Goodwill (trust-flow) Goodwill
multiplies not adds. Opportunity : the more positive trust of ever stakeholder the more communal surplus can be generated.
Risk : lose trust absolutely of any one group and zeroisation.
There are really only 2 energy relationship
system that organization designs spiral: trust connects joy, courage, love (no fear) of purpose,
stimulating progress whole preserving core, openness. This flow is only possible if in every interaction of the system's potential
conflicts are hunted out and resolved; and there are no boxes separating vital information flows distrust
connects despair, loss of hope, pessimism, passiveneness, lack of indomitable spirit need to help find solutions out of traps
for others as well as self, However we must permit some gateway emotions which different culture may
name differently: anger if its not turned to hatred or aggression is what causes people to stand up and protect those with
the least and demand changes to laws and constitutions which may once have been perfectly right but are no longer valid. If
you see a child abused (physically or structurally) you should feel anger and convert it into leadership presence and interactive
intervention Know the 3 C’s which open space innovation facilitators assume are
vital. Confusion is when top-down people insist one set of rules is 100% perfect,: this prevents seeing when the outside environment
has changed (or localities are more diverse than the top’s standard) and causes conflicts to enter into a once positively
energized system; conflicts once entered spread like wildfire producing a chaotic system ; by the time a system is chaotic
it is viciously spiraling reduction of goodwill Integration in maths and in nature is a bottom-up mapping
process; ultimately a system that is governed only top-down is designed to collapse or worlds that are not deeply democratic
to trap people in poverty or all the risk the world can outsource. | Transparency
(open boundaries) On networks the biggest risks lurk and then compound at boundaries of partnering systems The
rule if transparency systems is always demand openness of information unless you can prove that temporarily closed information
is needed. For example, If good are to defeat ill then the good cannot give their plans away to ill. Most 20th century marketing and strategy involved closed unless we can prove we need to be open. If an
innovating involves a race to get patents that will then close out others, closed is understandable. However that doesn’t
means that patents have a place in the open source world that can multiply the value of knowledge. The father of computing
von neumann assumed that most patents would only last 3 months in an open networking age. His reasoning if you have true purpose
and 3 months lead across networks of partners in your purpose, that is something competitors cannot catch up with at lest
mot while your network keeps connecting unique purpose Typically one non sustainable system in a network of
partners is the greatest risk to the whole network collapsing. This means that sustainable partners help SWOT each other-
requiring a higher order of transparency than all 20th century top-down professions ruled over Nations are in 21st century one of the global markets of places. To keep increasing economic capacity,
their boundaries will need even more transparency than that we may demand of corporations or other systems Transparency of jib creating empower by bottom up systems is far more important than any macroeconomic plan a place
may forge. More accurately , macroeconomic plans will spin ever more destruction (inconvenenint truth instead of holistic
truth) unless integrated micro up. | Sustainability win-win-win (compound exponentials) In networked age it is possible not only to go above zero-sum (eg provide more value when both customer and supplier
are gaining from each other) but to value multiply. Compound exponentials are the consequence of systemic value multiplying
– they spin one of tow ways sustainably up, or crashing down.
When value dynamics of
an organisation is to do with people’s service stamina and knowledge transfers, value multiplying auditing needs as
much cyclical focus as any other audit including cash-flow. When we network systems together this becomes even more crucial.
Typically a single organization spins 10-win or 10-lose through 5 interconnected double lops of productivities and demands
: employee, owners, customers, societies, the world’s requirement that a global market values sustainability by being
responsible only for its greatest compound risks. When you fully interface 2 such system, the dynamic tends
to 100-win or 100lose. We have seen multiple occasions of rapid networking collapse in the 00’s At
the limit globalization will design one of 2 endgames; that where bad will networks
win (the big brother scenario) which means the top will serially compound crashes onto local communities until people at those
localities are not sustainable that where goodwill multiplying networks win It was estimated in 1984 that: The difference between globalizing round goodwill designs versus badwill designs by 2024 has consequence if 10 times
more or less health and wealth to share around It was modeled that micro up integration is the style
of governance that goodwill multi=lying systems use to integrate every locality communally into global It
was identified in 1970s by Schumpeter (and probably the 1930s by the duo of Gandhi and Einstein) that the overarching goal
of the networking generation that will enable goodwill networks to overcome badwill ones is uniting the race to end poverty All the scenarios on which the 1984 model were built exist to be openly questioned and SWOTted by context.. On the
timelines used we are way behind the curve of goodwill winning out over badwill. You can take simple but tragic examples of
this . In recent wars badwill payers have been repeatedly more effective at networking even though they had 10 to 100 ties
less resources than the supposed good powers. |