Petition by the keystones collective never fails.

Foreword

This page covers the interlude between the attainment of milestone 4, sufficient “accumulation,” and delivery of the “Magna Carta” petition to the perpetrators of Plan A “Payoff.” While there are plenty of accidental Plan Bs in the record, they have been transient and not sustainable. Never in history did the workforce ever get a square deal from the groupthink champions of Plan A. The Magna Carta gambit is executed to see this violence does not happen to the workforce that produced the Plan B accumulation.

Because the nature of the Magna Carta payoff process is not aligned with managerial groupthink, the process details are not presented on this MitM website, which is open to the public. However, they are fully described during the FLLP, because only MitMs engage the FLLP. Details of the payoff scheme are documented, of course, and will be provided to anyone who makes contact and asks for them.

Payoff

The platform of “Payoff” is the record of streaming Plan B prosperity accumulation. Since everything in the streaming benefit package can be counted, the accumulation of wealth is incontrovertible. Management is thanked for staying out of the action, a stop rule. They cannot help but recognize that the additional wealth in the treasury was provided without their “leadership.”  The important recognition made by the head shed is that this same workforce that installed and operated Plan B can restore Plan A conditions in a heartbeat.

Not only does the head shed have plenty to lose, it will regain ownership of all the dysfunctional system attributes of Plan A, now knowing it cannot solve their cause.

 

Engineer the MitM Magna Carta coalition
  • Milestone objective
    • Preferred contributing stakeholder payoff
  • Concepts and tools basis
  • Measured ∆
  • Petition Magna Carta (Milestone Five)
    • Sample

Journal entry of an interventionist:

9 for 9 encounters today, were experimental tests, and all 9 went well.

5 were one-on-one engagements. 5 of these were with people I had an already existing relationship with (including my wife!), which I could leverage for positive interactions.  All 5 of those went unexpectedly well, especially for the other party. All of them were  as they were unaware that I was “amping” up my positivity quotient (deliberately), to see if, by choosing to act intentionally, you could “surprise “ them and have it be a great interaction. Since I had history with them, I could use that deeper background knowledge as an entry point to set a personal and friendly tone right from the start. The 5th one was with a complete stranger (before the engagement- but I suspect if there are any further interactions, I will be remembered). All 5 certainly gave me a shot of oxytocin, so, I believe it was positive for them despite not testing the blood. I sort of even “cheated” with the 5th, as I had a very brief “history,“ which I leveraged. She was the young lady at the Chinese restaurant where I phoned in an order in advance. When I walked in, I start our interaction with: “Are you the young lady I spoke to on the phone?” When she said yes, I told her that I wanted her to know that I detected the smile in her voice. After that? Well how could our conversation have possibly gone anywhere but positive. In the three minutes of our transaction, I shared a positive, discussed how important it was to tell people doing well that they were and revealed that intentions (if not deliberately acted upon) were bad burritos for the man-in-the-middle, since it reveals that he lies to himself.

The others started as one-on-ones, but by virtue of the setting were experimental “spillover” encounters, where a third party got enveloped into the positive vibes of the conversation and became actively engaged (with them speaking, so, by way of positive reciprocity, they were proving themselves by making an upbeat contribution). I had 2 separate encounters at the grocery store (all 4 people were folks whom I had never met or even seen before – all employees). One was the exchange (2 different episodes really) that took place at the Barnes and Noble.  The last was at the library. There the 3rd, has to leave part way through due to a patron request, and you could see regret on their face at having to leave. In that situation, both people already knew me and I had established a reputation of being an unusual patron of the library.

I believe that the “key” to all of these was the opening statement, as it sets the tone and with it, the trajectory of what follows. When I know someone, I start with a statement reinforcing that connection but, with a “twist”, as that is what grabs their brain and causes them to pause then go “oh, that’s true, but I’d never thought of it that way before”. From there, you are off and triggering oxytocin!  If they are strangers, you have to be a bit more thoughtful and clever. I will illustrate the strangers encounter with the two that happened as I was grocery shopping at Kroger. Both of these were doubles: which is how I classify where I start with a dialogue directed at the first party, which draws in the 2nd other person.

With the first, I saw an Assistant manager working with someone to set up a sales display for a special on cookies. So, I opened with: “well, I know your objective is to get your customer’s money, but this just isn’t fair to set up a strategic Taunt, by putting these cookies right where we all have to pass”. That got the conversation rolling and then, to justify the positive energy, his junior employee chimed in with a contribution furthering the positive energy.

The second was with the checkout lady. After waiting, as the bagger finished clearing the items purchased by the preceding customer, you could see she was getting ready for a “salvo” from an anxious customer who had been waiting in line and wanted his transaction to begin immediately. Instead (the taking them by surprise element), I said: no worries, I needed some more time to explain my “extra” purchases to my wife when I got home. She sent me here with specific instructions to purchase 2 items and I have a whole cart of stuff I got because I was weak, hungry, and prone to frivolous purchases at the grocery store, which is why she gives me specific instructions.“ This of course got her going and the bagger then made his contribution as he was witnessing (and benefiting from) our conversation.

Still don’t have it all figured out, but today proves it works on strange people (and strangers) whom you are encountering for the first time, as well as people with whom you have an existing relationship.

More thought is needed to truly understand this one. But it is like a superpower when dealing with human beings.

 

In the name of hyper-learning expediency, this “page” provides a fully-proven gambit for you to execute in one of your dysfunctional social systems. Follow the instructions and you will gain valuable insight to the primary drivers of organizational incompetence. You will also receive a slew of benefits from using the Plan B knowledge bank in your local situation. You can implement this scheme immediately, as you are. There is nothing to buy or to learn beyond what you already possess. The gambit works 100% of the time. No permissions are necessary. You are in unilateral control throughout.

  • You will experience the afterburner thrust of hyper-learning
  • You gain more control of your efforts and elevate your status in the organization
  • You can henceforth avoid pursuits of the impossible
  • You can validate several of the claims made for Plan B before you even assimilate what Plan B is

The gambit, generic, exploits a pattern of organizational behavior concealed by 12K straight years of Plan A preeminence. Since Plan A people have no experience with sustaining Plan B organizations, its de facto existence presents a challenge for which they have no ready-made, socially-approved response. Since it takes the existence of an auditable Plan B to trigger this behavior, there is nothing relevant in the literature to go on.

The point of the gambit is to demonstrate that you can benefit from the sociotechnical knowledge herein without going any further. If you take the gambit premise on faith, you don’t even have to know the mechanisms of action. You are simply exploiting the fact that the very existence of a Plan B is groupthink heresy.

While the gambit will trigger catatonic behavior in the target audience, for sure, the advantage of the gambit displays in your steps taken after management paralysis manifests. How the organization will react to your post-catatonia steps are received is also on automatic. The gambit is well past the experimental stage. It works every time in every situation where you use it.

Yes, people caged in Plan A can’t help but follow the script. Rule-based behavior means the subconscious rules. There is nothing intelligent from the subconscious brain when reacting to the existence of Plan B. It erupts in proportion to the threat to Plan A it perceives. No academic discipline is more hostile to the fact that Plan B exists than psychology and sociology.

You are not changing corporate culture, you are exploiting an Achilles’ Heel of every hierarchy you didn’t know was there. The gambit is win-win. Nobody loses. It’s a case of a social system nursed on zero-sum relationships facing the obvious fact the size of the real pie of prosperity is unlimited. The dysfunctional organization has no rejoinder when its lose-lose zero-sum culture is repudiated as a deliberate lie.

The gambit benefits you directly. It may infect some of your peers, but the organization continues exactly as it was before. Once delivered, you don’t discuss the gambit or Plan B with anyone unless requested to do so by management. The passage of time without a response to your proposal works to your advantage. It certifies you have delivered cognitive dissonance to management, a gift that keeps on giving.

After catatonia exhibits, everyone notices that management is in deep denial about Plan B. Its true value system exposed, management status in the organization takes a hit. That, management notices. While there’s nothing more for you to do, don’t expect a rational reaction from the potentates. The gambit has shown you how deeply rooted is the preference for Plan A. In one stroke you get to understand why all the previous candidates for remedy were destined to fail. A quadrillion worth of treasure down the drain and nothing learned. That’s deep.

After management is darted with the petition, other opportunities open up. While the reaction of your peers, your workers, and the administration cannot be predicted, whatever happens can be turned to your benefit. You have veterans to call on to discuss options. You are not alone.

Hits: 70