time goes on, under the minimalist government regulation as described, for example, in the post A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal. However, Handy suggestion was for “good” (also in Collins' sense) for old industrial civilization markets, which were before in “need careful regulation and tight rules” and which might have misled Amin to concentrate on what John Hagel calls ‘scalable efficiency.’