Legacy Claims for Plan B
The process transposing Plan A dysfunction to Plan B flourishing brings tangible benefits streaming from day one. The windfall has two payoff segments:
- Direct revenue
- Administrative overhead
- Delayed start
- Positive reciprocity
The fact that windfall benefits start showing up immediately simply attests to the fact the entire Plan B issue is subconscious-psychological. No mass, micro-dispersed in the unknowable dark-matter subconscious, means there is no inertia to overcome. The benefits are not one off. Maintain Plan B integrity and the benefits flow without interruption. With workforce creativity and innovation talents unleashed to increase competitive advantage, the stream of benefits increases over time, sometimes dramatically.
The benefits of positive reciprocity, the most beautiful social behavior on earth, do not appear until after Plan B is up and running. The time it takes for reciprocity to reach ignition is exactly the time it takes to earn the trust required to displace the deep distrust existing at the start. High-stakes trust is the umbrella and platform for Plan B.
There is no way to predict the material value of positive reciprocity. Its synergy can take many paths and is entirely fortuitous, depending on local particulars. Likewise, there is no knowing how many layers positive reciprocity will propagate through. In Plan B world, good news travels through the underground faster than bad news. Its value can only be assigned after the fact.
The extraordinary claims of the immediate kind revolve around the jump in productivity of the revenue crew when Ca’canny is freely abandoned in favor of high performance – a choice made by the subconscious of each worker. In effect workers deliver their own psychological benefits by restoring the self-worth they lost in compliance to Plan A domination.
When Plan B starts humming, overhead costs plummet. The plunge reveals that over 80% of administrative efforts with Plan A were tied up dealing with consequences that in Plan B never manifest in the first place.
Turnover, for one parameter of Plan B, drops to background level and stays there. Who would want to give up Plan B freedom conditions and return to a toxic working environment? Health and security of the revenue crew members are making gains too large to go unnoticed. Their workmaster pledges to each of them: “As long as I have a job, you have a job.” And as Thomas Edison told his people, “There are no rules around here.” This statement announces that mistakes will simply testify that you’re trying to improve things. Criticism is replaced with praise for good work. The Rogerian triad, like Starkermann’s models work.
The scope of claims for Plan B includes two parameters:
- The span of social behavior
- The consequential damage of Plan A
Until Plan B existed, there was no standard to quantify the realm of social behavior. Plan B serves as the reference standard for identifying what is in and what is out of the boundary of social behavior, thus defining the perimeter. No branch of science, no discipline comes close to being the custodian of knowledge about social behavior.
What happens when you deal with a system by fussing with its pieces independently? The system gets worse. If the parts weren’t connected dynamically, it wouldn’t be a system. But, it is a system, an ecology. Piecemeal action doesn’t work.
Until Plan B existed, no one could tally the full extent of the damage produced by Plan A. The subject itself was undiscussable and half of the damage zones were unrecognized as social behavior issues. It took us a year to finish comparing the audits of Plan A to Plan B – same collective, same roster. It was a revelation to us as well and validation work was undertaken to settle lingering doubts. We were grossly underestimating the damage Plan A delivers to health, safety, and welfare. We learned it was impossible to leave out the connection to the endocrine system and be objective about social behavior. Just watch any mammal in its mating season.
The Plan B vs Plan A comparative tally:
- Covers the scope of social behavior
- The consequences of Plan A
- The portion of future prosperity only Plan B innovation can enable
The first comparison is direct bottom line categories. The claim for overall direct benefit of Plan B is at least a 25% bottom-line boost. The second comparison lists those managerial activities consumed by Plan A that are not required for plan B at all. This group of activities is an overhead cost of doing business for Plan A that in Plan B does not materialize at all. Plan A is a notorious hotbed for corruption that has a big potential impact on the treasury.
The comparison tally shown is nominal and conservative. It is not averages. Variations below nominal are idiosyncratic and small. Variations above nominal are always across the board and large. For example, when productivity gains are over 75%, losses to waste and quality drop by more than half.
No program conceived by the safety profession ever delivered more than a few percent improvement, soon erased by turnover. Plan B drops safety losses by 50% without ever mentioning the word and the reduction persists on its own. Watching for each other’s backs works wonders.
The delta symbol means difference and the arrows speak for direction
Plan B ∆ Plan A
Direct Nominal Streaming Windfall to Bottom Line
- Productivity ∆↑ 25%
- Availability ∆↑ 25%
- Managerial Workload ∆↓ 75%
- Supervisory Workload ∆↓ 25%
- Administrative Workload ∆↓ 50%
- Unsolicited job applications ∆↑ > 100%
- Turnover, overtime, and absenteeism ∆↓ 80%
- Safety: Losses ∆ ↓ 50%
- Damage and waste ∆↓ 50%
- Sabotage, corruption, pilfer and swindle ∆↓ 75%
- Positive reciprocity ∆↑ >100%
- Quality ∆↑ 45%
- Incontrovertible, failure-proof process ∆↑ > 100%
- Health ∆↑ 80%
- Physical ∆↑ 40%
- Mental ∆↑ > 100%
- Mutual trust ∆↑ > 100%
- Transparency ∆↑ > 100%
- Authentic, specified responsibility for goal attainment ∆↑ > 100%
- Resilience to unforeseen disturbances ∆↑ 75%
- Inalienable rights restoration ∆↑ > 100%
- Opportunity for psychological success ∆↑ > 100%
- Actionable quality information (reality truth) ∆↑ > 100%
- Freedom and encouragement to innovate (err) for advancement ∆↑ > 100%
Sustaining System Improvement: Viability Husbandry
- Streaming Feedback of AQI into navigational corrections ∆↑ > 100%
- Entropy extraction ∆↑ 75%
- Regulatory compliance ∆↑ 50%
- Environmental protection ∆↑ 50%
- Stakeholder satisfaction ∆↑ 75%
- Competitive advantage ∆↑ > 100%
- Growth and new Opportunities ∆↑ >100%
- Workforce innovation ∆↑ > 100%
- Community relations ∆↑ > 100%
To get a quick, reliable evaluation of a collective for yourself, go to the community where it produces and spend some time in the local lunchroom. The natives cannot be fooled by hierarchy. Since neutral is impossible, the reputation will either be real good or real bad. You never get debates. You only get first-hand examples. The community opinion overrides all other opinions.
As mentioned, the administrative overhead tasks impacted by Plan B are significant. Plan B slashes overhead costs and releases ruling-class talent to work on matters other than crisis response to Plan A consequences. The A/B comparison below aligns with the A/B comparison above.
The administrative, overhead issues endlessly actionable in Plan A, conspicuously absent in Plan B operations.
- Production, productivity, logistics
- Troublesome quality in products and services
- Safety/injury, waste, damage, sabotage
- Stakeholder dissatisfaction
- Deteriorating community and public relations
- Creativity shutdown: little or no competitive advantage and opportunity for growth
- High transaction costs
- Policing, inspection
- Turnover, overtime, absenteeism and grievances
- Regulatory and environmental damage
- Psychological and physical health
- Insecurity, angst, distrust
- Resilience to unforeseeable disturbances
These claims are held to be incontrovertible. That means that you are encouraged to falsify any or all of them. It’s a splendid way to learn about Plan B.
A note about cognitive bias and flourishing
Nature is, and will remain, perfectly indifferent to its various species. That means that cognitive bias can only be a product of the subconscious mind delivered by the invariant human genome evolved by Nature. In Plan A you are encouraged to attempt defiance of natural law – the equivalent of self-mutilation.
Rather than having a subconscious that learns from the failure of its task-action choices, our subconscious – holding a plausible story paramount – fakes whatever information it needs to justify its failures. This imprudence does not stop the menace, of course, and bigger lies are prepared to excuse the next batch of operational failures.