martes, enero 19, 2016

World Economic Forum Davos 2016: Will #OWS and #15M love The Industrialist’s Dilemma?

Eighth update. Global synthesis: great capitalism first, elections second. Great capitalism is systemic and interdependent, while left and right are independent and have become anti-systemic as the world have changed and continues to change significantly. A first aproximation (open to enhancements) of a synthesis of the initial text and its seven updates is as follows:



The industrialist dilemma is a strong signal of the end of the industrial civilization where independence resulted in the left and the right competition, with money as the driver, which has made countries greatly lose direction to become anti-systemic, serving their part of the population making it unsustainable. No administrative election is able to help make such a big change in direction with politicians with short horizons and blinded by representative democracy Groupthink. That signal means the need of leadership above politics to create the systemic civilization, where we shift to interdependence driven by wisdom to serve the whole population, for example, to reverse migration; such civilization change is long overdue, resulting, for example, in a COP21 transition that needs to be changed to transformation for climate change. Direct democracy emerges as the way to shrink states, reverse soaring inequality and stimulate the economy.
Seventh update. Should elections distract us from Great Capitalism, when politicians are not up to the job? As a follow up to the sixth update, which revealed that "the lack of leadership needed is very well described by The Economist in the section 'It’s the politics, stupid,'" as we will see next, citizens the world over have the opportunity to concentrate on the development of great capitalism to stimulate the economy while reversing soaring inequality.


With that in mind, under the article How Hillary Can Win, written by Steve Denning a contributor to Forbes, I added the following two comments. This is the first one:
Dear Steve Denning,

Good morning!

This is a comment based on partial ignorance that tries to differentiate great capitalism (that is a generalization inspired on Jim Collins’ book Good to Great) from inclusive capitalism (based on the presentations at the 2014 conference). I believe that we need to first transform capitalism to have elections that are effective. As a result, we are seeing candidates that are centered in a world of independence. While I see that inclusive capitalism is in the right direction, I feel that it is a transition mechanism instead of a transformation one. As far as I can tell, while great capitalism embraces the common sense of the systemic in general, inclusive capitalism embraces it from the central banker point of view. While in the conference Prince Charles emphasized transformation and Bill Clinton interdependence in general, as great capitalism intents, inclusive capitalism does it around the firm.

This is a current problem example I saw creating the sense of the systemic. With their article on the world economy “Out of ammo?” whose subtitle is “Central bankers are running down their arsenal. But other options exist to stimulate the economy,” The Economist’s February 20th 2016 edition did considered deregulation (where systemic leverage is key to increasing returns) in their ‘Bazooka boo-boo’ section, but not the “great changes in the code of morals,” which Keynes suggested about 90 years ago, which are critical to develop interdependence. Is inclusive capitalism ready to shift from “foul is fair, and fair is foul,” to “fair is fair, and foul is foul”? Is inclusive capitalism ready to support a much needed global Declaration of Interdependence?

Here is a critical example on deregulation. Needing to join information and transportation, to mutually reinforcing each other, as the key upper level drivers of socioeconomic growth, that lift all boats, energy deregulation has been left behind. Is inclusive capitalism ready to help emerge inclusive energy deregulation?

Best regard!

José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
Consulting engineer on systems architecting
Servant-leader Dominican and global citizen
 This is the second:
Dear Steve Denning,

Good evening!
I am adding the following that emerged as a consequence of the first comment. While both kinds of capitalism are in agreement in that “these firms have embraced Peter Drucker’s insight that the only valid purpose of an enterprise is to create a customer,” the shift to “fair is fair, and foul is foul,” adds one important difference between them, which is the answer to Peter F. Drucker question: “What does ‘capitalism’ mean when Knowledge governs – rather than Money?” Great capitalism has a response that makes the power of money less valuable that the power of systemic thinking which is very close to wisdom.

Although general elections are set up for an independent mindset, do you think voters will go for a cause based on great capitalism, once they find that inclusive capitalism is not what they want because of two assumptions. Those assumptions are under the section “Understanding Capitalism That Extracts Value,” are that “It’s not fundamentally a government policy issue” and thus “It’s basically a private sector issue.” Those assumptions don’t limit at all great capitalism, as the energy deregulation example suggested to meet The Economist introduces a critical government issue. I add that great capitalism is based on great energy deregulation, under Direct Democracy Systemic Markets (#DD_SM in Twitter).

Best regards, once again.
Sixth update. Should The Economist add Keynes' "great changes in the code of morals" under #DD_SM to their 'Bazooka boo-boo'? This is a complement to the critical political decay of Brazil, which was refered in the tweet "Equilibrio Estado-mercado #Brasil @bollemdb @cnnesptvfans @gfrias con Democracia Directa Mercado Sistémico (#DD_SM)," which refers to the example of Brazil's State-market complete unbalance that needs to consider Direct Democracy Systemic Market. That tweet came after an interview between Gabriela Frías of CNN and economist Monica de Bolle, of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.



With their article on the world economy Out of ammo? whose subtitle is "Central bankers are running down their arsenal. But other options exist to stimulate the economy," The Economist's February 20th 2016 edition did considered deregulation in their 'Bazooka boo-boo' section, but not what's suggested in the fifth update of this post which introduces "great changes in the code of morals."



As can be seen from said article:
Deregulation is another priority—and no less potent for being familiar. The Council of Economic Advisors says that the share of America’s workforce covered by state-licensing laws has risen to 25%, from 5% in the 1950s. Much of this red tape is unnecessary. Zoning laws are a barrier to new infrastructure. Tax codes remain Byzantine and stuffed with carve-outs that shelter the income of the better-off, who tend to save more.
Needing to join information and transportation, to mutually reinforcing each other, as the key upper level drivers of socioeconomic growth, that rise all boats, energy deregulation has been left behind. To raise all boats, please consider the post Conclusive evidence: transformative deregulation is the key to electric service innovation. The last two paragraphs of that post say:
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 the need to introduce competive deregulation that emerges from transformation without privatization, as privatization leads to soaring inequality. Earlier convincing evidende on the need for leadership can be seen in the 2008 post Leadership Answers What to do First.
In fact, the lack of leadership needed is very well described by The Economist in the section 'It’s the politics, stupid,' which says:
The problem, then, is not that the world has run out of policy options. Politicians have known all along that they can make a difference, but they are weak and too quarrelsome to act. America’s political establishment is riven; Japan’s politicians are too timid to confront lobbies; and the euro area seems institutionally incapable of uniting around new policies.

If politicians fail to act now, while they still have time, a full-blown crisis in markets will force action upon them. Although that would be a poor outcome, it would nevertheless be better than the alternative. The greatest worry is that falling markets and stagnant economies hand political power to the populists who have grown strong on the back of the crisis of 2007-08. Populists have their own solutions to economic hardship, which include protectionist tariffs, windfall taxes, nationalisation and any number of ruinous schemes.

Behind the worry that central banks can no longer exert control is an even deeper fear. It is that liberal, centrist politicians are not up to the job. 
Fifth update. Being Keynes & Schumpeter alive, the creation of new civilization with a code of morals were long overdue. If Keynes were alive today, he would have already recognized that the unfair Great Decoupling is fruitless and would have been asking for a fair great change in the code of morals. That is in accordance with what can be seen in Wikipedia, on a quote taken from "Keynes and the Ethics of Capitalism" by Robert Skidelsy:




When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease … But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight.
By no longer ignoring the social dimension. discussed in the third update below, Keynes would had believe that for quite some time fair needs to be fair and foul needs to be foul. In order to dissolve such unfair Great Decoupling of soaring inequality, we must create the systemic civilization under a paradigm of interdependence. Keynes would have agree to adjust the more than one hundred years that he predicted have already been gone for about 40 years. That's because the world changed for all practical purposes much earlier than he anticipated as the industrial civilization under decreasing returns had reached and gone beyond its capacity. The Great Decoupling is the result of industrialists foul is fair using the dark side of technology of a new civilization that enable increasing returns was trying to emerged but has not been created.


Decribing the effects of foul is fair in his Financial Times article, The economic losers are in revolt against the elites, Martin Wolf wrote that:
.. elites have become detached from domestic loyalties and concerns, forming instead a global super-elite. It is not hard to see why ordinary people, notably native-born men, are alienated. They are losers, at least relatively; they do not share equally in the gains. They feel used and abused. After the financial crisis and slow recovery in standards of living, they see elites as incompetent and predatory. The surprise is not that many are angry but that so many are not.



In response, to Mr. Wolf,  I tweeted "Would Drucker suggest to replace Keynes with Schumpeter to create a new civilization?," while making available the tweet conversation that included the latest udates of this post. The reason why so many are not angry, might have to do with the strong effects of 'Groupthink' described in the third update. Part of such 'Groupthink' have to do with the strong negative influence of Keynes followers still has on society.

Here is why Keynes and Schumpter would be on the same page as open dynamic systems are available that replaced closed static systems. To support the above mentioned great change in the code of morals, that would lead us into the Golden Age that Carlota Pérez anticipated, next is what Peter Drucker said on the need to change from Keynesian to Schumpeterian economics. As a good complement of the above, comes from generalizing to all world leaders, the main text of the post Why the Eurozone leaders must change their common sense first which starts with the following quotes:
“…the central problem of economics is not equilibrium but structural change. This then led to Schumpeter’s famous theorem of the innovator as the true subject of economics.” 

“Economics, for Keynes, was the equilibrium economics of Ricardo’s 1810 theories, which dominated the 19th century. This economics deals with a closed system and a static one. Keynes’ key question was the same question the 19th-century economists had asked: ‘How can one maintain an economy in balance and stasis?’”
“…it is becoming increasingly clear that it is Schumpeter who will shape the thinking and inform the questions on economic theory and economic policy for the rest of this century, if not for the next 30 or 50 years.’’ 

Peter F. Drucker, “Schumpeter And Keynes,” May 1983.
Fourth update. As direct democracy shrink states, all Indignados of the world have a Golden Age they are not expecting but will love. Reinterpreting "The Industrialist’s Dilemma" as a proof of the emergence of the first Golden Age of the systemic civilization, resulted from continuing to connect the dots (as Steve Jobs suggested) to the dots in the background of this blog. Of course this is an adjustment, based on an action oriented scientific attitude, as opposed to a consensus, to the idea of two technological revolutions of the third update to only one. This time the two new dots that clarified to just one revolution, came by reading "Is he right? My answer is a definite maybe," in Paul Krugman Reviews ‘The Rise and Fall of American Growth’ by Robert J. Gordon. The next dot emerged from reading the last sentence on page 1 of Gordon's book where he wrote “The economic revolution of 1870 to 1970 was unique in human history, unrepeatable because so many of its achievements could happen only once.”

By using systems architecting heuristic synthesis to connect those dots to the dot of Carlota Perez's model of repeating patterns of technological revolutions that is, for example, mentioned in the third update of this post, Gordon is neither right that such economic revolution was unique to the USA, nor that it is unrepeatable. In fact, the USA is so far the leader (without a guarantee yet) of the first technological revolution of the systemic civilization.

In doing so, we will see that the economic revolution of 1870 to 1970, involves her third and fourth technological revolutions. On the third she had three of the Great inventions selected by Gordon, railroad, steamship and telegraph, which formed an ensemble that mutually reinforced each other to raised all boats for a few industrialized countries in a world of cheap steel. On the fourth a new ensamble of technologies that replaced the old ones, that added still more industrializad countries, were, for example, cars, trucks and planes; telephone; and electricity in a world of cheap oil. In the systemic civilization where all countries should have the opportunity to become interdependent we should be able to raise all boats for humanity.

It is easy to see that the reason of the rise and fall are both explained in part by the dots in Francis Fukuyama’s article The Decay of American Political Institutions that was mentioned in the third update of this post.
"The first is a simple matter of politics... As in the 1880s, a reform coalition has to emerge that unites groups without a stake in the current system. But achieving collective action among these out-groups is difficult; it requires skillful and patient leadership with a clear agenda, neither of which is automatically forthcoming. It may also require a major shock, or shocks, to the system."

The second problem is a cognitive one, having to do with ideas. A system of checks and balances that gives undue weight to interest groups and fails to aggregate majority interests cannot be fixed with a few simple reforms... Many of these problems could be solved if the United States moved to a more unified parliamentary system of government, but so radical a change in the country’s institutional structure is barely conceivable. Americans regard their Constitution as a quasi-religious document. Persuading them to rethink its most basic tenets short of an outright system collapse is highly unlikely. So we have a problem.
The key dots of a clear agenda are available in this post. The reason of the rise of American growth on the fourth technological revolution was then due to a coalition formed in the 1880s. The fall of America growth described by Gordon updates what was explained below in the third update of this post, to just one technological revolution since 1970 under a new civilization that needs not only one global coalition to emerge which can be postponed after we have a critical mass of countries that have become interdependent and shinking their state. Here is then another adjustment to the third update, regarding the need for a global coalition which it is not as urgent as suggeted, by following Steve Jobs advice to start with the customer experience.

The decay of American political institutions is thus another case of representative democracy Groupthink, that has resulted in a big state that need to be shrinked to give the USA the opportunity to keep the lead by dissolving "The Industrialist’s Dilemma." That may be a great example to the European Union, China, India, Brazil, Russia, which will need to change their constitutions from independent countries to interdependent ones.

Even before that, Spain, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, which are under different collapse situations, may use the insights first, Spain is trying to form a majotity goverment under a Groupthink redline that opposes Catalonia independence and also the need to reform the constitution regarded as quasi-religious like in the USA. Puerto Rico is certainly under collapse and could be the first place where the USA might help entrepreneurs experiments with an action oriented scientific attitude.

Last, but not least, the collapse of electricity sector of the Dominican Republic is one of the most advanced projects there is to help Indignados see the emergence of the first Golden Age of the systemic civilization, in concert with opening of the elections of May 15 2016. As political parties become center stage following Jim Collins' "Tyranny  of the 'OR'" being pushed by the power of lots of money, this post suggest to adopt his "Genious of the 'AND'" that is based on the power of wisdom, to make shrinking the state primary and the elections secundary.

Third update. Has global society chosen to fail with the Paris Agreement developed under representative democracy ‘Groupthink’? In Chapter 14, “Why do some societies make disastrous decisions?” of his book New York Times bestseller Collapse [1], Jared Diamond proposed a road map “of factors contributing to failures of group decision making.” This is how he introduced his proposal:

I’ll divide the factors into a fuzzily delineated sequence of four categories. First of all, a group may fail to anticipate a problem before the problem actually arrives. Second, when the problem does arrive, the group may fail to perceive it. Then, after they perceive it, they may fail to even try to solve it. Finally, they may try to solve it but may not succeed.

As a result of the Paris Agreement, we are able to jump the first three categories to concentrate on “…they may try to solve it but may not succeed.” The thesis of this post, and its now three updates, is that global representative democracies have set up themselves to sign soon a disastrous decision that will lead to global society to collapse as a result of their Groupthink. Next I suggest a way based on the primacy of the whole in which we might have a chance to succeed if such collapse can still be prevented.

According to the Linkedin post The 8 Deadly Sins of 'Groupthink', by Mike Conforme, “the work of Irving Janis (1918 – 1990) underpins much of the modern theories – or, rather deciphers the peculiarities – of collective decision making. As a research psychologist at Yale University and a Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Janis was probably most famous for his theory of ‘Groupthink’ which described the systematic errors made by teams when making collaborative, consensus-driven decisions.” In this case, the systematic Groupthink errors (repeated at the end of this post) can now be applied to the representative democracy that participated in Paris under the light of the strong evidence of the Industrialist’s Dilemma?

To show that we need the strong leadership to create the systemic civilization, there are three representative examples of the American travelling industry where the bad consequences of Groupthink decision making apply under the emergence of disruptive technologies. The first was railroad, which was documented as Marketing Myopia by Theodore Levitt [2]: the second was when car manufacturers faced small cars that came from Japan and Europe as documented by Gareth Morgan [3]; and the third is coming from Uber as a special case of the Industrialist’s Dilemma, which can be accessed from the main text of this post.

By taking into account the well documented research of Carlota Pérez [4], it is clear that the first was the result of the change from the third to the fourth technological revolution. As I discovered that Carlota fifth technological revolution should not be considered as part of the industrial civilization, which is now supported here as a result of the influence of Groupthink, the second and the third examples seems to have occurred as a result of a civilization change. If that's the case, they would correspond to the emergence of the first and the second technological revolution of the systemic civilization. Such a civilization change fits well as the best explanation of the great decoupling that resulted in the soaring inequality, associated, for example, with the Groupthink overestimation of the representative democracy power, influence and morality.

Although it is outside the scope of this post to prove without any doubt the emergence of the systemic civilization, next is provided key evidence to support its emergence that was in the blind spot of Groupthink.”  In the book review “The Fourth Revolution: The Global Race to Reinvent the State,” Rosa Brooks[5] wrote that:
“The Fourth Revolution” is a lively book, romping briskly — if selectively — through five centuries of history. It makes quick stops along the way to explain “why ideas matter” and to check out the “three and a half great revolutions” that propelled the West into its now-imperiled leadership role. Micklethwait and Wooldridge’s first revolution was the rise of the European nation-state after the Peace of Westphalia; the second was the late-18th- and 19th-­century turn toward individual rights and accountable government; the third was the creation of the modern welfare state. Each revolution improved the state’s ability to provide order and deliver vital services while still fostering innovation. But as democratic publics demanded more and more, the state promised more and more, eventually overextending itself. In Revolution 3.5, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan tried, but failed, to shrink the state.
It fits that Revolution 3.5 was where the great decoupling started and the civilization change was emerging under Groupthink. Such a decoupling can also be explained by the mechanistic systems Groupthink under the Cartesian paradigm of the industrial civilization, instead of the organic systems under the systemic paradigm where the system environment needed to be considered. Gareth Morgan also wrote [3]:
Since the 1960s, management and organizational researchers have given much attention to shaping the design of work to increase productivity and job satisfaction while improving work quality and reducing employee absenteeism and turn over. Human resource management has become a major focus of attention and the need to integrate the human and technical aspects of work as important principle. 
Work in most parts of the world has now shown that in designing or managing any kind of social system, whether it be a small group, an organization, or a society, the interdependence of technical and human needs must be kept firmly in mind. 
Getting ahead of a call that’s mentioned below, while independence is a key property of the industrial civilization, the interdependence of society is a key property of the systemic civilization. As representative democracy continued under the strong influence of independence as a result of Groupthink, Dr. Morgan adds that:
The principle now seems very obvious and is clearly recognized in most popular theories of organization, leadership, and group functioning. But there is still a tendency in management to fall back into a strictly technical view of organization. As noted in Chapter 2, this has been the primary problem facing the “reengineering movement,” which more or less dominated Western management practice in the early 1990s. Aspiring “reengineers,” paid a heavy price for ignoring the social dimension. By placing primary emphasis on the design of technical “business systems” as the key to change, the majority of reengineering programs mobilized all kinds of social, cultural, and political resistance that undermined their effectiveness.”
Still another example of strongly supporting the civilization change, while ignoring the social dimension as the industrial civilization Groupthink influence today, can be seen in the post Humanity in 2030: 危機, by José Luis Cordeiro of January 28, 2016. The idea of exponential technologies place “primary emphasis on the design of technical,” is another way of looking at what was suggested the main text is in in the post As The Great Decoupling is driven by TNA anti-systems, What about TAA in systemic civilization?

Said "fall back" missed by Groupthink can be seen in the summary of the January 2010 post A Better Decade Require the End of the Prevailing Style of Management, that says “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.” Such emphasis on technology would mean that global society has lost a technological revolution due to the Groupthink of representative democracy. Shifting to the energy side is related to the EWPC-AF, which is the Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework. One key support to the second example as a source to address climate change is that of the electric power industry Groupthink ignorance of the social dimension that can be taken from the post A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal, that says:
Back in 1978, the late MIT professor Fred C. Schweppe, “… introduced the concept of a societal definition of a blackout to contrast it to the technical definition that is being used in the United States, China and other countries said to be following suit with smart-grid projects. Once that is understood, the public will respond by having supplemental energy sources.
As a follow up to that quote, there was a strong warning made by Schweppe and his team that said: "We believe the deregulation which considers only the supply side of the supply-demand equation is dangerous and could have very negative results [6]," which was not considered, for example, under Groupthink close-mindedness. In addition, as can be seen in the “First update” of this post, we have one recent example of Groupthink conformity with its rejection, as can be seen in the introduction of the update that says:
Under the very timely article The World Is More Unequal Than Ever. Is That Because of Technology?, written by Michael Reilly on January 20, 2016, for MIT's Technology Review magazine, the following original comment (edited of course for that context) was submitted (but not accepted as of 11:30 am):
As can also be see below, the above update end like this:
Similar Strategic Myopia is what's been happening to the representative democracy of the industrial civilization, which has expanded its capacity, this time way beyond what the global socio economy needed. As the disruptive technologies enable direct democracy pro systemic markets, representative democracy reduction will return the much needed balance to reverse decreasing inequality.
In fact, repeating from above that “Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan tried, but failed, to shrink the state,” is exactly what is meant by the “Strategic Myopia” of “the representative democracy of the industrial civilization, which has expanded its capacity, this time way beyond what the global socio economy needed.” It should be clear that we are facing an outright collapse of global society in the making by the expansion of the industrial civilization, as suggested by The World Economic Forum on “The Fourth Industrial Revolution.” In order avoid said collapse, there is a lot of support available through this blog, which is open to extensive changes, to support a call to organize a pro system coalition “without a stake in the current” undeniable Groupthink representative democracy anti-system.

This is where the article Exporting the Chinese Model, by Francis Fukuyama, a senior fellow at Stanford University and Director of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law doesn't make sense under systemic thinking. His most recent book is Political Order and Political Decay, is very timely. Describing still another expansion of the industrial civilization, Fukuyama wrote:
In 2013, President Xi Jinping announced a massive initiative called “One Belt, One Road,” which would transform the economic core of Eurasia. The One Belt component consists of rail links from western China through Central Asia and thence to Europe, the Middle East, and South Asia. The strangely named One Road component consists of ports and facilities to increase seaborne traffic from East Asia and connect these countries to the One Belt, giving them a way to move their goods overland, rather than across two oceans, as they currently do.

In response to the tweet that carried Fukuyama’s article, I wrote the tweet “Is China repeating its mistake at the start of a civilization now the systemic civilization?,” that added a link to this post. That mistake was at the start of the industrial civilization.

Then by reinterpreting a suggestion of his recent book, I added a tweet with a "Call for Global Declaration of interdependence coalition,” with an image whose introduction says “This is a call for Global Declaration of interdependence coalition.

Under systemic thinking it is very valuable to take history in account, learning from the old past, and also from the emergent future. Skillful and patient leadership and a clear agenda are available for the systemic civilization. The shock is also here.” To conclude this update, we may now change what Fukuyama said about the US, “Persuading them to rethink its most basic tenets short of an outright system collapse is highly unlikely. So we have a problem,” as “Persuading them to rethink its most basic tenets after an outright system collapse is highly likely. So we no longer have a problem.”

-----------------

Janis research yielded eight symptoms which severely dampened the effectiveness of group decisions, which he classified under three groups:

1. Overestimation of the group’s power, influence and morality

  • Omnipotence – the Group generates an internal sense of invulnerability, leading to excessive optimism and risk taking.
  • Morality – the Team develops a cult-like belief in their purpose, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.


2. Close-mindedness

  • Rationalization – the Group justifies and ignores warnings that might challenge their assumptions.
  • Stereotyping – the Team classifies those opposed to the group as weak, biased, stupid, etc.


3. Pressures of group conformity

  • Censorship – the Group suppresses ideas that deviate from harmony and conformity.
  • False Agreement – the Team interprets silence as agreement, leading to implied consensus.
  • Pressure – the Group places ‘peer pressure’ on members that raise questions branding them as ‘disloyal’.
  • Mind Guards – the Team develops self-appointed individuals who shield members from external information which contradicts the team viewpoint.


References:
[1] Jared Diamond (2005), “Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed,” Penguin Books 2006.
[2] Levitt, T. (1960). "Marketing Myopia," Harvard Business Review.
[3] Gareth Morgan (1986, 2006), Images of Organizations, Sage Publications.
[4] Carlota Pérez (2002), “Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages,” Edward Elgar.
[5] Rosa Brooks(2014), “A Call to Rally: ‘The Fourth Revolution,’ by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge,” The New York Times.
[6] Fred Schweppe et al (1988), “Spot Pricing of Electricity,” Kluwer.

Second update. Can EU leaders reverse the migrant refugee crisis by creating the systemic civilization? As the World Economic Forum 2016 at Davos has ended, let's consider CNN Money news Two months to save Europe? Refugee crisis and Brexit risk break up  as the key insight on the state of the European Union (EU). The main reason of the thesis for the migration is the fear of 'There's No Alternative (TNA)' for the refugees.




To reverse that fear into the hope that 'There's An Alternative (TAA), please start by considering the September 2014 post Why the Eurozone leaders must change their common sense first, which is also the key to dissolve the Brexit risk break up and much more, like the ongoing Spanish political crisis and the Electricity Pact of the Dominican Republic, which are being addressed in the general backgound of this blog.



This quality collaboration (including its updates), show that it is the lack of leadership that signals TNA as a result of learning from the past of the industrial civilization common sense, that keep EU conversations on the primacy of the parts of independent countries. As a way to face the crisis, said collaboration also show that strong leadership is needed to create the systemic civilization that came from learning from the emerging future under the primacy of the whole, which is supported by changing their common sense first to enable TAA. 

Because of the severe scalating anti-systemic refugee crisis, TAA is a call to action that might, for example, start at the EU to eventually help every organization in the world to become interdependent, starting from where the refugees come from. To do that, their leaders may consider the post  Can 10 questions above politics help forecast a new world order in 2015? Version 0.0, which suggest, for example, a Global Declaration of Interdependence to reverse the migration and dissolve Brexit. That post that started at the begging of last year has so far progressed as follows: 
This 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:

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?

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.

Fourth update: in a new world order, Servant-Leadership will be prevalent.

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.

Sixth update: Where To From Here? Silicon Valley Is Not Alone. Joint Action In Moving Forward say Steve Denning.

Seventh update. Citizens are not expecting a highly systemic COP21 world order, but will love it. 
First update.  Does a disruptive #ClimateChange transformation for #OWS & #15M, makes #COP21 too little too late for #Davos 2016? Under the very timely article The World Is More Unequal Than Ever. Is That Because of Technology?, written by Michael Reilly on January 20, 2016, for MIT's Technology Review magazine, the following original comment (edited of course for that context) was submitted (but not accepted as of 11:30 am):








Hello Mr. Reilly

This comment is an original update to the blog post “World Economic Forum Davos 2016: Will #OWS and #15M love The Industrialist’s Dilemma?,” which enabled an interesting tweet conversation with Jason Pontin, the editor in chief and publisher of MIT Technology Review. In the last tweet interchange of that conversation, Mr. Pontin said “Well, tech is neither good nor bad but use makes it so.” That post has images of the tweet conversation with Mr. Pontin.
Then I responded by begging MIT based action researcher, founding chair of the Presencing Institute, Otto Scharmer, for help. As your article is in “synchronicity” with that conversation, the insight that a system is associated with good or bright technologies and that an anti-system with bad or dark ones, then it is pro anti-system businesses that are responsible for the increasingly unacceptable inequality. A video of Otto Scharmer is after the tweet conversation in said post.
That's what makes COP21 Paris Agreement transition to a slow low carbon socio-economy as being too little too late as am even more destructive expansion of the industrial civilization. As we shift to the systemic civilization this first (or maybe second) technological revolution will lead to the Golden Age envisioned by Carlota Pérez (as the fifth technological revolution) to a fast disruptive transformation to a cero carbon global socio-economy.
Related to the tittle of your article we can then see a difference on its second sentence that changes " Is That Because of Technology?" into "Is That Because of Dark Technology?" Then my response is yes! It is because of representative democracy capture, which has a larger scope than regulatory capture.

Similar to what is happening now, it is known that a century ago, as emerging transportation technologies, cars, trucks and planes, the railroads found themselves in real trouble because they had increased their capacity way beyond of what the USA socio-economy needed in the future. That was called Marketing Myopia, after an article in the Harvard Business Review by Theodore Levitt, to be later understood as Strategic Myopia.

Similar Strategic Myopia is what's been happening to the representative democracy of the industrial civilization, which has expanded its capacity, this time way beyond what the global socio economy needed. As the disruptive technologies enable direct democracy pro sistemic markets, representative democracy reduction will return the much needed balance to reverse decreasing inequality.


World Economic Forum Davos 2016: Will #OWS and #15M love The Industrialist’s Dilemma?
This is intended as a quality collaboration that, for example, the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, and 15-M movements (mentioned as "Indignados" below to also include others) are not expecting but might love.  It is based on a Generative Dialogue that might result in updates to this post as usual in this Blog. As such, all post and articles mentioned below are an integral part of this text.




According to Otto Scharmer (Google him please) there are of four types of conversations, which he organized into four quadrants on two axis. In the verical axis we have "Reenacting Patterns of the Past" at the bottom and "Enacting Emerging Futures" at the top. In the horizontal axis we have the "Primacy of the Whole" at the left and the "Primacy of the Parts" at the right.

Since for all practical purpose, we can avoid "Reenacting Patterns of the Past," to satisfy the spirit of the Indignados, which are by definition pro system, we can concentrate on "Enacting Emerging Futures." What remains then is very simple: Generative Dialogue at the top left and Reflective Dialogue is on the top right. The difference between the two is that Generative Dialogue deals with transformations, under the primacy of the whole, and Reflective Dialogue with transitions, under the primacy of the parts.

While I couldn't find a video of Indignados yet, today started in Davos, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2016. That forum is organized according to the assumptions of the article The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond, written by Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum. Mr. Schwab has made an excellent contribution. His introduction states that:
We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before. We do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the response to it must be integrated and comprehensive, involving all stakeholders of the global polity, from the public and private sectors to academia and civil society.
To analize that paragraph, let's consider those three sentences one at a time. It is easy to agree on the first that there is no doubt it is a technological revolution. However, there are concerns left. Can we doubt that it is under the industrial civlization? Can it be what's suggested in the post As The Great Decoupling is driven by TNA anti-systems, What about TAA in systemic civilization? 

Knowing that we need to have strong pro business stakeholders, we need to divide them into the pro system busunesses that create value that the indignados have been expecting that will help lead towards the first Golden Age (that Carlota Pérez suggested, Google her too) under the primacy of the whole and those pro antisystem businesses that subtract value, for example, by regulatory capture, and are driving the Inddignados to the Second Middle Ages under the primacy of the parts. As the systemic civilization is based on interdependence, the primacy of the whole tell us that all pro system Indignados are citizens of humanity. 

That such a separation of businesses into pro system and pro ant/system is not unjust, can be seen in the post First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth, which says under the section "The status quo is dead. Long live the status quo:"
Wollard’s story continues with “Lamm’s admiration with for the United States and his people crops up frequently in his conversations, and was strengthened by his work on the Intertie. He relates how several power company executives – who have been those most opposed to the project - visited Sweden with their wives once the issue was decided.” As a result of the visit, Lamm recalled “[a]mong Americans, when the heat of combat is over, and a decision has been reached, all the bitterness disappears, and people work hard to bring the final decision to fruition in the best possible way.” I have also been expecting that kind of mutual behavior.
From another angle, well in accordance with the first sentence of Mr. Schwab's introduction, the most recent evidence to doubt enacting a future under the industrial civilization is that of the article Introducing The Industrialist’s Dilemma, by Aaron Levie. In contrast to the third sentence, Is the introduction of the Mr. Levie's article telling us that we now know how it is unfolding? This is what he says:
Retail. Life Sciences. Transportation. Healthcare. Hospitality. What do all these industries have in common? Up until just a couple of years ago, they were largely insulated from the rules of technological disruption, and yet, all of a sudden they’re now the targets of some of the most heavily funded, talented tech companies on the planet.
Can we say that instead of representative democracy (indirect distribution) we are seeing strong evidence of increasing direct democracy  (direct distribution) with disruptive technologies? While the first sentence of Mr. Schwab's introduction highlights transformation, Does the second sentence suggests transition, by being organized for the primacy of the parts? 

In addition, according to Peter Drucker this transformation is not unprecedented. He said that “Everybody today believes that the present Information Revolution is unprecedented… These beliefs are simply nonsense," as can be seen in page 102 of his book “Management Challenges for the 21st Century.”.

Now again on the third sentence. To continue addressing the doubt, one interesting sign is that Davos 2016 is organized to involve stakeholders under the primacy of the parts, similar to what recently happened at COP21 under public-private cooperation. At what level are those representative democracy stakeholders trusted today by pro system Indignados?

While COP21 has been sold as a great sucess, to drive a slow low carbon transition, there's a disruptive transformation available to cero carbon. In that regard, please considerr the post After a million total views in EWPC Blog, a climate change architecting hypothesis breakthrough for COP21 which have two updates. The "First update: Can the climate change systemic problem be dissolved with the Value Added Electricity Architecture Framework?" and the "Second update. To Bill Gates: Why not let customers drive innovation by leaping at COP21 from financial capital to production capital."

Publicado por ---

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario

Suscribirse a: Enviar comentarios (Atom)