If you don’t reach Plan B, you won’t reach Plan B.

The fallout from 2019 progress is published here as our garage sale of insights. You can never know what you will find in the heap that will ring your chimes. It is mining a rich seam of concept deposits. Junk and gems, it triggers all manner of thoughts and reflexes, both positive and negative. We go through the heap ourselves when we get implementer’s block.

The best defense is an effective offence

To the head shed, it does not matter how much windfall benefit streams into the Plan B organization. The value system of the head shed culture places social prosperity in the lower levels of its totem pole. POSIWID. In order for the workforce to get a square deal for taking the organization to Plan B, the keystones must coalesce to a fraternity for offense.

The square deal for the workforce can only be realized by solidarity in the petitioners, as in Magna Carta. Any other scheme cannot work. In practice and in recorded history, the solidarity approach has never failed to deliver an appropriate response. This transaction between the ruling class and the revenue crew bears no resemblance to management/labor union relations where management controls the game. In the petition maneuver, the solidarity wields the economic hammer and management has to design the benefit sharing offer.

The keystones quietly let the head shed know that they are the responsible party behind the streaming windfall. The unstated implication is cast that if the head shed declines the petition stipulations, their organization will rapidly collapse back to previous levels of performance.

I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all. Alexis de Tocqueville

The progression of work

  1. Study Hall
    1. Engage website
    2. Read history
  2. TUS poster, observation
  3. Commence getting act together: grooming for high-stakes trust-building
    1. Understanding MOA of Plan A
    2. Understanding head-shed sabotage, Ca’canny
    3. Understanding MitM keystone Plan B role
    4. Strive for angst blowdown
  4. Develop and practice trust-building skills outside of work
    1. Rogerian Triad
  5. Plan B silence-breaking (posters) shift to offense
    1. Plan B exists
    2. Inalienable rights
  6. Veteran contact: requisite for advancing

Joint effort phase

  1. Trust building the revenue crew
  2. Explain and introduce Plan B to crew
  3. Operate Plan B, validate realized benefits (before A v after B)
  4. Promotion of Plan B with other MitMs (FLLP)
  5. Keystone oligarchy
    1. Magna Carta petition


The key personnel for safety on any project are the supervisors.  As the individuals tasked with setting up the work activities for their crews (design) and then designating who will actually perform the work (assign), they are instrumental in the flow of work and safety during each and every day. Additionally, as the supervisors, they get to decide what work (and work behaviors) are acceptable and not acceptable.

This training will address some fundamental safety concepts for construction, and how the foreman can directly change outcomes for safety. It will address work planning, effective communication and the fundamentals of feedback and effective behavioral coaching to improve crew member performance. It touches upon what must be done, every day, by the supervisor, to set his crew up for success and ensure that everyone goes home safely at the end of the shift.

MitM options

Those MitMs in the FLLP have everything needed for the hyper-learning sprint to Plan B, less than three calendar months, provided by the interventionist and peers. The website, filled with the building blocks of the FLLP, is only for their reference and a background information resource.

For the MitMs starting out without the FLLP it’s a very different situation. Since Plan B cannot be reached without the hyper-learning sprint, the options are different. The solo MitM can get there, as we did ending in 2013, but he needs to exploit the new resources to make it practical:

  1. Plan B exists – incontrovertible
  2. Evaluate active implementations
  3. Attend FLLP hyper-learning episode
  4. Consult veterans and interventionists
  5. Website arsenal reference: Concepts and tools for experiment

Positive reciprocity

A context of living:

  • Personalized
  • Mutual trust
  • Encouragement of innovation
  • Shared goal of advancement
  • Mutual responsibility for security


“Now and then when I want half a day off and they don’t give it to me I let the belt slither off the machine so that it doesn’t work and I get my half day. I don’t know if you call it sabotage, but that’s what I do.”

“Delay, give the wrong number   happen to disconnect   forget   mutter   make conversations difficult or
impossible to understand    distort telegrams so that additional ones need to be composed   sometimes simply by changing a letter   from “minimum” to “miximum”   then they won’t know if minimizing or maximizing is at stake a letter   a punctuation mark   to move a comma   from “access denied, control” to “access, denied control”

Intentional stupidity goes against human nature. What was firmly rooted lies rotted. What was cast solid is perforated. Into those openings the saboteur sticks her fingers. The saboteur may need to reverse her thinking. If before she made sure to keep her tools sharp, she can now let them grow dull. What was brightly polished will now be scratched; what was carefully tucked away can now be left out. The assiduous grows full of indolence. The keen grows torpid, the firm begins to give way. When the saboteur starts to think backwards about herself and hers she does not let the opportunity slip out of her hands. Anything might be sabotaged.

Commit acts for which a large number can be held responsible. So that it could have been anyone.

Do not be afraid to commit acts you can personally be held responsible for, as long as you do not do it too often and assuming that you have a plausible excuse   dropped the wrench there   by that circuit   the little one cried and kept me awake all night   I must have been half asleep   well   so I dropped the key

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.  Alexis de Tocqueville


Trust reprise

Trust is fundamentally a relational emotion. It grows from people being and working together. It’s deeply embedded in our neural architecture. The neurobiology done on trust shows that the areas in the brain that have receptors for oxytocin are evolutionarily old. They’re deep in the brainstem; they’re part of our evolutionary history. Distrust reinforces feelings of isolation, leading to more distrust. Trust is a key aspect of culture, it affects engagement and performance.

Oxytocin is the primarily molecule of social connection. It affects every aspect of social and economic life, from who we choose to make investment decisions on our behalf to how much money we donate to charity. Oxytocin tells us when to trust and when to remain wary, when to give and when to hold back.

Confirmation bias is the human tendency to give more weight to information that confirms what we already believe to be true. It is a filter everyone employs in viewing the world. Yet confirmation bias isn’t the result of stubborn people consciously ignoring the evidence. It is an automatic, unconscious strategy related to how our brains process information.

Trust involves the juxtaposition of people’s loftiest hopes and aspirations with their deepest worries and fears. It may be the single most important ingredient for the development and maintenance of happy, well-functioning relationships. Higher levels of trust in relationships early in life lay the psychological foundation for happier and better functioning relationships in adulthood. Trust-relevant emission and detection mechanisms have evolved in humans, given the importance of gauging accurately the intentions of others. Considering the centrality of trust in relationships across the lifespan, one might expect the topic would have received widespread theoretical and empirical attention. Surprisingly, it has not. Relatively little is known about how and why interpersonal trust develops, is maintained, and unravels when betrayed.

Why has trust received such limited attention? To begin with, trust is a complex, multidimensional construct, making it difficult to operationalize, measure, and interpret. Second, trust can be construed in different ways, and it might have varying importance at different stages of relationship development. Third, trust emerges and changes in situations that are difficult to observe and study, such as in ‘‘strain test’’ situations. In strain-test situations, one individual is highly outcome dependent on his or her partner, but the actions that would promote the individual’s own interests differ from those that would benefit the partner

Knowledge of how trust is generated, sustained, and compromised in relationships remains surprisingly limited. First, we need a better understanding of how the dispositions and behaviors of both individuals in a relationship affect how they think, feel, and behave in trust-relevant situations. Second, research should explore how and why certain combinations of partner attributes promote or impede the development and maintenance of trust. For example, relationships in which one partner has much more power than the other could hinder the development of trust if the powerful person self-servingly takes advantage of the less powerful partner, yet this combination could generate high levels of trust if the high-power partner continually forgoes his or her best self-interest for the best interest of the low-power partner

Trust is the willingness of a party (the trustor) to be vulnerable to the actions of another party (the trustee) based on the expectation that the trustee will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor and control the other party. A working definition of trust as the belief that others will not, at worst, knowingly or willingly do you harm, and will, at best, act in your interests.

A slightly different, but still individual, approach towards trust puts less emphasis on early childhood socialization than on later experience of life. It argues that it is the winners in society who are trusting – those who are wealthier and better educated, with high social and economic status. Trust involves a degree of risk (placing one’s interests and well-being in the hands of others), and the better off can afford to take risks more than the poor. The better off are also treated with more respect, which may encourage their sense of trust, and their success in life may give them a more optimistic, trusting, and sunny disposition than the poor, who may be more cynical, distrusting, and suspicious of others.

Social trust is the product of adult life experiences; those who have been treated kindly and generously by life are more likely to trust than those who suffer from poverty, unemployment, discrimination, exploitation, and social exclusion.

This approach the “social success and well-being theory”, which emphasizes the importance of adult life experiences. Analysis of the relationship between social trust and a set of individual variables including income, social status, education, satisfaction with life, job satisfaction, happiness, and anxiety may test this theory.

This sort of interpretation of trust gains a degree of prima-facie plausibility when we see that countries like Brazil, Peru, the Philippines, Turkey, and Venezuela are at the lowest end of the international trust scale, while Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada, Finland, Ireland, and Iceland are at the higher end.

If social trust is based upon the social circumstances in which people find themselves, it should be statistically associated with societal variables. However, there is little agreement about which variables are important. The classic view is that a society that is well founded upon a large and varied range of voluntary associations and organisations is likely to generate high levels of social trust. The theory, dating back to de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill, is central to most recent discussion of social capital.

We learn to participate by participating, and by participating in regular and close contact with others on a voluntary basis we learn “the habits of the heart of trust, reciprocity, co-operation, empathy for others, and an understanding of the common interest and common good. The most important form of participation, from this point of view, is direct, face-to-face, and sustained involvement in voluntary organisations in the local community. This theory is referred to as the voluntary organisations theory. It can be tested by using survey data to analyse the statistical association between levels of social trust, on the one hand, and membership of and activity in voluntary associations, on the other.

The study of trust is bedeviled by the problem of cause and effect. Do people become more trusting as a result of close and sustained interaction with others? Or is it, rather, that trusting people join voluntary associations and get involved with their community, leaving distrusting ones at home to watch television? Do people develop higher levels of trust because life has been kind to them, or is life kind to them because they are trusting? Many commentators have pointed out the severe chicken-and-egg problem associated with most theories and empirical findings about trust, and we are unable to make much progress with the problem here.

Fast Company shared a story about a Fortune 500 company who realized it took an average of 89 weeks to execute change within their company, and 39 of those weeks were a direct result of mistrust.



With everyone protected from responsibility for results, initiative cremated by Plan A, endless consequences are what you get. The dysfunction of Plan A persists and becomes more painful. In any system, unsolved malfunctions reinforce each other. In Plan B someone is always responsible for failure.

The head shed can command only what is collectively possible under Plan A conditions. Splintering of responsibility makes it impossible to hold anyone responsible for failure. Failure has no impact on those responsible for failure. When the head shed demands a solution with no changes to business as usual, there are no solutions.

Basic assumptions of social dynamics that are totally fallacious

  • Infallibility
  • Top down control
    • Chain of command integrity
  • Authority = power
  • Only one paradigm for social operations possible at a time
  • Zero sum legitimacy
  • Responsibility without autonomy
  • Drive management
  • Blind justice system, for all
  • Status quo is self-sustaining
  • Popularity of an opinion means it’s true
  • He who picks the parts is not responsible for performance
  • Bad information GIGO doesn’t impair problem solving
  • Information is not corrupted at interfaces
  • Force can substitute for trust


The Multiplicity of Dysfunction

Starting assumption

Persons are unique. No two individuals have the same take on the operational reality. The subconscious mind of every individual fashions a mental model of reality from sensory inputs and extensive processing and integration of those inputs. Its calculations are biased by many factors, unique to the individual, of experience and context most of them unknown. If the subconscious mind encounters gaps in the inputs, it fills them up with fiction.


Because of this inherent uniqueness, no two individuals assess the consequences of Plan A the same. The only way for alignment to occur is having both parties together cheek by jowl at the work face. There, they can correct discrepancies on the spot by reference to ground-truth reality, right in front of both of them. This is what MitMs do. If the discrepancies in mental models of task-action consequences are not ironed-out in this way, as you go, errors take their place in the frame of reference going forward.

Regarding social behavior there are only two basic categories of JQP people.

  • Delusionists
  • Implementers

The delusion category consists of insecure people who confine themselves to the realm of fixed false beliefs – the official definition of delusion. The delusionists identify themselves by debates about abstractions rather than fact-finding. The delusionists form cliques, cabals, and debating societies where groupthink policy scribes a playing field of delusions in contrived, fact-free, zero-sum competition. No matter how you compete, at the end of the day nothing is debunked by implementation. People compete in zero-sum debates knowing that, winner or loser, your delusions will not be put to test in the operational reality by your opponents. The society of today is teeming with delusionists.

In a collective of CEOs, all delusionists by role, each CEO thinks his organization is better run than the others. Any joint affairs dealing with the consequences of Plan A collide with the condition where every member is certain that every other CEO member is the cause of the problem. In this situation, with every CEO blaming every other CEO for the issue, like all delusionists, nothing ever gets done.

It is impossible for delusionists to debate a viable solution into the operational reality, whether a consensus among the delusionists is reached or not. Sustaining fixes to complex problems are never attained by winning debates.

The implementer category consists of people who take strategies and concepts from delusion-land into the operational reality for implementation and measurement of efficacy.  By necessity, implementers engage the delusionist realm and choose a promising concept to implement. The implementer then translates the concept into physical functions, part numbers, and task actions. This creative process, intrinsic to all goal seeking, is called the Franceschi Fitting. The MitM always does the last step, designing and assigning tasks to the workers. Incessant disturbances impinging on the process usually require redesign and reassign by the MitM several times a shift to maintain production. That is why trusting intimacy with the workface action is the foundation of prosperity.


There is a difference between self-construal, how individuals perceive, comprehend, and interpret their context – particularly the behavior and action of others towards themselves, and construal in a social atmosphere. It is how choices are made when some necessary information to make an objective choice is missing.

Meanings of a message are always conditional upon the source. In social construal, you base your actions on the opinions and actions of everybody else. Yet self-construal influences your self-esteem. Everybody thinks their own mental models of reality, perceptions managed by the subconscious, are an accurate description of how things are.

The Plan A effectiveness zone

In the grand scheme of social behavior, Plan A has an application zone with small tribal collectives where it works satisfactorily and effectively enough to promote clan survival. It is the plan of social living we grew up in, socially conditioned to embrace, and the vehicle our species used to make it to the 21st century. Plan A is the exclusive province of the subconscious mind. It is nobrainer-instinctive and the worn path of least organizational resistance. It is spring loaded with massive consequences.

Where Plan A is applied outside of its sweet spot, it is antithetical to Darwinian survival. It’s plain to see that Plan A is bringing an end to our electronically-powered civilization in no way different than the fall of the Roman Empire. The plan for social living effective for the tribe does not work for human collectives of greater size. You either have to limit the size of the collective, as standard for the Amish and Mennonites, or migrate to Plan B where your conscious mind is on perpetual triage duty over the directives streaming from your subconscious mind to your consciousness.

Plan B is Darwinian for any social system in any context. While Plan B is as instinctive, its maintenance depends upon the continuous application of the conscious mind. To think or not-to-think. That is the question. It has been known for centuries that socially-conditioned humans are loath to think for themselves, perpetually choosing hope over experience.

Pre-Plan B ignition

Plan B’s hallmark is incontrovertibility. It is the Plan B goal in perpetuity, its shield against veto, and the ticket to Maslow-grade self-actualization.

The defense of infallibility as the foremost functionality that characterizes the ruling class was formed when the first hierarchy appeared. Infallibility is the oxygen the ruling class needs to exist. Almost as ancient is the objective questioning of the logic of that ancient claim. No matter how your reasoning about the matter of infallibility takes place, sooner or later you end up in the theater of the absurd.  Because infallibility is ad infinitum, the 2nd Law drives infallible to ruin. Remaining fixated on infallibility, rule-based behavior, while context evolves is pre-paid insurance to extinction. It always was.

Over time, legions of logicians have shown that the concept of infallibility is fundamentally and logically false. Alan Turing was the first to assemble the mathematics that makes it so. Since the institution absolutely requires the concept of infallibility to function, to exist, the scene is set for a head on collision with the approaching future. By materializing and enforcing the culture of infallibility, institutions drive their inhabitants to cognitive dissonance. The choice is to be logical and objective or defend infallibility. Since these two matters are in a joint restriction, institution man cannot do both. If you can be irrational about infallibility, the required defense of infallibility progressively turns you into a public liar.

Unlike infallibility, which has to be defended with tenacious mendacity and eternal vigilance, incontrovertibility cannot be defended at all. The claim of infallibility must be taken on faith. It cannot be questioned or challenged. The claim of incontrovertibility is established by the endless auditing efforts of those striving to controvert the house-of-cards claim. To destroy incontrovertibility, all it takes is to identify one legitimate controvertible element.

The auditor is given the claim statement and the scrutable connections to natural law that comprise it – hard transparency. The framers of the incontrovertibility claim take no part in the audit. It’s up to the auditor to locate a controvertible in the declaration of incontrovertibility. If none is found, the claim holds by default. The auditor cannot claim controvertible without indicating the specific defect. If he challenges the natural laws upon which incontrovertibility must rest, he risks public ridicule.

One situation where incontrovertibility has clear practical application is in litigation. In effect, the defendant has the same predicament as the auditors. Since subjectivity cannot be transformed by credentials and authority into objective fact, the incontrovertible side cannot lose. This exact same predicament automatically applies in any setting of any audience where one side is there to benchmark the other.

It is helpful to recognize that the power of incontrovertibility takes effect at a level of cognition above the normal level of social intercourse, usually above the mentor line. The incontrovertibility attribute is never discussed directly with the participants, for several reasons including the inference gap. To the population, the incontrovertible is something that is felt and reacted-to rather than understood. Known by the practitioner who set the stage, the people are unaware their behavior is being shaped by forces beyond their ken and anyone’s control. The actors themselves are fully replaceable without a bump in the scenario. The social system behaves the way it does because it has to.

The piles and piles of data of Plan A consequences, information and knowledge that have to be gathered and evaluated at considerable and painstaking effort – point nowhere. After the design answer is in hand, the process used to get it seems, looking rearward, circuitous and erratic. No one can figure a sensible way to straighten out the path before the fact.

Plan A is backed up by the inertia of culture. Few can bear the mental-model demolition and reframing process of their habits of belief. Lifelong misconceptions will generally be preferred to the pain of change and the social rebuff that attends it. For the barrier of cultural norms, divinity is helpless.

The population has been socially conditioned to believe that primitive forces, like a natural law, require human consent before becoming operational. That is, to ignore a natural law is the equivalent of neutralizing it, keeping it safely parked in its garage. This hallucination invariably leads to attempts at defiance of the natural laws that were initially just ignored. The problem with defiance mode is that it makes matters worse at a runaway pace.

 The zero sum approach

The joint propensity to view a negotiation as purely distributive; what one side wins, the other side loses. A zero sum game is a situation where losses incurred by a player in a transaction result in an equal increase in the gains of the opposing player. It is named this way because the net effect after gains and losses on both sides equals zero. Plan B allows no zero sum operation in workforce

zero-sum thinking refers to a psychological construct—a person’s subjective interpretation of a situation. Zero-sum thinking is captured by the saying “your gain is my loss” (or conversely, “your loss is my gain”).”A general belief system about the antagonistic nature of social relations, shared by people in a society or culture and based on the implicit assumption that a finite amount of goods exists in the world, in which one person’s winning makes others the losers, and vice versa […] a relatively permanent and general conviction that social relations are like a zero-sum game. People who share this conviction believe that success, especially economic success, is possible only at the expense of other people’s failures.”

Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking; it is people’s tendency to intuitively judge that a situation is zero-sum, even when this is not the case. This bias promotes zero-sum fallacies, false beliefs that situations are zero-sum. Such fallacies can cause other false judgments and poor decisions. In economics, “zero-sum fallacy” generally refers to the fixed-pie fallacy.

When individuals think that a situation is zero-sum, they will be more likely to act competitively (or less cooperatively) towards others, because they will see others as a competitive threat. For example, when students think that they are being graded on a curve—a grading scheme that makes the allocation of grades zero-sum—they will be less likely to provide assistance to a peer who is proximate in status to themselves, because that peer’s gain could be their own loss. When individuals perceive that there is a zero-sum competition in society for resources like jobs, they will be less likely to hold pro-immigration attitudes (because immigrants would deplete the resource). Zero-sum thinking may also lead to certain social prejudices.


True Confession

In 2009, I did a white paper on the collision we had with the “barrier” attempting to “fix” organizational dysfunction. Yes, the very same barrier you encountered throughout your careers. Forlorn and stymied to advance the cause, I decided to relocate my workspace above the mentor line and exercise my gifts in knowledge development and systems think until death. All of my mentors passed on miserable that their work failed to garner the esteem it deserved. No misery for me!

Going against the grain of my mentors while several were still alive, I assaulted my socially-conditioned repertoire of assumptions.

In 2013, when we cracked the barrier to Plan B, having new laboratories to test new concepts, hyper learning, we rocketed higher and higher above the mentor line, level by level. Every associate of ours, steadfast during the years of failed attempts, now paralyzed at the thought of going above the mentor line to blessed success, abandoned us. Of course there are no mentors above the mentor line! Lesson learned, no hard feelings. Look how much rejection explains!


The FLLP Thrift Store

Proverbs IV, 7: Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

Design is foresighted prevention.

Inform re Plan B so that DI plea fails.

Acute angst. Mindful = gatekeeping. Delusionists refuse to shift focus to implementation, problem solving

Understanding comes with taking responsibilities for implementation

The Plan B practitioner deals direct. The interventionist deals indirectly through the MitMs.

Business relations are infected through and through with the disease of short-sighted motives.

The state of affairs in 2012 had progress stalled and all attempts to advance further, based on our basic assumptions, failed to gain traction. Trying to promote our work in damage prevention, we kept running into the Plan A barrier. It was as far as we ever got working below the mentor line.

Intellectual chaperone – interventionist

Plan B enables foreseeability

The field of ignorance is always larger than the estimate. Reliable information comes only the hard way, i.e., ground truth and knowledge development, and the hard way also entails error. Requisite knowledge integration is communal. It is importing additional, new knowledge and synthesizing existing internal knowledge. It is hard messy work.

To be enrolled, each individual must take an oath of allegiance to its ideology – business as usual. The benchmark for Plan A behavior is set at the swearing-in ceremony. The culturally compliant buy the groupthink image and stamp it on themselves.

The willingness to ruin the institution in order to sustain the illusion of infallibility, a class distinction in the face of all manner of the obvious, is groupthink. Since no lessons are ever learned, why bother. After crisis response is spent, there is no next play in the organizational gamebook. It’s always back to business as usual – the efficient cause of the crisis. No one dares to notice.

The universal Plan A stratagem is not a display of the criminal mind, but the forced incapacity to advance knowledge at all – The price for preserving infallibility.

The response of the world to Plan B is schizophrenic. All MitMs note that the wider your reputation for solving tough problems, the less likely the institution will be interested in your services until after it has made a horrible mess. When you manage to pull them back from the precipice, they run you out of town.

All incentive systems fail

Everyone in Plan A has an excuse for consequences delivered except the MitM, who is too poor to litigate. Stakeholders are left with the damage – usufruct

No one in Plan A is responsible for sustainable prosperity. It is the defense to the stakeholders who accept it. There is no recourse.

In Plan B responsibility for success is freely taken in particular for success, general or particular.

Publicize the existence of a Plan B to all. Your duty as PE. Management auto-inherits vicarious liability: imputed negligence. Deliberate ignorance

MitMs use PE conditions of license as standard of care.  Duties include warning: foreseeability, responsibility. Trial and error imputed.

After being informed, denial sets up tort

The can be no truce between Plan A and Plan B. Inalienable rights are either in or out.

First thing head shed does is take away the inalienable rights of its workforce.

The MitM is the guy the other levels in the hierarchy abort their imputed responsibility to

Leaving the cognitive comforts of rule-based behavior is the only path to a happy way of life.

Whoever picks the parts owns the behavior

Learn. Self learning: apply and test

Build confidence and make veteran contact.

Prepare SoC based on existing law, as a manager-proof defensive shield, and stop rules. Management, not a profession, has no legal SoC

Spread Plan B awareness. It’s the offensive.  Changes liability for damage. Willful blindness.

You can’t go wrong in spreading Plan B awareness. There are no downsides.

Stakeholder legal action. Plan A is war against the stakeholders

Failure to prosper becomes an actionable offense

Rule-based behavior is not a SoC

Plan B brings liability

You can rely on management behaving by universal management groupthink.

When is blind OTA a crime? Plan B existence makes it so.

Superpowers: Personalization and gratitude (Rogerian triad). It changes your social experience for the better.

The Plan B guarantee is that the factors listed, being interrelated in a system, will all be fixed at the same time when the cause is fixed.

The question is if you were hauled into court to face plaintiff lawyers regarding stakeholder damage attributed to your negligence, would you prevail. (Kansas City walkway collapse.) “I was only following orders is rejected as an excuse.”

Plan A is the all-there-is excuse. Plan A reacts. Plan B prevents.

Plan A has excuses preset for everyone. As the only plan

Live by a SoC that will prevail in court. A SoC beats rule-based behavior.

Never ask anything from management. Implementation facts only. Awareness of Plan B. Spreading awareness is all positive.

Refusing to demo Plan B is statutory deliberate ignorance.

Workforce as stakeholder can sue management for damages sustained by atrocities. Other stakeholders can do same.

Who is damaged by Plan A. Which stakeholders get what?

Like tort, Plan B existence makes Plan A perpetrators culpable for its damages

No code of ethics, no moral standard ever condoned Plan A wreckage on stakeholders or their communities.

Record of Plan A atrocities government-supported and legally immune.

Plan A living outside of its zone of effectiveness has produced conditions so toxic that the implementation of Plan B delivers substantial benefits. When the target benefits, the MitM benefits. Transcendence

Ain’t it awful is defense

Positive reciprocity is the end goal

Plan A management is usufruct. It plays zero sum with society, extracting income and leaving its mess for others to clean up

An ecosystem is a group of interconnected elements, formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their environment – any system or network of interconnecting and interacting parts, as in a business.

Personalization, + reciprocity superpower

  • Necessary preconditions are exacting and inflexible
  • The target makes the choices on automatic
  • No baiting
  • If you screw up, it is unrecoverable.

Implementation is where reality overtakes delusion.

You are, by convention, deferred from prosecution for committing an offense causing injury until after the damage is done.

MBA schools provide students with a vocabulary that enables them to talk with authority about subjects they do not understand.

Groupthink transmits a set of principles, holding in common an ability to withstand any amount of disconfirming evidence. Russell Ackoff

While all agree with Einstein  “Without changing our pattern of thought (loyalty driven?) we will not be able to solve the problems we created with our current patterns of thought.” They never ask what are your current patterns of thought. None have a clue.  No clue and their failures cannot be understood.

The standard of care of Plan A is itself, business as usual, oblivious to disturbances and threats. The standard of care of Plan B is established law-based, natural and civil, and responsive to disturbances and threats. Plan A, the path of least organizational resistance, doesn’t know where to begin – other than business as usual.

Tout your case on the SoC as top authority, as established by law. Foreseeability.

To migrate to Plan B does not require anything from management, psychological or material. Don’t ask anyone for permissions.

When Plan B matured, Plan A became illegal by the same laws established to protect Plan A personnel from responsibility for its consequences.

Learning Plan B theory gets you positioned to obtain benefits. Personal pent-up angst removal always comes first.

System think and knowledge of system laws is requisite. Transfer functions, stability, synchronization and disturbances. In implementation, those competent in applied system think can run circles around those who avoid it.

Plan A, by itself, has no reference to measure the aggregate functional consequences of its dysfunction. Costs spread around

The traumatic disturbance to Plan A mindset  is the existence of Plan B. Subconscious at a loss for response

The involuntary movements of clever people in angst

What are the dynamical distinctions that separate a social system, a network of grey flesh, from systems of metal? Nothing

A system in equilibrium does not reveal its behavior in disturbance

If you don’t know the dynamics of the prime mover, the cause, you cannot mitigate the manifest effects. You can neither understand Plan B nor contribute to its success without system think. We can now prove the cause is above the mentor line. System think is the only access. Socialization sees system think as a threat to OTA, which it is.

The material monuments left by a fallen civilization attest to its Plan A and Plan B systems of organization. Only versions of Plan B could have built Stonehenge and Khufu’s pyramid. Plan A artifacts are limited to spearheads. The controlling establishments do not want this fact recorded in history. Plan A cannot put a man on the moon. Plan A can produce pollution but it cannot curb its source.

Operating on the material consequences, the effects, leaves the cause unidentified and unaltered. If you don’t know the functional components of the dysfunctional system, you cannot ascertain the system causing the material effects.

Anyone could join a primitive tribe and fit in, as-is.

Without a way to disturb the Plan A social system at its core, there is no way to determine value system, functional scope and interdependencies – its transfer function.

Regardless of threats, a system in dysfunction cannot be the instrument of its fix. Nash.

Ackoff requisite. Understand system Plan A, the starting point. Understand the goal line, system Plan B. Work out a viable means to go from A to B. Inferential staircase, ladder of logic, platform

The 2.5 rule prevents the head shed from using its authority to establish prosperity. Punishment of the revenue crew can never deliver prosperity.

History only contains cases where fixing a consequence was reversed by the Nash.

Before B and after B performance is the only way to measure Plan A. Scope and consequences of the damage of Plan A

You do not need permission to revise the mental models of your conscious mind

The universal scenario poster. Offer.

When Plan B became viable, had the tool for:

  • Defining social system core functionality
  • Explaining how Plan A fails
  • Maintaining Plan B

Debates are zero sum

MitMs do not need permission to learn and emulate Plan B or to infuse their revenue crew with its principles.

JQP does not need permission to learn so as to save himself.

Change the org chart as you will, the power to deliver prosperity stays with the front line leader.

Sit on your mental ass

JQP – angst, act together, trust, offense

Learning Plan B changes how you relate to people. Instant evaluation by the subconscious occurs before the first work is spoken. Can’t fake authenticity. If you are evaluated don’t trust, you’re scope is restricted. That’s why angst-removal comes first in getting your act together. People quickly read your angst level.

It’s why delusionists can only debate delusionists. In debates, when the encounter is over, the original issue is still there delivering the consequences it was before the debate.

If initial scan by the subconscious determines angst, insecurity, inauthentic, incompetent, self-assuredness, the personalization process must be slowed down and careful. If you pass the subconscious evaluation with no worse than provisional, the personalization plan will work summarily.

Focusing on implementation performance as the criterion of success solves the individual variety conflict factor. The hierarchy values class distinctions far above performance.

Chart where Plan A turns toxic

A high-anxiety mind has no energy to be curious

A sustainable prosperity-centered democracy

Plan A automatically turns toxic above two levels, depending upon the particular people it can make three levels work but no higher. Above three levels particulars don’t matter.

Politics is zero sum debates about delusions not implementations. Cling to superior status paramount

The organizational chorale rings with a strong ruling-class accent.

Head sheds are loose cannons because nothing has the power to constrain them.

Management cannot restrain the MitMs either.

RGP on positive reciprocity universal

There are conditions of social living where the MitM can execute an algorithm which will elicit positive reciprocity in his JPQ target in any social situation. It is a procedure confined to the curious mind.

Initialization is the hardest part as the MitM must have his act together in several ways before the benefit stream starts. Target audiences are everywhere.

People are quick to evaluate a person for angst, authenticity, competency, and empathy.

The streaming benefits associated with this algorithm are delivered on the spot, or not at all. No lags

Human nature and nominal social conditioning sets the path of least organizational resistance (cognitively effortless) straight to Plan A. It is one reason why turnover undermines any progress made. The default to Plan A is omnipresent in our genome.

As you undoubtedly expect, Plan B requires incessant conscious-mind attention. Until Plan B is established, there are various sorts of resistance to be dealt with. When Plan B is humming, its maintenance encounters no resistance. The workforce is well aware of what is has with Plan B and understands the effort it takes to keep Plan A in the attic.

Once over the tipping point when Plan B windfalls stream in, it is prudent to quietly work out the rough spots and let the benefits accumulate.

Rule orders man to his final goal. Society over individual

Rights only in the context of a virtuous society

Human flourishing

Require Divine grace to do good. Must fear divine retribution to behave

Hierarchy as supernatural power – permits it to use top-down coercion, deny rights.

We are not ruled. Your rights are inert until animated by a culture of independence, a spirit of liberty that brings them to life. Living by a code of human-friendly morals.

They inhabit the realm of value, not fact. Intention, not results. Judgement not proof. Delusion

Encountering a maelstrom of subconscious reflexes.

Academia has taken over from religion as the primary institution of moral instruction.

The lag between changing reality and its apprehension.

Keystone trust before offensive

Self-serving bias

Depersonalization disorder. Detach from reality until the crisis is over. Emergency response to angst. Turning down emotions. Sense of self slips away. Moral judgments weigh anchor

Be judged by what you said you want to do rather than what you did.

The masterful hypocrisy of the immoral brain

People are not good experimenters. Don’t know how to seek the truth

Prefer theories that have no basis in fact. Loyalty to beliefs. Incredulity is hard work for the brain.

The subconscious is capricious and temperamental, the prima donna within.

Social psychology

The world is indifferent, not just

Resolve losses is the prime doing within

Run the people to your test v run a test on the situation you have naturally

Implementation levels bigotry. Production is measure of worth.

The fear that Plan B works

From idea, abstract, to flow diagram (physical functionality). From flow diagram to parts list to implementation and operation of tangibles.

While there are grand designs bigger than you, those monuments are not bigger than us.

No one can be assigned a duty of role-fulfillment without commensurate opportunity and rights to deliver the role.

Worker independency – responsibility/independence. Rights go with responsibility-taking.

2nd Law, 2½ rule

The only reason for Plan B is streaming, sustainable organizational prosperity. It’s an offensive campaign

Nothing on class warfare. Nothing to raise workers. Nothing against management. No appeal to morals, ethics, fairness.

Management is the sabotage of prosperity. Veblen. Came before Ca’canny

There is in fact a category of people who get unusually close to the truth about themselves and the world. Their self-perceptions are more balanced, they assign responsibility for success and failure more even-handedly, and their predictions for the future are more realistic. These people are living testimony to the dangers of self-knowledge. They are the clinically depressed.  Cordelia Fine

Faith is impervious to evidence. Trust is contingent on demonstration

Craven in action with impaired thinking.

The well-lived human life

Given what they had become

Looking up to them only at a steep angle

Higher learning is about ends not means

Natural Law is a pregnant phrase.

Trust is the master key to everything

Cannot transcend impermanence; nothing is permanent

Attempts to approximate truth that frequently different from one another

The principle, the essence, of a human

Trust is a precondition for prosperity.

Plan A is routine-think, defend status quo from change, business as usual, at all costs. Behold the social system.

System think. Can you really have a problem with X when Y is true?

If in high-stakes it can be untrustworthy and treacherous, you provisionally engage distrust mode. You don’t trust by people you distrust.

How can I trust a stranger, a representative of the Establishment, or company policy to teach me about trust?

A society that admits misery, a humanity that admits war, seem to me an inferior society and a debased humanity; it is a higher society and a more elevated humanity at which I am aiming – a society without kings, a humanity without barriers.

Maturation into role

Each level of the hierarchy has a distinctive role to fulfill, a distinctive responsibility to organizational prosperity. Coaching is about role fulfillment

Complexity is number of, ambiguity, rate of change, and interdependency density

Communication strata and interfaces

Plan B concepts are selectively cannibalistic. Ignore what doesn’t work because it can’t work

The managerial hierarchy – vision, primary function, generalized functions. The workforce – FF physical functions to part numbers to operations. One role – keynote

The keystone is not a free-standing role. It is not detached from the managerial hierarchy or the workforce it is part of.  Relationships with the social network is where the keystone role takes place.

The keystone role sets the framework within which the social behavior of his zone takes place.

Authority is vested, role-power is earned. Role-based authority

As he did with the interventionist in the FLLP, the keystone goes along together with his staff down Plan B process.

Chronic underperformance, Plan A

When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right of the majority to command, but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind. Alexis de Tocqueville

Failure to fulfill role brings distrust

Fussing over leadership is a placebo

You all go into the breach together

Delusionists behave without a goal

Prosperity only by goal-directed behavior

Without keystone and trust no one is going to lead anyone anywhere

Plan B is giving substance to that which is required for organizational prosperity.

Holding anyone accountable is punishment and the loss of trust. Free taking of responsibility with autonomy.

Planning without trust is a farce

Knowledge overtaken by events

Value adding

FF defines roles

Learn from practice

High variety Ashby for high variety issues

Plan A is cognitive overload. Personality clashes override Plan A operations. Organized for status not prosperity.

Delusionists have hollow language. Implementers concrete

Who is held accountable for results is boss. Keystone has no boss.

Plan B is continuous improvement which means change.

Organizing for prosperity. The requisites for prosperity are absolute

Plan B is building a secure home with others, and nothing else.

Variety is key to prosperity. Ashby control theory. Plan A drives to eliminate variety. Plan B encourages variety.

In Plan A, powerless to act with others to solve problems, each man is thrown back on himself.

Everybody feels the evil, but no one has courage or energy enough to seek the cure. Alexis de Tocqueville

Conceptually, Plan A links everyone, from worker to CEO, in one chain of command. Conformance is an obsession. Groupthink instructs that all things can be changed, improved, rationalized, and made to conform to a comprehensive, ruling-class-controlled system.

It is impossible to win in zero sum competition without cost.

Selfie-man where the world around us becomes important only by virtue of our presence in it. Declaring much, he does little.

Self-interest, rightly understood, includes relations with others.

Ruling class assumes it has unilateral and complete control of social behavior by force.

We live in a non-parsimonious world, interconnected and unknowable, that does not cohere as a system to be managed by potentates.

Going beyond your parochial horizon.

The stream of choices you have to make to remain viable is a reminder that unbounded freedom, like infallibility, is an impossibility.

Plan A people feel themselves oscillating between being greater than kings, as on social media, and less than men, happily handing over their keys to their future to people they distrust.

Episodic activism

Building a Plan B organization is done bottom-up, the workforce first.

Supplements do not equate to substitutes.

Feelings of the heart are enlarged, and the understandings expanded only upon positive reciprocity, the beneficent actions of men one upon another. Tocq

Liminal space. Get into liminal space first, a break from the original state.

The fig leaf of impunity. The leadership-centered society. The fig leaf of infallibility/innocence

With waning energy, you put change out of your mind and coast with the others to oblivion.

The embodied life of citizens

Building towards Plan B all starts with face to face relations

Impugn – assail

Plan A condemns, Plan B redeems.

Deep internal agitations – angst

You learn where your home is (Plan B) and where it is not (Plan A).

Mixed legacy of prosperity to bankruptcy

A repudiation of hope

A peril of hubris, elites tighten their grip on authority but it’s only their power to punish.

The floggings escalate “until morale improves” because no other kind of response to leadership failure is possible.

Virulent tribalism

A big ball of wrong

Conformity, compliance, obedience

Trust requires expectations of reciprocity and shared social identity. Honesty, fairness, benevolence

Not issues, not keystone; not trust

Distrust noted for poor health even with universal health care.

Trust is always and only between two individuals and a task

  • Low angst, self-confidence personalization
  • Reciprocity
  • Self-deprecation
  • POSIWID-consistent
  • No zero sum
  • Responsibility/autonomy
  • Win-win only


Contingent variables (structural and process)  provisional  the fulfillment of a condition before inheriting value as a consideration

Contingent issues, concerns, opportunities, values, sciences (Psychology, sociology, anthropology)

Issues where effects are used mistakenly as causes for other effects

Management leadership general staff culture talent intelligence experience compliance obedience

OD is distrust equifinality via several routes. Distrust comes before dysfunction

Abandon all hope for Plan B denial. Can’t deny the ramifications of Plan B either

Zero sum causes and reinforces class distinctions, polarization

Competition overrides inalienable rights

Cognitive dissonance is a drag on trust

Distributive justice, square deal

Opportunistic behavior

Force v benevolence

Control of other’s outcomes

Exhibit vulnerability

Distributive justice

Keystone is collaboration, not competition

Aggression is towards goal attainment, not competition

FF is the secret to problem solving.

The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved. They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license. Alexis de Tocqueville

When the keystone role is fulfilled, his workers can be trusted to fulfill their roles.

Only the knobs associated with the keystone role work.

Every unnecessary lie is a threat to betraying trust, inciting resentment.

Plan B erodes the projected assumption of the immunity of Plan A to responsibility for its consequences.

In trust-enabled Plan B, where complexity and uncertainty are kept low, interpersonal trust comes naturally.

Trust begins where prediction ends.

Trust and distrust are at the center of social process, a variegated and irreducible phenomenon.

Personalization is a precondition for reciprocal trust.

The practical significance of trust is the social behavior it underwrites.

Institutional trust is a mix of intuition and cognition underwritten by interpersonal trust.

In Plan A, the workforce has no responsibility to raise productivity. Plan A assumes productivity is a management function, insuring that stupidity is never in short supply.

Those that can improve productivity will take responsibility for it

In Plan B, management has no role in improving productivity. The workforce needs no permissions or authority or time to raise productivity. There is nothing to buy.

The plan is secondary to the reality

The workforce social system is the heart of Plan B

Unrelieved gloom. Sensitive to rank and status. Higher status, more dopamine

Accept vulnerability based on expectations of the behavior of another. Trust is two people and a task

Zero-sum is distrust-based. Fairness violations precipitated distrust. Distrust is angst, high transaction costs, unreliable communications, and negative reciprocity. Trust is positive reciprocity

Idle wheels in the machinery. Rubbish, refuse pile. Throwing information away

Genes are not deterministic

Reliance can only disappoint. Trust, always fragile, can be betrayed. Never lie to a trusted associate

Self-deprecation signals low angst and high self-confidence. Trusting you by reciprocity

If it’s not keystone, the topic is superfluous. If it’s zero sum, the consequences are unavoidable.

Production is a Plan A goal. Productivity is not.

Teacher as foreman?

FF is the scrutable linkage between the imaginary, fanciful, delusional, and hypothetical to primary function, to generalized functions. From generalized functions an intellectual leap of creative thought takes the abstractions to material reality. The link continues from generalized functions across the conceptual break in the linkage to physical functions and the tangibles that deliver them. When the parts are procured for system configuration, the spotlight swings to process and the design and assign of tasks to the implementation workforce.

Anthology of horrors

Keystone, directing his chorus of workers is free to improve or destruct

Unconscious springs of action

With mutual veto power, Keystone is the only role that can create successful initiatives on its own volition.

In Plan B, no one has to lose so that another can gain. The tide of increasing prosperity raises all boats.

When the command process forces some lower levels to take the hit in zero sum combat, organizational productivity goes to dwell in hell. When the powerless victims of zero sum will no longer willingly accept the losses, they jump the costs for those who impose losses on them.

Plan A treats inequality as a necessity for the hierarchy to remain in business.

Growth in prosperity and square-deal allocation is the essential social lubricant that keeps diverse peoples working together.

Security is top benefactor in intelligent growth, far higher than more pay. Since no individual can attain security apart from his social context, security is a collective action with collective decisions and collective coercion.

In Plan A, to avoid punishment, everyone wants to be protected from their mistakes. In Plan B, where punishment is contrary to the operational doctrine and homage is paid to individual initiative, mistakes are taken as signs of due diligence.

Social decay and destruction are caused by identifiable human actions that can be controlled.

To rescue is to control, to undercut the existing system.

Innovation in process and productivity is a small fraction of the cost for innovation in product.

In Plan B the distribution of work and benefits is up to the workforce, not management.

Deal with the political process as a precondition for dealing with the prosperity process.

Subgroup distribution fairness is a task for the subgroup.

Civilization itself is an agreed upon set of rules of behavior.

If the FF does not get done responsibly, the action that does take place will not attain the goal.

Authority by vote, power by trust

Can’t overrule the math. Math and instincts. Instincts you can overrule

POSIWID – actions betray stated intentions

So much effort to so little effect. Confusing effects with causes. Taking one effect as cause for another.

The keystone encapsulates the interests of his work gang

Trust does for process, system dynamics, what keystone does for superstructure, system statics.

Understanding distrust is a precondition for understanding trust. You don’t distrust inanimate objects. You don’t rely on them.

Accepted vulnerability requires low angst and high self-confidence.

After trust is betrayed, system behavior becomes suspect, ulterior.

Behave to your commitment and the rest doesn’t matter.

There is no Plan B without reciprocating trust. Trust is necessary for productive implementation to function at all.

Absolute blank incredulity – catatonia

Authority gives you the right to punish with impunity. Power is a commitment to never punish

No trust, no use

While helpful, it is not necessary to become knowledgeable about Plan A to transpose to Plan B. You don’t reach system Plan B status by responding to the consequences of system Plan A. The FLLP takes you as you are.

The benefit package for establishing trust is grossly underestimated. The skills of trust-building are many but they pay off for the keystone daily. There is nothing to buy. Trust is fragile but free.

Trust is two people and a task. Without trust-building skills, the keystone is reduced to inflicting punishment, taking things from bad to worse.

The head shed is a cathedral to distrust-based transactions. Management has no use for trust building skills because it can’t operate on trust even if it knew how to build it. Since equal-opportunity betrayal of trust is normal, ruling-class groupthink as usual, the head shed is distrusted by everyone, including their own. Ask any keystone.

Nature ordains all keystones.

Information overtaken by events

Value adding by head shed is zero

FF defines roles along with layers of abstraction

Mutual trust before square deal and honesty.

Individual value before trust

Security comes after trust. Distrust is insecurity

For delusionist, doctrine of intentions has higher value than actions v actions have value over intentions

Yesterday the CEO called on the marble Zeus. Though marble and though Zeus, liquidation is today.

Once you put the mounds of pieces and parts together, the keystone MitM role makes perfect sense. From the functional perspective, all keystone species are caught between their nature and their subjects. If the keystone species is a predator, it is uniquely equipped to control the population of its prey. If the prey species is not so constrained, it overpopulates the ecosystem at the expense of everything else.

With the MitM in a hierarchical social system, his keystone function is to import head-shed “visions,” on the one hand, and issue task action particulars to the revenue crew on the other. The process of interpreting potentate “visions,” aka hallucinations, progressively down the layers of generalizations to physical functions to tangible stuff is an exact description of the keystone role. Only MitMs are in this position. Management is confined to generalizations and labor is confined to the task actions specified by their MitMs. Without this translation process, from abstract to material, there can be no ecosystem. Accommodating the MitM functionality is why large groups must be hierarchical.

Implementation is the only way to neutralize mental model variety that would otherwise prevent collaborative goal attainment. Delusions must become partners in implementation to contribute.

Force v benevolence, great divide

Plan B existence is the ultimate offensive weapon

Misalignment of mental models of reality is crucial to goal-seeking. Anytime a delusionist is involved, mismatch is certain. There is no basis for correcting mental model incongruency, driver of dysfunctional joint affairs. Dysfunction brings ineffectiveness. Transactions destroy trust and make matters worse.

Communication between mental models of reality, exclusive province of the subconscious mind, when mismatched, multiply the dysfunction.

If you want membership in the cabal, you must commit to its groupthink, abandoning all ties with the facts of the operational reality.

Ineffectiveness brings depersonalization, starting the blame game. Confirmation bias amplifies the mismatch, leading to the inability to cooperate and escalating conflict.

First reflex is to blame a name.

If you engage delusionists on their playing field, you lose. On their field no one can win

In the flowing stream of life, all know you have to make progress to hold your GPS position. All progress is made by implementing future-based concepts. Recycling the past norms of action does not work.

Without shared understandings of the OD consequences, there is no basis for agreeing on a course of remedy

If the concept can’t be implemented to benefit society, all that’s left to do is change the concept, an informed creative act.

Ask to audit concept application

Demo Plan B

Work together to figure out how to implement your interesting concept

Express the concept as you understand it and ask, How would you do it? Where can I see it expressed?

Is the issue on the A-B list?

Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannize but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. Alexis de Tocqueville

Plan A revokes Inalienable Rights (IR) and legal rights as a condition of employment, mocking the species-wide square-deal instinct. For Plan A to be functionally stable and produce, the ruling class must use suspension of IR for others as behavior-controlling tactic, the only form of punishment at its disposal. It revokes IR of the revenue crew, including, but not limited to, life, liberty and the pursuit of property, prosperity, and happiness.

Only people in Plan A are fearful of robots and AI taking their jobs

After reaching Plan B, you’ll never again worry about AI getting ahead of the human intelligence that creates it

The highest power of Plan B is its existence. The disturbance to the Plan A social system of the existence of a Plan B is enough to cause catatonia. There are many ways to deliver this disturbance without knowing much more about Plan B than that it exists.

Because of multiplicity, the harmonizing of variety in the workforce as a precondition for implementation is categorically impossible. The Plan B paradigm uses coordination in implementation as the indirect means to neutral the variety. Working together towards prosperity, where the measure is goal-seeking performance rather than conformance, relegates the differences in the worker characteristics to humor, both ways, and inconsequential.

After reaching Plan B, you’ll never again worry about AI getting more intelligent than the human that creates it.

Plan B is a special case of self-control

Come to understand your true value. Personal and social

Plan B releases the MitM from the coercive control of defensiveness. He gets to design his own culture

All Plan B implementations are experiments.

In Plan A, if you ask for support up the chain of command using established protocols, you get high grades for conformance to policy. In Plan B, you get the support.

A monster with one idea

Insights heal

We do psychotherapy for angst-burdened MitMs, otherwise psychologically healthy. Assisting those malleable aspects of life to attain your compelling purpose. We do not address individual psychotic issues

The finiteness of yourself, relentlessly deteriorated by the 2nd Law, affirms the meaningless of your existence

Plan B: lowering the cost of truth, attainment

Every transaction, every communication across a social interface is a corruption of the original

Plan B is the epitome of social Darwinism. Plan A is its kryptonite.

Your purpose must be congruent with your assumptions of the operational reality being valid

Always a function translated into a task action FF, design assign. Delusion, generalizations, and abstraction are not functions

Understanding Plan A and B is the only way possible to find meaning in the flow of social events.

Angst blowdown is not a luxury: it is a Plan B necessity, milestone one

MitMs are left to make their own stories

Incessant waves of dysfunction

When a nation has matured, it must either change its laws and mores or perish, for the well of public virtue has run dry. In such a place one no longer finds citizens but only subjects. Alexis de Tocqueville

At no risk, Plan B allows you to get your hopes up. It is a lifeline across OD that frees you from the tyranny of rule-based behavior, constrained and thwarted by social circumstances beyond your control.

If you don’t gatekeep the imperatives posted by your subconscious mind, your fate is sealed at Plan A.

Should establish and keep track of outcome responsibilities, legitimate.

Establish in parallel who is doing FF – must be consistent with responsibility

The platinum rule yes. The golden rule no

GAIN control theory. How many know that gain is key to system stability

Reciprocity as instinct/reflex

Usufruct, con job, license for the rich to steal

Plan A cannot fix itself

Specialization removes responsibility for positive outcomes of the discipline

Implementers must circulate freely between the conceptual/delusionist domain and the operational reality

The behavior of the individual acting without social restraints is indeterminate, unpredictable.

Being at one with the system, the keystone is the only pathway to control

Implementer oxygen is ground truth, toxic to delusionists. Intelligence is impossible without it – GIGO.

No drive, persuasion, directives, criticism anywhere, anytime, not even as a last resort. Present facts, concepts and tools appropriate to the audience, free to decide for themselves.

Skepticism is an encouraged trait, vital to implementers. Refusing to examine implementation is not skepticism.

All fixes of the causes in Plan A are generic. Demonstrable as such. No debates.

Mixed audiences are always off limits to learning.

You can always tell when the cause of an issue is above the mentor line when the consequences increase oblivious to attempts below the mentor line to remedy. Persistence of consequences over time

Work is a four letter word. Fun is a three letter word. Plan B leverages the fun in dysfunctional Plan A. It’s the most fun you can have with your clothes on.

Become knowledgeable about the limitations of the subconscious mind.

A Plan A organization cannot fix itself.

Power is control, at one with the system, to do positive change. Authority is power to punish, no feedback, no control involved.

It’s not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the ‘right’ to education, the ‘right’ to health care, the ‘right’ to food and housing. That’s not freedom, that’s dependency. Those aren’t rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle. Alexis de Tocqueville

No permission required to launch offensive

It solves the problems of leadership, management and administration. Competitive advantage

Gain to excess produces sudden instability

MitMs, by role, Are 9% of the organization population controlling the efforts of 75% of the rest

Trust keeps adversaries off balance

Informing management about your law-based SoC and the existence of Plan B puts management in a “deliberate ignorance” alignment with tort law. Damaged stakeholders have a case inaccessible to them before Plan B.

Since the workforce is a network of subconscious minds, no inertia, feedback on progress is quick.

All innate social processes work to install and maintain Plan A. That’s why the transmutation must be a sprint. The husbandry of Plan B must be superior to the latent, innate erosion forces.

JPGs cannot deliver Plan B organizational prosperity directly

If your scheme requires permission from another, it won’t work.

Plan B sets the standard for morality. Plan A no lessons-learned

The thing head sheds do is install blocks to the attainment of their espoused goals

Great divide, usufruct, positive reciprocity, sprint, hyper-learning, groupthink, poster, turnover. No permissions. FF

How did humanity miss Plan B? Plan B changes your way of life and how you relate to people, for the better.

All social behavior is the result of translating a psychological concept originating in the subconscious into concrete action. Action itself validates the functionality of the FF. The fact it is unrecognized and random, without responsibility, does not mean the FF is being bypassed.

There is a limit to what can be achieved by solo effort. Influencing social system behavior in a sustaining positive way requires a cohort. Solidarity

Anyone who thinks social functionality at its best is a luxury suite on a cruise ship knows nothing about Maslow’s hierarchy of psychological success

Nothing the head shed does is required by law to be moral or make sense. Unethical is not illegal.

How far you have to go depends first on your starting conditions. The context is either congruent or counterproductive to attaining your purpose.

Men will not accept truth at the hands of their enemies, and truth is seldom offered to them by their friends. Alexis de Tocqueville

The Establishment has never asked why its exalted leaders have never delivered on social prosperity or psychological success for the people.

When the measure of worth, a prejudice, is implementation performance in social collaboration, all other prejudices lose their value. It solves the elitist class compulsion to differentiate by social classes.

The Plan A head shed conceals its powerlessness to deliver prosperity by oppressing the revenue crew. They want the illusion of being omnipotent more than organizational prosperity and psychological success for its members.

If your turnover is over 36%, all remedial efforts will fail.

If your social system is Plan A, it has no process for advancing with the advances. Collapse is only a matter of time.

Plan A is peppered with unavoidable pursuits of the impossible.

Trust is transactions cost, the delta chart is trust v distrust.

Distrust is self-reinforcing

The comfort of conformity

The keystones are Nature’s oligarchy

Concentrating on the trust-based functions of productivity and prosperity is the source of our conceptual advances.

Class distinctions are always deliberate

It is above all in the present democratic age that the true friends of liberty and human grandeur must remain constantly vigilant and ready to prevent the social power from lightly sacrificing the particular rights of a few individuals to the general execution of its designs. In such times there is no citizen so obscure that it is not very dangerous to allow him to be oppressed, and there are no individual rights so unimportant that they can be sacrificed to arbitrariness with impunity. Alexis de Tocqueville

Views: 124