mercoledì 21 maggio 2014
Inside any organization, yes men can give the impression of efficiency and quick response. Consequently, the organization can be tempted to hire / keep yes men only. Eventually, that decision will bring the same organization to its end. Pragmatically a good entrepreneur should keep 80% of yes men and 20% of autonomous thinkers, and he should pay the thinkers more for 2 reasons: the thinkers don't get frustrated and quit and the yes men, who never quit by definition. will continue to be more yes men to demonstrate their loyalty to him
Paolo Leoncini, May 18th, 2014
In nature this thing is called heterogeneity which is the base of an important characteristic of most of the natural systems: resilience. Most of the human activities are resistant but once they reach their break-point, they will break down absolutely and completely. While resilient systems are going to degrade progressively and because of this, it is very easy to intervene in time to address them properly. There is another problem related to resistant systems: they are usually not prone to change by definition, moreover they hardly reacts to the changes because their inner rigidity. For these reasons rigid systems are homogeneous because they could not tolerate diversity until the point up heterogeneity happens enough to turn the system into resilient one. Current western culture is based on homogeneity and rigidity - the main reason because we are continuously facing crises - as much we are aligned as strongly crises hit us. Looking behind my shoulders a system/society which - in my opinion - a good mix of homogeneity and resilience is the Baden Powell scout model. Homogeneity happens on the level of hierarchy and communication (shared values) while resilience happens because each single individual is educated to operate in any conditions and in an independent way. Unfortunately western society managed to bind scoutism with religious structures which are the most brilliant example of rigid systems. However even religious scoutism still match its mission because scouts by definitions are military trained to face adversities and explore unknown environments. Usually I am referring to this kind of individual as B-plan: those emerges in adversities much more than in regular situations.
Roberto A. Foglietta, May 21, 2014
Scritto da Roberto A. Foglietta alle 21:41
lunedì 14 aprile 2014
[>2ND REVISION DRAFT 14-04-2014]
One of the most difficult things is helping people. It is a lot easier to take advantage of their limits. Which one we would go for?
On ethical perspective the answer is pretty straightforward. Also from a speculative business point of view the answer is pretty straightforward. The two differs and this is called "relativity". Moreover there are others independent POVs from which facts could be seen. People are used today to accept relativity of POVs and choose different ethics scale of values depending the cases (e.g.: private life, friends, relatives, business, etc.). Which is equivalent to choose the "right" ethic compared to goals/situation which definitely drives relativism to egoism: since everything is relative, I am the the center of gravity (of my actions).
We could also make an analogy with geometry. We could also make an analogy like Copernicus and Galileo solar systems. We could consider many relative POVs from which one single fact or subject could be seen OR we could see different ethic scales as independent axis of a multi-dimension multi-ethics world on which project a single fact or subject.
The main difference between the two models is pretty forward: chosen an arbitrary sets of POV, it could not exist a coherent and unitary approach. Obviously there is some sort of relationship from a POV to an ethic scale. A few appropriately chosen and weighted POV could be used as normalized base for a multi-dimensional multi-ethical space. In analogy with the geometry in which a base for a N dimensional space is constituted by N unitary independent vectors belonging to that space.
Trying to do a step further and moving from a "POVs base for a multi-ethical space" to an unified moral we would face the Gödel's incompleteness theorems that we will ensure us that an universal moral could not be complete and consistent at the same time. So we do not need it, we can leave happily with a multi-ethics approach - as long as we are not been mentally abused in childhood to belief differently. In this second case: you are right and devil provocations and temptations will not touch the pure hearts, please pass by because the Lord will give you a highly compensation for your tolerance and mansuetude.
The difference between the two idea seems small but is structural, instead. The first one it is the reign of relativity: different perceptions from differents POVs could not fit at all. This also because the difference in distance from the subject/fact and the applicated POV. In the second one the relativity is still present but it is not a principle itself than a mere consequences of mapping a fact/subject on a multi-ethics scales. However, not all POVs are equivalent and equally useful to build this sets of references/map.
[>1ST REVISION DRAFT 14-04-2014]
So from the second idea, it raises up another POV that we could call it SPOV, Super POV or Super Partes POV. An actor that acts could achieve to see things from a SPOV could act like in a chess board. He would not need anymore to walk on the shoes of others because he walk on their same space because from his/her SPOV also others POV are contained.
This does not mean that empathically listening people could be stopped or not anymore necessary: it is remain fundamental! Most of the stress of the manager and their failure in keep the "right line" is because their effort in focusing on important things and keep a distance from others.
An actor that has access to a SPOV could empathically interacts and merges with others without loosing is independence and it objectivity on the facts. Even the loss of credibility or any lack of power could stop him/her to greatly change the evolutions of events and/or achieving his/her goals. From a SPOV actor, things simply happen because the natural consequences of events/causes.
From a SPOV actor, the initial question found it own easiest answer: it easy to verify that people are much happier to fail of their own than succeed because of somebody else. So the answer is to offer them a choice based on well balanced composition of differents ethics (a MEMCO multi-ethics multi-choices opportunity) and to keep for us the right to achieve our legitimate goals despite their choice.
So the main question became how to let people goes for their own way achieving our own legitimate goals? The answer stay into the meaning of "legitimate" word. If we accept that SPOV is just a tool to achieve any kind of goals (e.g.: making money), we probably end up to use it in that way and found that it is a powerful tool (e.g.: making more money than before).
However among SPOV space we could found our "legitimate" POV (e.g.: sustain our lifestyle doing what we love) and we will be granted to the most astonishing successful we can hope: achieving the goals, support of others and finally good luck. Yes!
Because good luck does not exist: it a superstitious way to observe that facts play in our favor. They do not play in the favour of anyone except those are able/open to exploit them as opportunities instead of suffer them. Because others - even when they play the enemy role - are helping us to demonstrate that we can achieve goals despite difficulties. In fact there is no value in achieving a mere simple goal. Once events and others actions are appropriately addressed putting ourselves into a legitimate POV everything else - included achieving or legitimate goals - it is a matter of time.
There are no winners or losers: there are happy people and those that complains because their vision, values or goals does not find their own way in the world. This kind of people usually think that working hard and never giving up are the key of success - and when they achieve a little step higher or further - they tried to be more autistic in order to be more focused on what they care and more distant to be less involved.
PRACTICAL EXAMPLE of SPOV
Considering this fact: "A new born has been under surgery because diagnosed of a genetic deadly heart malformation - parents believe in a religion that do not allow blood transfusions - doctors faced the challenge and used techniques to avoid blood transfusion". An examples of POVs could be: (n.1) "These people should lose definitely or temporarily their parental authority on the newborn child" - (n.2) "it harsh to admit but the freedom about religion should stop the society to intervene as long as we consider acceptable for a laic woman to abort". Both POVs have serious shortcomings and trying to find a balance among did not go in the right direction of finding a complete and consistent POV - this is a failure that is evident along the history of humanity. An example of SPOV could be: "Considering that blood donations are falling down, the surgery need to find alternatives to blood. This includes new techniques to avoid blood transfusion as much as possible. Under the darwinian point of view those people that are going to refuse blood transfusion in case of surgery are going to help the improving of humanity and surgery both at the same time." It is evident that a SPOV do not try to unify different POVs but give to anyone involved a good reason to act accordingly to their own belief and be happy with that.
Scritto da Roberto A. Foglietta alle 14:35
giovedì 27 febbraio 2014
martedì 25 febbraio 2014
Grillo é un genio ma incompreso! É come se mio padre, dopo aver scoperto internet, si fosse messo in testa di fare un rivoluzione: portare dei semplici cittadini in parlamento e la politica in piazza ovvero nell'agorà, là dove la democrazia nacque. É un genio perché ci é riuscito ma incompreso perché vorremo che fosse potente come Obama e simpatico come Renzi. Portateci voi gli amici della bocciofila a Roma, non dico in parlamento ma in gita al colosseo. Provateci!
Scritto da Roberto A. Foglietta alle 11:44
lunedì 24 febbraio 2014
Io non so cosa ci sia dopo la morte e non ho idea nemmeno di cosa sia la morte però qualunque cosa sia, sia il corpo sia la mente la percepiscono come una luce intensa, un calore che ti abbraccia e se prolungato come un'emersione da uno stato d'apnea e il panorama è bellissimo come le cinque terre viste dal mare d'estate ma con i colori molto più intensi, la visuale molto più ampia, luminosa e sopratutto l'indimenticabile sensazione di prossimità quasi intima con tutto ovvero non è un vedere attraverso gli occhi ma con tutti i cinque sensi insieme, oltre al fatto che il concetto di tempo è dilatato quasi a diventare infinito.
Il male, quello con la lettera maiuscola invece è freddo come Dante descrisse l'ultimo girone dell'inferno, appicicoso come la colla e produce un senso di caduta e di vertigini come la gravità sul bordo di un grattacielo ed è totalizzante come un pensiero fisso e penetrante come una spada di ghiaccio ma se lo spezzi, quel pensiero, si dissove e la sensazione di liberazione è come un raggio trattore, un teletrasporto con accelerazione verticale.
C'è solo un piccolo problema a ballare con la morte: tornare indietro. Perciò se vi tuffate fra le sue braccia abbiate cura di avere un elastico abbastanza forte che vi riporti indietro oppure di saper ballare così bene da sfuggirle in quella microfrazione in cui distoglie lo sguardo altrimenti niente più facebook a tirarvela con gli amici di tutte quelle volte che avete fatto sport estremi propriamente detti. A parte questo attraverso la morte si ha una migliore prospettiva della vita inutile, piccola, insignificate ma unica perchè si ha entrambi: sia il senso di piccolezza che di unicità. Inoltre si impare a considerare il proprio corpo come un'auto - io non sono l'auto che guido - non sono il vestito che indosso e non sono il corpo che abito. S'impara a riconoscere che il proprio corpo è un animale, come andare a cavallo, con le sue esigenze, i suoi ritmi, i suoi istinti e pulsioni, come un cavallo che bisogna saper cavalcare altrimenti ti disarciona e ti trascina.
Questo cambio di prospettiva diventa globale: nel vedere gente che va in panico hai la stessa sensazione di gente disarcionata e trascinata dal proprio destriero. Quando vedi gente arrabbiata, ti paiono cani che abbiano di cui il padrone ha perso il controllo. Tutto questo non toglie umanità ma permette di essere più liberi: si piange, ci si arrabbia, si teme e si desidera ma con la consapevolezza che è come quando si porta fuori il cane a pisciare, anche il cane migliore, il più fidato, ha bisogno dei sui cinque minuti per pisciare e trottare libero. Quando incontri la morte capisci cosa intende il maestro di tai-chi quando dice: non è la mia mano, è il mio respiro, è il mio equilibrio, è la mia volontà quella che ti fa ribaltare a terra. Non è la mia forza ma la tua rabbia, il tuo impento incontrollato, la tua velocità senza equilibrio e il tuo respiro fuori tempo.
Quando vedi, imiti ma quando capisci, applichi. Vivere la vita è vedere, incontrare la morte è capire. Perciò quando mio padre mi chiede perchè faccio sport estremi, per capire papà, che cosa? la vita.
sabato 8 febbraio 2014
Condannare Grillo serve a garantirsi l'impunità in caso M5S vinca le prossime elezioni: il terrore della casta é che finiscano tutti in galera e allora ci vogliono portare anche Grillo e i suoi cittadini. Ma noi sappiamo che nessuno è perfetto e conosciamo anche la differnza fra uno sbaglio e un deliquente abituale. Quello che la casta non comprende é che ai cittadini di M5S gli italiani sono disposti a dare un salvacondotto illimitato purché sia liberata la patria! Abbiamo il futuro nelle nostre mani: possiamo scegliere se liberarci o rimanere sudditi ma di questo dobbiamo ricordarcene alle prossime elezioni perchè se ci facciamo comprare con due caramelle o intimorire da qualche velata minaccia allora sarà stata solo colpa nostra e di nessun altro.
martedì 4 febbraio 2014
How many of us start the day with one of such a messages like the following one? "Your profile is VERY interesting, I have a great job opportunity for you. Please answer with your updated CV in word format, if you are interested".
Even in satisfying with enthusiasm the initial request, some of us are used to not receive anymore answer. Those are luckily are stopped at the first job interview with the real client discovering that their profile and expectation does not really match the role.
We were used to think that it was because the economic crisis but this is going not to be true anymore and moreover it was not true ever. In fact, I bet that many others times we will invest our time in futile job interviews and answering the phone while we are working or enjoying our life because somebody needs urgently to speak with us for a great opportunity.
This is the price and the pain to having reached a certain level of visibility: the necessity to filter out useless mail and phone calls. However a way to cut down those whom want present our profile like one of their trophy it is simple: behave like journalist.
One more question a time: “Why my profile is VERY interesting for you?” A 90% will not answer anymore because they have barely read it. “What kind of jobs/role are you in mind for me?” More than half will not answer anymore. Go deep in clearing the conditions and only those really have a job to offer would be able to get in such a details. Why investing time to have a job interview for a wrong position? Are we like to fail? No, obviously.
In my experience a contractor or even an employer does not take more longer than two weeks or one month from the first contact with the right person to close the whole hiring or employing procedure and in particular they usually know more about our CV than ourselves: we mainly overlook at that experience we did 10 years ago! Instead, they have clearly in mind because they read about all our experiences at the same time.
So, do not fear to loose a job position or a better job position opportunity because you did not raise the phone or answered as requested. Contractors and employers really interested in a specific profile will always try hard to find them as much as we are trying to find our right business partner.