Michael Copeland of Wired interviewed Joi Ito of the MIT Media Lab, getting past the techno-utopianism and down to an almost Taoist set of principles for thriving in the postnormal world, a time of mounting uncertainty, ambiguity, complexity, and volatility. After chatting about the falling cost of innovation, and Schumpeterian disruptions in hardware, genetics, and healthcare we get down to the meat:
Wired: And in the face of that we ought to do what?
Ito: What you need to do is understand these changes are happening, and build systems and governments and ways of thinking that are resilient to this kind of destructive change that is going to happen. It’s a kind of change that is really hard to predict, it’s really hard to control, so how do you as a human being, or as an organization, survive in this chaotic, unpredictable system where planning is almost impossible?
Wired: Please tell me you have an answer.
Ito: There are nine or so principles to work in a world like this:
Below we reinterpret the postnormal world as a transition from the industrial to the systemic civilization which will result in a new world order. As a first approximation, we will try to match each principle with one of the Questions on the Decalogue that were meant to be above politics from the beginning of 2015. Since then a lot of insights have emerged that are not considered here. The short hand reinterpretation of the principles (except from principle 8) is taken from the adafruit version of the blog post Joi Ito’s Nine Principles.
We’re still working on it, but that is where our thinking is headed.
- Resilience instead of strength, which means you want to yield and allow failure and you bounce back instead of trying to resist failure
- You pull instead of push. That means you pull the resources from the network as you need them, as opposed to centrally stocking them and controlling them.
- You want to take risk instead of focusing on safety.
- You want to focus on the system instead of objects.
- You want to have good compasses not maps.
- You want to work on practice instead of theory. Because sometimes you don’t why it works, but what is important is that it is working, not that you have some theory around it.
- It[’s] disobedience instead of compliance. You don’t get a Nobel Prize for doing what you are told. Too much of school is about obedience, we should really be celebrating disobedience.
- It’s the crowd instead of experts.
- It’s a focus on learning instead of education.
- Resilience over Strength. This is about a transition to a new world order as described on Question 2 from independence to interdependence.
- Pull over Push. This is very important as we shift to transition from the industrial civilization to the systemic civilization, where later on we expect that Push will reemerge over Pull. This is expanded under Question 4.
- Risk over Safety. Under strategic myopia in the norm in the name of safety, we are operating on the saturation range of the industrial civilization anti-systemic risk (not systemic risk as it is being called), helping emerge from time to time highly risky Black Swans that Nassim Nicholas Taleb described all over the place. Embracing risk to jump into in the first technological revolution Golden Age of the Systemic Civilization will help emerge the unexpected safety people are not expecting but will love. More under Question 6.
- Systems over objects. This is where the common sense of independence of the industrial revolution leads to the common sense of the systemic civilization. More under Question 7.
- Compasses over Maps. Maps are based on learning from the past. Compasses enable by the 4th information revolution to learn from the emergent future, because feedback is now timely available to help us distinguish between the systemic and the anti-systemic. More under Question 5 on the need for a Declaration of Interdependence.
- Practice over theory. In an interdependent world, as envisioned by Charles Sanders Peirce, at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, Cartesian independence between theory and practice was dissolved, with an action oriented scientific attitude. This is about the powerful times described in Question 3.
- Disobedience over compliance. Compliance is what has led to anti-systems ‘Groupthink’ on the industrial civilization under the primacy of the parts. Disobedience is necessary to create the systemic civilization under the primacy of the whole. This is where leading with questions makes a lot of sense. More under Question 1.
- Crowd over experts. We disagree on the crowd in situations where institutional innovation is key. This is the opportunity of timely feedback on the systemic civilization’s Demand Democracy of Systemic Markets (#DD_SM in Twitter). Emergence is all about learning from the emergent future, while experts are restricted about learning from the past of the industrial civilization where they respond under ‘Groupthink’ authority. More under Question 9.
- Learning over education. Maybe education needs transformation, as suggested by Sir Ken Robinson in his book The Element: finding your passion changes everything. More on Question 10.
- Fair is fair, and foul is foul. Was added as a suggestion by us with a tweet. This was introduced in Question 8.
To @Joi @stoweboyd Can 'fair is fair, and foul is foul,' https://t.co/OJUr3VEKol be the Tenth Principle? #EuropeIN pic.twitter.com/POcFMd3vkq— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) July 23, 2016
Seventh update. Citizens are not expecting a highly systemic COP21 world order, but will love it. This is socialized to become the final version to this same post "Can 10 questions above politics help forecast a new world order in 2015?," with its Decalogue being upgraded from the Eurozone to the United Nations where citizens will be at the center instead of institutions. A new meaning is given to the word antisystem and its derivatives, as used in the "Fifth update. Can COP21 participants address energy antisystem strategic myopia?" .
Citizens aren't expecting a highly systemic @COP21 @WWViews world order, but will love it. https://t.co/42EOBLrDkP #PactoElectrico #EuropeIN— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) December 3, 2015
@gmh_upsa ¡ale! Lo último que publicaste... A mi web https://t.co/isTwDwk9ZH https://t.co/KZbm2odiV8— AntonioVallejoChanal (@AntonioVChanal) December 4, 2015
The context of the proposal to be "highly systemic” comes from the interpretation that I have been calling Jobsism (#10 on Decalogue), which seem to have its origin from the article Steve Jobs and Management by Meaning by Roberto Verganti. The proposal is meaningful because investments on systems with high synergy will lead to the first Golden Age (#10 on Decalogue) of the current technological revolution (#3 on Decalogue).
To be highly systemic, deep restructuring transformations on antisystem organizations to become systems will need to be done before funding to get citizens to love it.The Electricy Pact of the Dominican Republic can be the first example of the kind of deep transformations, where systemic thinking and systems architecting drive a synthesis of positive synergy where the power of wisdom turns "small is beautiful" into big results under a vision of the future of the systemic civilization. That's why Thomas Piketty was wrong. . Being a highly antisystemic entity, the electricity sector of the Dominican Republic will turn around from the lagging to the leadind places of the world.
While not initially intended by COP21 organizers that have been concentrating on the primacy of the parts, such a system proposal might start with a Global Declaration of Interdependence (#5 on Decalogue) by the United Nations (that will itself become a system). That will result by shifting to the primacy of the whole, with the aim to dissolve the climate change antisystemic crisis and serve as the model for each nation, sector, business, declarations of interdependence.
The supports for that proposal is based on the assumption that citizens are unable envision (more below) that the current technological revolution is begging to lead us into a new civilization (#4 on Decalogue) ), where the paradigm of independence is replaced by the paradigm of interdependence, that the late Steven R. Covey introduced in his 1990 best selling book “The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People.”
Such a civilization change was envisioned by Alvin Toffler in his 1980 best selling book The Third Wave. For many reasons, I have named it as the systemic civilization . One of those reasons emerged a few days ago when I introduced meaning into the above mentioned concept of antisystems, which might provide the needed influence to point out the widespread management failure strategic myopia of those organizations that have negative synergy at many levels of society. In the case of highly antisystemic organizations, big investments produce very little results, as in the case of Haiti earthquake of 2010.
This book is for people who are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of Management. The huge, long-range losses caused by this style of management have led us into decline. Most people imagine that the present style of management has always existed, and is a fixture. Actually, it is a modern invention – a prison created by the way people interact. This interaction afflicts all aspects of our lives – government, industry, education, healthcare.”As the introduction of the Verganti’s article says “Steve Jobs has always been considered an anomaly in management; his leadership style was something to admire or to criticize, but definitely not to replicate. He did not fit into the frameworks of business textbooks: there was orthodox management, and then there was Steve Jobs,” we can then see that while orthodox management is supporting antisystems, Steve Jobs was enabling systems. So “cooperation and transformation to a new style of management” is about Jobsism complemented by the Servant Leaders described in the fourth update.
We have grown up in a climate of competition between people, teams, departments, divisions, pupils, schools, and universities. We have been taught by economists that competition will solve our problems. Actually, [elsewhere he specified adversarial] competition is destructive. It would be better if everyone would work together as a system, with the aim for everybody to win. What we need is cooperation and transformation to a new style of management.
In the item “What is a system,” on Chapter 3, Deming said “The secret is cooperation between components toward the aim of the organization. We can not afford the destructive effects of competition.” A bit later he adds “Is your organization a system?” and then say:
A company or other organization may have buildings, desks, equipments, people, water, telephones, electricity, gas, municipal services. But is it a system?Just as important for COP21, is in the item “A system includes competitors,” whose first paragraph says:
With some companies, because of short-tem thinking, the only aim is survival for the day, with no though about the future.”
Efforts by competitors, acting jointly or together, aimed at expanding the market and to meet needs not yet served, contribute to optimization for all of them. When the focus of competitors is to provide better service to the customer (e.g., lower costs, protection of the environment), everyone comes out ahead.The idea that “citizens are unable to envision” was dealt by Deming in the following two items of Chapter 1:
The customer’s expectations. There is much talk about the customer’s expectations. Meet the customer’s expectations. The fact is that the customer expects only what you and your competitor have led him to expect.
Does the customer invent new product or service? The customer generates nothing. No customer asked for electric lights. There was gas and gas mantles, which gave good light. The first electric lights had carbon filaments. They were fragile and inefficient. No customer asked for photography. No customer asked for the telegraph, nor the telephone. No customer asked for an automovile. We have horses: what could be better?...[he goes on on pneumatic tires, integrated circuits, pocket-radio, fax]
[He continues to write about an educated customer and then…] A wise customer will nevertheless listen and learn from suggestions from a supplier. They should work together as a system, not as one trying to outdo the other.
Sixth update: Where To From Here? Silicon Valley Is Not Alone. Joint Action In Moving Forward say Steve Denning. I ask if is it towards the Systemic civilization? The first 3 phrases come from Steve Denning's section headers of his very important article in favor ot moving forward to address soaring inequality: An Open Letter From Silicon Valley Calls For Bold Organizational Reform. Under it, I added the following comment:
[This is not just a commercial. It's mainly a great example about moving forward.]Emerging world view http://t.co/fRQeBD6gUq proposal to @rstraub46 #GPDF15 @GDruckerForum @profhamel @stevedenning https://t.co/tHh9tMenxs— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) June 20, 2015
Agree 100%! Plz consider: Can 10 questions http://t.co/42EOBLrDkP help forecast a new world order in 2015? #EuropeIN https://t.co/MZBARQAXR3— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) June 20, 2015
Plz consider if 10 questions above politics http://t.co/42EOBLrDkP help emerge a new world order in 2015? #EuropeIN https://t.co/Dmb2iGKwij— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) June 20, 2015
Where To @erikbryn @i4jeco? "Silicon Valley is Not Alone. Joint Action" --@stevedenning. To #SystemicCivilization http://t.co/42EOBLrDkP?— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) June 20, 2015
"... technology is the easy part to change. The difficult aspects are social, organizational, and cultural." Donald Norman, "The Invisible Computer," Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press 1988.
Global Drucker Forum @GDruckerForum Nov 13 - Nothing written challenges the world view & fundamental premices. @profhamel #GPDF14
Dear Steve Denning,
Should we agree that Donald Norman’s quote supports the idea that the open letter is inward-looking? What if the digital economy is not the 5th technological revolution of the industrial civilization that my dear friend Carlota Perez envisioned? What if it’s the 1st technological revolution of a new civilization (that I have been calling systemic) that's emerging with the digital technology as the easy part?
Should Pope Francis’ contribution be treated as also calling for basic change, not on the other side of the digital economy, but on the other side of the industrial civilization that it is still being myopically over-expanded beyond its limits? What if the 'invisible wedge' described by Alvin Toffler in The Third Wave, that separates production from demand, need to disappear to eliminate under the emerging civilization the impact of market failures due to the unfair advantage that production has over a huge number of emerging prosumers?
With a general agreement of an emerging civilization, would you expect that we will be able to avoid a political debate similar to that what you mentioned happened under the protestant reformation? While the emerging civilization may start in the USA, would it a process leading to a Global Declaration of Interdependence to enable a new world order? Written at the beginning of 2015, and inspired after the tweet at the Global Drucker Forum quoted above, some of the principles needed in order to enable joint action in moving forward are supposed to be in my humble post addressed to the Eurozone Can10 questions above politics help forecast a new world order in 2015?, I just wonder if based on the above can it also be consider to be “pointed in the right direction and we should welcome its publication”
Fifth update: John Hagel III has written the timely contribution The Big Shift in Strategy - Part 2, which seems to be valuable to help us reach the vision of a new world order where the magic happens. Can the strategy of trajectory that strongly fits such vision start with the action in 2015 of the Declaration of Interdependence by Eurozone's leaders that correspond to question number 5?
Is this how the above strategy of trajectory will fits the 5 elements that can help make it successful and enabling version 1.0? This is my take:
Can my answer to @jhagel's 5 elements of strategy of trajectory to the new world order move http://t.co/fbpF4ooObF to version 1.0? #EuropeIN
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) January 14, 2015
"@gmh_upsa: Can my answer to @jhagel's 5 elements of strategy of trajectory to new world order move http://t.co/stOqjQtOBR to version 1.0?"
— Pepa del Toro (@PepadelToro) January 15, 2015
1. Challenging: the 10 questions go so deeply as to invoke a change from a Big Shift in philosophers from Cartesian thinking to Systemic or Peircian thinking. Such shift is based the three Deloitt's like scenarios, "Continuity (continuidad)," "ToughTimes (tiempos difíciles)" and "Rising Expectations (expectativas elevadas),"which I presented at a July 2012 Magisterial Conference, which are recalled in the recent post Carta a Diario Libre: Hagamos que el problema sea de todos con libertad de expresión,
That's how I have been challenging those in charge at the electric power industry, the IEEE and now the Eurozone's leaders. In addition to the initiative of the Declaration of Interdependence of question 5, the suggestions to start with questions of question 1, and to confirm the over expansion of the industrial civilization, which can be done during the remainder of 2015. Going through all of the questions will help Eurozone's leaders get "aligned around a shared view of the future," as Mr. Hagel suggests.
2. Shaping: this element is related to question 8, 9 and 10 of the Decalogue. They help set up the second level of the new world order systems architecture. This is where, for example, minimalist government regulation of question 8 fits to "unleash significant investment by many participants and ultimately re-shape broad markets or industries." as Mr. Hagel suggests in his blog post Shaping Strategies.
3. Motivating. In the positive part of a comment aimed against at the value of this blog post, Paul Sweazey wrote "It's a lecture disguised as a questionnaire. The list works fine as a stylized lecture, which is okay if that is you goal..." I will now be giving him thanks for his kind reinterpretation of the Decalogue as a "powerful narrative, one that highlights a compelling opportunity out in the future and that provides a call to action for others to help achieve that opportunity," as Mr. Hagel suggests for this element.
4. Measuring and Learning: I am glad of Mr. Hagel's suggestion to resist financial metrics, because they are lagging indicators or about learning from the past. Instead, I have been all along adding abductions as leading indicators to learn from the emergent future (see Endnote ). This is where disruptive technologies will "A set of mutually reinforcing virtuous circles based on systemic leverage will help get poverty reduction going as fast as possible," as I suggest on "The Decalogue’s in brief" about question 10.
Fourth update: in a new world order, Servant-Leadership will be prevalent. If management is not under Servant-Leadership it won't be able to provide the systemic leverage needed to answer correctly question number 8. That's the response I wrote under the article Why Isn't Servant Leadership More Prevalent?, which edited says:
Servant-Leadership will be prevalent under great and fair markets http://t.co/fbpF4ooObF under minimalist government regulation #EuropeIN
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) January 13, 2015
For a few people, at least, it most be a lot easier to answer Why Isn’t Servant Leadership More Prevalent? The main reason is that a lot happened during 2014 to reduce the complexity. For me, it has allow to write the main part of this post by humbly calling myself not just a Servant-leader, but also a global citizen.Third update: But, like a knife, the freedom of expression must have very respectful sides being shot up by the status quo that's against the new world order. That's the intention, for example, of the next tweet:
Based on the post, my answer is that for Servant Leadership to be more prevalent we need to shift from the common sense of Fordism that is corrupted by Feudalism, that is extending the industrial civilization and move into the common sense of Jobsism (after Steve Jobs), that will let emerge what I suggest is the systemic civilization.
Was "A Battle of the Peircian - Cartesian War" on http://t.co/fbpF4ooObF also about freedom of expression? @GaboQuiroa @BrookeBCNN #EuropeIN
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) January 8, 2015
Second update: Is the "Not Affraid" defense of freedom of expression, shown in the picture below, an instance of the interdependence needed towards in the first Golden Age of the Systemic Civilization, against the current orientation represented, for example, by the Second Middle Ages terror event?
"@BrookeBCNN: Freedom of speech is a powerful thing. #JeSuisCharlie pic.twitter.com/2wwhrl2hoZ" LIBERTAD DE EXPRESIÓNThis update is self explanatory. To consider the reframing suggested based on the Decalogue, please read first the article "Why Grexit would not help Greece - debunking the myth of exports," by Guntram B. Wolff, posted on 6th January 2015, by the hitting the first link of the following tweet conversation:
— Gabriel (@GaboQuiroa) January 8, 2015
Can re-reframing @GuntramWolff Grexit's debate help Greece & #EuropeIN adopt the generative dialogue suggested in http://t.co/fbpF4ooObF?Can 10 questions above politics help forecast a new world order in 2015? Version 0.0
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) January 7, 2015
Global Drucker Forum @GDruckerForum Nov 13
Nothing written challenges the world view & fundamental premices.
What about @profhamel the humble #Jobsism, 'systemic civilization,' EcoIsOurs http://t.co/BMSyL7GBJY | @stevedenning @GDruckerForum #GPDF14
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) November 13, 2014
Is @RodLemes a wave of #globalization for @Deloitte E. Kelly, the 1st stage into the http://t.co/fbpF4ooObF systemic civilization? #EuropeINJosé Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) January 6, 2015
Consulting engineer on systems architecting
A Dominican servant-leader and global citizen
January 6, 2015
1. Should Eurozone’s leaders search for the urgent truth (with its feeling and power) by leading with questions?
2. Are Eurozone’s leaders convinced that they must take the leap to the stage to organize the world for the new order by giving the example of the kind of government market combination needed?
3. Will Eurozone’s leaders believe that such powerful times involve more than a technological revolution?
4. Can Eurozone’s leaders help become a reality a new world social order by enabling a new civilization based on the present Information Revolution that’s trying to emerge to displace the industrial civilization?
5. Will 2015 be the year when a declaration of interdependence will emerge from the Eurozone?
6. Are the Eurozone’s leaders ready to accept that the industrial civilization over expanded the production of energy above the limits of the world?
7. Are Eurozone’s leaders ready to follow German and Danish leadership modified under the assumption of the common sense behind interdependent countries?
8. Are the Eurozone’s leaders ready to accept that market failures can be eliminated by adopting great and fair complete and fully functional markets under minimalist government regulation?
9. Will Eurozone’s leaders help place wisdom above money?
10. Are Eurozone leaders aware that a Golden Age is available under the common sense of Jobsims, which is where the magic happens at the Bottom of Pyramid where most chronic and particular systemic crisis enables the greatest socioeconomic opportunities on that Golden Age?
Can 10 questions above politics help forecast a new world order in 2015? Version 0 http://t.co/fbpF4ooObF @profhamel @stevedenning #EuropeIN
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) January 6, 2015
RT @gmh_upsa: Can 10 questions above politics help forecast a new world order in 2015? Version 0 http://t.co/GEnDcgOuJwIntroduction
— Jaoana Dean (@thejaoana) January 6, 2015
As will be implied from this questions’ Decalogue itself, the selection for the better future of the whole world is directed to Eurozone’s leaders. However, other regions, like Latin America and the Caribbean, which don’t have a regional status quo, like that of the Eurozone, might be able to leapfrog them, after becoming well aware of what’s presented here. Such new world order will be discussed as an emerging highest level architecture for global society.
This is being done by me as a humble servant-leader  trying to serve other leaders with a set of deep fundamental questions at the highest systems architecting level of the emerging global society. This version 0.0 is intended as a experimental test, with an action oriented scientific attitude, to Eammon Kelly’s abduction  of “A Rising ’Second Superpower,’ that is ‘a connected, active, global citizenry that is able to discover, articulate, and perhaps even increasingly enforce its will.’”
Such questions are supposed to be based on the discovery of a minimalist architecture in support of the emergent new world order that’s doesn’t assume a central authority imposing its hierarchical power. Under the assumption that this introduction and its background to be seen next, I understand that it is more than sufficient to shift from a debate to a generative dialogue , so no further attempt is needed to make sure that this is the best or the only Decalogue; nor whether or not it is complete. No order of importance of those questions is intended either.
This is not an attempt to forecast the future based on detailed analysis of neither, cause and effect (being close in time and space), nor by looking for trends based on what has happened in the past. Instead, it is about a synthetic questioning of the deeper long term systemic assumptions in order to learn enough from the emergent future  to be able to greatly reduce complexity and uncertainty as much as possible.
For example, 5 years ago I wrote that: “As suggested by W. Edwards Deming, the main barrier to basic innovations, like the EWPC-AF, and an increased standard of living, is the prevailing style of management. A better decade is thus dependent on the adoption of Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge .” As can be seen next, during 2014 important progress has been done to eliminate that barrier.
As Peter Senge explained, the adoption of the discipline of systemic thinking is in essence that of the profound knowledge . In fact, behind them there is an even deeper urgency to shift philosophers: from René Descartes, Cartesian thinking, to Charles Sanders Peirce, Peircian or Systemic thinking [8, 9, 10,11].
One essential element coming from Peirce’s scientific architectonics system is his emphasis on the important relationships between logic, ethics and aesthetics. Such relationships emerged as the basis for (generative) dialogue . According William Isaacs, “the ancient Greeks were perhaps the last western culture to have preserved this idea in the advent of the agricultural revolution, emergence of city states, and modern ways of organizing society.”
The good news that Isaacs tell us is that it is possible to rediscover dialogue by awaking something deep within us that helps us integrates the relationships of the True, the Beautiful and the Good. An application of the interdependence of those relationships enables me to express not only what I believe to be true, but also including my feelings and whatever power if any I may have, as shown in this Decalogue.
One of the most important differences in the very deep need for the dialogue approach to business can be found in the philosophy for leaders of Peter Koestenbaum . By following him, as I have done, you will see the importance he gives to the personal side of leadership, which makes company culture possible, and the strategic side of leadership, which is used to respond to the world economy.
It is only culture that supports strategy and not the other way around. While the strategic side of leadership suggest an emphasis on STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), the personal side of leadership suggests an emphasis on the very old human condition that is learned from the humanities and liberal arts. This means that the emphasis on STEM needs to be reduced to allow for the human condition aspects to be considered to enable innovations that solve the huge systemic problems humanity is facing today.
By actively following up and making comments to Forbes’ contributor Steve Denning, during the whole year 2014, I learned of serious attempts being made to eliminate that above mentioned barrier to innovations. Mr. Denning has like me a lot of respect on the high value of the research done by Carlota Pérez on technological revolutions. One important hint emerges from the profound philosophic change: the independence that supported the unlimited world of the industrial civilization to the interdependence that’s required to support an emergent civilization, which I have suggested as the systemic civilization [10, 11, 13, 15, 16].
Mr. Denning had anticipated that a critical mass of many management thought leaders were to converge, as they did, on Vienna, Austria, on November 13-14, 2014 to discuss mainly the question “Has Capitalism Reached A Turning Point?” at the Global Peter Drucker Forum 2014. For example, he wrote that “…a number of the articles that have appeared over the past few months in leading pro-business journals such as Harvard Business Review, The Economist, Financial Times, The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and Forbes.com, all denouncing key management practices and calling for major change. So are we reaching a turning point in management, and indeed in capitalism as a whole, analogous to the religious Reformation five centuries ago ?
Somehow, by repeatedly applying the architecting heuristic, “sometimes, but not always, the best way to solve a difficult problem is to expand the problem itself ,” I humbly successively reinterpreted what I have been doing as that transformation (reformation lost its original meaning), by increasing the architecting scope of not just that of the electric power industry of the Dominican Republic, by shifting from passive retail consumers to active retail customers, not just that of the global electric power industry, but that of the global society, in order to simplify the highly systemic problems.
The Decalogue’s in brief
1. Should Eurozone’s leaders search for the urgent truth (with its feeling and power) by leading with questions? For example, Jim Collins suggests creating a climate where the truth is heard, by suggesting four practices, the first of which is “Lead with questions, not answers .”
Lead With Questions, Not Answers http://t.co/l4L95kuqKE
— Inc. (@Inc) July 17, 2014
2. Are Eurozone’s leaders convinced that they must take the leap to the stage to organize the world for the new order by giving the example of the kind of government market combination needed? According to Eamonn Kelly, “…the most mature, interesting, and innovative approach to new governance is the ambitious – and frequently fraught – experiment of the European Union .”
3. Will Eurozone’s leaders believe that such powerful times involve more than a technological revolution? This is one of Kelly’s convictions; “… we may currently be witnessing nothing less than the significant unraveling of much that we have come to take for granted over the last five centuries .” In fact, Peter Drucker confirms Kelly’s conviction that “Everybody today believes that the present Information Revolution is unprecedented… These beliefs are simply nonsense .”
4. Can Eurozone’s leaders help become a reality a new world social order by enabling a new civilization based on the present Information Revolution that’s trying to emerge to displace the industrial civilization? This is also based on Alvin Toffler’s conclusion in his synthetic book The Third Wave, where he showed that the industrial civilization emerged to displace the agricultural civilization regardless of political, cultural, climatic, ethnic, religious differences . While permanent jobs and careers on the industrial civilization are becoming very scarce, they are increasingly available in the systemic civilization . To a reduction on the traditional knowledge stacks of the industrial civilization we are increasingly adding knowledge flows on the systemic civilization, which are very important during the transition to the new order. Knowledge flows, which may in time become knowledge stocks of the systemic civilization, will be here to stay later on while lowering its intensity as the transition advances.
5. Will 2015 be the year when a declaration of interdependence will emerge from the Eurozone? This means that the Eurozone’s leaders will agree to develop and implement a constitutional transformation of interdependent states , to solve the serious weaknesses independent nation-states have on the most important issues of our time which are transnational and global, as well as those fueling those recent national separatist movements . This is in line with the higher maturity involved with the shift from independence to interdependence that the late Steve R. Covey told us about .
Dear @jhagel Please consider instead "A Systemic Civilization Global Declaration of Interdependence" http://t.co/jPNSNhoFm8 #EuropeIN
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) December 14, 2014
6. Are the Eurozone’s leaders ready to accept that the industrial civilization over expanded the production of energy above the limits of the world ? This is about the myopia that’s behind the global environmental and the many social systemic crisis all over the world and especially at the Bottom of the Pyramid. To avoid such distractions, what needs to be understood is that since the OPEC embargo the guarantee of cheap energy has been gone and that the guarantee for cheap information and communication technology is here to stay . Because "what is most systemic is most local,” the intensity of the electricity crisis of the Dominican Republic is much higher, while it is essentially the same as the crisis in the USA and the Eurozone .
7. Are Eurozone’s leaders ready to follow German and Danish leadership modified under the assumption of the common sense behind interdependent countries? As low oil and gas prices distract independent countries once again on their obsolete common sense we are bound to continue such foolish industrial civilization expansion, for example, in China, India and Brazil, where most of the demand for middle classes is emerging . In fact, Latin America needs to wake up to this reality to make a strategy shift away from commodities.
8. Are the Eurozone’s leaders ready to accept that market failures can be eliminated by adopting great and fair complete and fully functional markets under minimalist government regulation ?. This is where, for example, current Smart Grid premature standards designed for the comfort zone of Western needs is producing Doom Loops and will be replaced by emergent standards based on disruptive technologies fit to where the magic happens under positive systemic leverage .
9. Will Eurozone’s leaders help place wisdom above money? As important as it is, wisdom can replace money by shifting government’ borrowing to competitive companies’ borrowing, where needed, and in turn replacing representative democracy with direct democracy as much as possible, as increased market competition let customers vote with their wallets on said great and fair markets . This is how public debt will be driven downward.
10. Are Eurozone leaders aware that a Golden Age is available under the common sense of Jobsims , which is where the magic happens at the Bottom of Pyramid where most chronic and particular systemic crisis enables the greatest socioeconomic opportunities on that Golden Age once they change their common sense ? A set of mutually reinforcing virtuous circles based on systemic leverage will help get poverty reduction going as fast as possible.
 Contrary to most leaders that are leaders first, servant leaders are servant first. Please take a look, for example, at James Heskett 2013 Forbes article Why Isn't Servant Leadership More Prevalent? and its interesting discussion.
 Abduction was added by the great American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, as a mean to learn from the emerging future, in addition to deduction and induction that let us learning from the past. More on Peirce on the Background section.
 Eamonn Kelly’s, “Powerful Times,” 2006, Pearson Education, Inc., page 199.
 The objective is to go beyond debate, where the status quo dominates the confrontation and we don’t learn anything, to a generative dialogue where we are set up the opportunity to learn from the emergent future. More on dialogue on the Background section.
 José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio (JAVS below), A comment posted under Forbes' Steve Denning article "What Thomas Piketty Got Wrong", May 19, 2014, Grupo Millennium Hispaniola (GMH below) Blog.
 JAVS, A Better Decade Require the End of the Prevailing Style of Management, January 2, 2010, Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC below) Blog.
 According to the "Introduction to the Revised Edition" of "The Fifth Discipline," of 2006, Peter Senge explains that "... Deming had almost completely stopped using the terminology of 'Total Quality Management.' 'TQM' or 'TQ' because he believed it had become a superficial label for tools and techniques. The real work, which he simply called the 'transformation of the prevailing system of management,' lay beyond the aims of managers seeking only short term improvements. This transformation, he believed, required 'profound knowledge' largely untapped in contemporary institutions."
 JAVS, How to Cross the Thin Line from Arrogance to Leadership, June 19, 2011, GMH Blog
 JAVS, A Battle of the Peircian - Cartesian War, June 2, 2012, GMH Blog
 JAVS, From better places… to the emerging civilization, June 8, 2012, GMH Blog.
 JAVS, A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal, November 4, 2013, GMH Blog.
 William Isaacs, “Dialogue: and the art of thinking together,” Currency Books, 1999.
 Peter Koestenbaum, “Leadership: the inner side of greatness,” Jossey-Bass Inc., 1991.
 JAVS, Knowledge leaders: ye shall know them by their achievements, June 18, 2012, GMH Blog.
 JAVS, Creative synthesis of the electric power industry, September 2, 2012
 JAVS, A Systemic Civilization Global Declaration of Interdependence, December 14, 2014, GMH Blog.
 Steve Denning, Has Capitalism Reached A Turning Point?, September 26, 2014, Forbes
[18 ] Eberhardt Rechtin & Mark Maier, The Art of Systems Architecting, CRC Press, 1997, page 235.
 Jim Collins, Good to Great, HaperCollins, 2001, page 74.
 Eamonn Kelly’s, “Powerful Times,” 2006, Pearson Education, Inc., page 195.
 Ibid, page 20.
 Peter Drucker “Management Challenges for the 21st Century,” page 102.
 Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave, Bantam Books, 1980. See section 2: The Architecture of Civilization,” of the Second Wave.
, JAVS, El empleo juvenil está en la civilización sistémica, October 10, 2014.
Peter Drucker “Management Challenges for the 21st Century,” page 102.
[25 ] JAVS, Scotland’s independence got around the world before its interdependence got its pants on, September 15, 2014, GMH Blog
 Steven R. Covey, The seven habits of highly effective people, Fireside 1990.
 JAVS, Applying #Jobsism to transform current global #Fordism marketing myopia, October 24, 2014, GMH Blog.
 JAVS, On GOP Energy Plan - A Simple Global Principle that Might Break the Gridlock, January 23, 2011, EWPC Blog.
 JAVS, The Dominican electricity crisis is essentially that of Europe and the United States, July 14, 2012, GMH Blog.
 Glenn Goldman & Eamonn Kelly, Another Billion, March 31, 2014, Deloitte University Press 2014.
 JAVS, Would middle-class 'indignados' prefer direct democracy?, September 25, 2014,
 JAVS, Systemic leverage to economies via their electric link, July 6, 2012, GMH Blog.
 JAVS, Is this how France is still pushing Money to govern? Should we pull Wisdom instead?, December 16, 2014.
 JAVS, From Electricity under Jobsism to a Golden Age, October 14, 2014, GMH Blog
 JAVS, Why the Eurozone leaders must change their common sense first, September 17, 2014, GMH Blog.