Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Rigidity: Bad for Engineering, Bad for the Economy, and Bad for Business

Rigidity has never produced a structure capable of good function in an environment of changing conditions.

  • Skyscrapers are designed with the ability to "sway" in the wind, or to "flex" in case of an earthquake.
  • The wings of the great airliners are designed to "give and take" in the face of changing air density and current so that the body of the plane can maintain maximum stability in turbulence.
  • Bridges, towers, roads, ships are strengthened with flexibility.
Attempting to eliminate this "flux" with rigidity would result in disaster.

It works the same way when attempting to develop increasing profitability, or human capital. Rigidity kills.

Why, then, do presidential candidates like John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama continue to press as though greater centralized control and rigidity offers anything of a benefit to America's economic strength in the face of ever changing conditions?

Why do so many otherwise intelligent Americans fall for the same tripe?

The Answer is simple. They all must be ignorant of the way things really work. Or, maybe, it's a power thing.

As I will continue to suggest, whatever economic conditions may seem to create problems for our society, each is solved when individual participants learn to contribute in a value producing and meaningful way.

It's the way of the organic business model.


  • Every participant can then know what he/she does best.
  • Every participant can then discover how what they do makes a difference for the people or companies they serve.
  • Then, because the organic system strives to compensate based on the actual value delivered, each participant may elect to contribute, and therefore earn, as much, or as little as they desire.
No heavyweight management is required. No supreme controller or almighty decision maker is necessary. No artificial value requirements need be imposed.

It makes sense.

All of the mechanical model "controllers" ought to pay attention to Brian Wesbury, chief economist for First Trust Portfolios, LP. In an editorial published June 11, 2008 in the WSJ. Brian astutely observes:

"In contrast to what some people seem to believe, having the government take over the health-care system is not change. It's just a culmination of previous moves by government. And the areas with the worst problems today are areas that have the most government interference – education, health care and energy."

"The best course of action is to allow a free-market economy to reallocate resources to the place of highest returns. In the midst of all the natural change, the last thing the U.S. economy needs is more government involvement, whether it's called change or not."

Only an Organic Model solves the problems.

In today's hyper-dynamic world, hardening mechanical models in attempt to improve economic conditions will prove no more successful than removing the flexability from the wings of an aircraft. Such practices will, at best, increase the discomfort of the passengers. At worst, it will render the plane unfit to fly.

Rigidity will produce the same negative impact for the economy, or for your business.

1 comment:

Lee said...

You may be onto something, here. Over centralized management may be the very problem.