No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main…” 

John Donne

Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, 1624

 

HOW MANY DECISIONS OF FIRST LEADERS ARE BASED ON INCORRECT DATA? ALMOST ALL

 

In Plain Sight

In its quest to comprehend the cosmos and the fundamental basis of matter, humanity has created a remarkably complex toolkit. The marvels of technology—including modern telescopes that have even been placed in orbit around the Earth, paired with supercomputers for data processing—allow us to create digital maps of the universe. Electron microscopes can examine the structure of matter at the molecular level. Scientists have developed cameras capable of capturing the movement of photons in space.

We strive to look as deeply as possible into both the external and internal worlds, seeking to understand the depths of the universe. We have created digital maps of our planet, and now software available on every smartphone can plot a route anywhere, often far more reliably than any guide. Modern medical equipment can display any part of our body in 3D.

Nevertheless, the social systems created by humanity remain a terra incognita for their very creators. While we invest titanic efforts and resources into building reliable, predictable, and efficient management systems, we still cannot fully understand ourselves.

So, what has our team created? We present to you a tool, technology, and methodology for managing social structures based on new principles. We will attempt to clarify.

 

The Stone Age of management technologies today

Signal Fires

Here is a concrete example. Imagine that a top leader, whether a President or a Prime Minister, needs to make a decision on a particular issue. They contact the relevant minister, instructing them to study the situation and provide recommendations. This minister, in turn, forwards the request to their deputy. The deputy then sends it to the department director. The process continues downward through level after level, typically spanning 10 to 15 levels.

In a horizontal format, colleagues from other agencies and divisions whose opinions may be important are also involved. As a result, the question “filters down” through the system to the executors—those who are the real sources of information, located in the “lower” echelons. The first methodological problem is the total loss of time.

Subsequently, the following problems occur: The answer also flows in the original pattern, but in the opposite direction. With the passage of each new level, the degree of adequacy is lost. Nobody likes to send bad news upstairs. Actually, they often don’t go upstairs at all. Data is “smoothed out,” and the sharper and problematic parts are removed. Someone on the way back will consider the fact that it does not correspond to the level of senior management to know about the presence of such insignificant details, and will cut out some of the data. Someone has their own opinion, and the data is transformed along the way beyond recognition. Someone is hiding in the various arrays of departments, and as a result, the leaders are in an information vacuum. They often know exactly what they allow others to know in downstream units, and the quality of strategic decisions is reduced many times. The speed of access to information is also too low. As a result, many vital decisions are made based on incomplete, outdated, or simply erroneous data.

In general, the higher the position in the hierarchy, the less true the information actually is. Communication channels are clogged, and this can be seen by the voluminous folders with documents accumulating in reception rooms, and also in organizations that have completely switched to electronic document management. This can be demonstrated by the number of unexamined documents in the “for consideration” list.

Often, in the “middle units,” performers do not introduce anything fundamentally new. They are only intermediaries, and they spend their time coordinating the flow of documents. Losing their time is both a waste of public/company funds and an inefficient use of human resources.

Therefore, the decision-making process at the level of the entire state/corporate system is significantly delayed. Mid-level managers are similar to postmen who pass along information in accordance with the principles of hierarchy. Most of the data does not reach the top. Responsibility is blurred, and the role of the lower links is underestimated.

The new technology can speed up the decision-making process significantly, ensuring at the implementation stage the creation of a single database in the areas of responsibility and the performance of each unit/employee at the country/corporation level. This can save huge amounts of financial resources simply by optimizing human resources, and can reveal the personal effectiveness of each link.

Therefore, the highest-level leader will be able to see everything in one place, spacing out all of the links and all departments, divisions, or each employee of his organization in their actual interconnectedness throughout the organization. The leader can also reach out to any of them in seconds, “knocking” with questions about who they are, what they should do, for what purpose they were hired, and what they see as the results of their work.

No more need to knock through dozens of doors. Just imagine the idea that the President can call an expert in possession of real data and ask directly about any relevant information in order to solve a problem. The authors argue that the introduction of new technology can significantly reduce the overall workflow— by 90% according to their estimates—and help to identify “dusty areas,” which are often excellent environments for making opaque, corrupt decisions.

Imagine that 9 out of 10 documents that pass through the system will no longer be needed.

 

Higher-ups know better

There is also another problem: in striving for speed in decision-making, leaders create mini-collectives around themselves where each employee takes on functions from various departments. For example, an advisor on national security, education, or transport. Formally, they oversee the activities of the relevant specialized organizations. However, they do not have the time to navigate the enormous, cumbersome departments each time. As a result, their decisions are based on personal understanding. Lower-level departments become analytical centers that provide justifications for necessary political decisions.

Often, this collective around the top leader of a company or country becomes completely autonomous, regularly issuing mandates, orders, and resolutions.

Meanwhile, departments lead their own lives, trying not to irritate high management in their creative and philosophical endeavors.

 

Philosophers in power 

Here is also another very interesting point. You noticed the degree of concreteness and detail of the instructions of the primary leaders. But look carefully at the content and topics of speeches from these high tribunes, which often offer no specifics, having only a generally consolidated understanding of the processes of the head of state, and thus they begin to proclaim common truths.

Here are some familiar phrases: the solution to the main problem, improving the standard of living of the population, depends on the quality implementation of strategic programs; it is necessary to develop a set of measures to preserve the country’s macroeconomic, financial, and social stability under various scenarios within the development of the broader situation in the world at large; when making government decisions, the analytical component should be radically strengthened; emphasis should be placed on the growth of labor productivity; for the economic modernization of the country, raising investment is also an extremely important issue; the identified priorities and decisions made with the proper approach will increase the pace and quality of economic growth, as well as lead to an increase in the standard of living of the population; we need new thinking and new approaches to economic development; and so on.

Do you understand what the head of state is talking about, as well as to whom, and what specifically needs to be done? Frankly, we are not.

 

Hostages
As we stated above, the highest-level leaders are in an information vacuum. They often know exactly what they allow downstream units to know. And to be precise, this is not just the lower-level units, but rather a narrow circle of people through whom the entire data stream flows. This cohort of people, the super- elite of a country or a corporation, forms the vision of the first leader. Not a single extra document, nor a single uncomfortable question, will slip by.

As a result, leaders of entire countries become hostages of their environment, which in turn manipulates the boss’s mood, and also directs his thoughts in the “right” direction.

 

Preoccupied with Themselves

In theory, the state apparatus is designed as a system that serves the interests of the people. The sole source of power is the people. However, this creates a surprising picture. Despite their best intentions, public servants simply do not have enough time to focus on the direct interests of specific representatives of the people. The heavy internal bureaucratic burden leads to the overwhelming majority of their time being spent on coordinating internal procedures rather than actually providing services to the public. They claim to think day and night about the interests of the people, yet classical representatives of power show little desire to see and interact with specific individuals from the populace.

It has reached the point where projects at the state level aim to physically isolate officials from citizens. This is primarily done under the guise of combating corruption. The lack of physical contact reduces risk. Digital technologies only facilitate this.

As a result, citizens, whether out of necessity or state coercion, encounter a soulless machine, a system. Entering official buildings feels like attempting a boarding.

When social protest escalates, people march en masse toward official buildings, bearing slogans. Then they come with stones.

 

Who is my neighbor?

There is another problem in the form of the low awareness of some links about what exactly their colleagues in other units are doing. In fact, large modern companies and governments can be called single systems. Rather, they are a collection of closed communities that live under the roof of one brand, more often competing with each other, and less often complementing each other.

However, it should be exactly the opposite. By the way, there is often no time and desire/opportunity to find out who these kind people/colleagues are on the floor below, not to mention units in other cities and countries. Modern management specialists recommend holding frequent team buildings, conventions, conferences, and meetings. All of this is good, but it still does not solve the problem of universal segregation. What do the Bastau developers offer in this case?

In the platform, everyone can literally see everyone. You can see your place in the general system, and you can reach any unit and see who it is, how many of these people there are, what they are doing there, what are the initial tasks are, and what is the result of their work. Maybe there is something to advise them about, or there is a question to be asked of them. All of this is available in seconds, openly and transparently. The technique implements one of the fundamental principles of working with big data: access on behalf of any part of the system to any necessary data.

By the way, yes, a curious opportunity was made for the highest-level leader to look at his own universe from above, which he fully controls. This function alone would be enough to calibrate the perceptions of any top manager.

 

System paralysis

Imagine that in order to move your leg, you need to take one hand with your other hand, so that in turn, it grabs the leg and moves it. This is obviously highly illogical, and it is this situation that describes the current control system, in which the “brain” is unable to “send a signal” to the desired link in the system. And if there are those who simply do not agree with the command that comes from above existing somewhere in the middle of the chain? Not sabotage—just a different vision. Then it turns out that the state of large teams, be it the government or an individual company, can be assessed as a system that does not have stable connections with those who think from above.

 

Where are the bosses now going to?

We assert that the implementation of Bastau will be a revolution for any system. The technology is capable of facilitating its deep modernization.

The restructuring of the hierarchy and mutual subordination will occur. The number of «management levels» will decrease many times as well. One leader will be able to coordinate the work of a larger number of employees, and the positions of a number of the previously mentioned “postmen” in the system will cease to exist. The role and responsibility of local implementers will be strengthened. The speed of reporting data will increase many times. All duplicate links will be corrected.

There is another methodological aspect to all of this. Each unit, each employee in the system, has an initially formulated task — «job descriptions» are easier to say. Each role and position is usually predefined. The Bastau software allows you to attach a current report to each unit, and as a result, all types of reporting information for each employee should be incorporated into the system. This means that numerous discontinued plans, network schedules, and other repeated and regular reports demanded from above will no longer be needed. The fact of a request or clarification will thus become an exception to the rule.

 

Leaders of the new generation. Busy as a bee

In the established model of heads of governments and corporations, there exists a separate caste. Taking on this difficult choice, often striving for a lifetime to reach the top and finally getting there, they sit on the throne. Management is perceived from the perspective of a leader who is firmly seated in their position, receiving streams of people and information, distributing resources, and charting the common course of the state or corporate “ship.”

The need or necessity, and often simply the comfort of being “seated” on the throne, undermines the grip of top leaders. One way to avoid stagnation, and indeed a general duty, is the very act of going to the people—regional visits, meetings with various social groups, participation in major events

More from legends than from proven historical facts, some rulers hundreds and thousands of years ago would go incognito into the public, walking the streets of their cities and listening to the people’s sentiments, absorbing the general atmosphere, providing some feedback from the real world. However, all these measures and actions can hardly be considered a panacea for the ailments of Olympus.

We propose a different image of a leader. They might resemble a bee pollinating blossoms, while the whole system resembles a garden. Here, the leader is capable of seeing the complete picture and, switching their attention from one group of people to another, cares for each link regardless of hierarchy and their position. Not only top leaders but any manager, in principle, within the scope entrusted to them. Technically, a platform can provide such leaders the ability to instantaneously switch their attention from one internal universe to another, moving in seconds between sectors and departments, essentially between different worlds.

Such an approach may/should include not so much control and revision, but rather guidance, directives, and assistance in growth and prosperity. The mere fact of attention from the top should not be perceived as an emergency or stress, as it is today during visits from heads of state, prime ministers, and ministers. This should be a daily routine.

Not for the sake of criticism or adding drama—simply in forming the image of the ruler-bee in the garden, such an idyllic setting, it is vital to apply a similar approach and try to conceptualize the picture of today’s corporate world. Do not government structures and corporations resemble casemates in their management paradigms? Beautiful, with red carpet walkways and modern offices, yet still the same casemates. When a high-ranking leader appears, people retreat into themselves. They smile for the camera. The boss’s appearance becomes a source of stress for them, a reason for worry, rather than a divine grace descending from above.

 

All from scratch

In essence, we have concluded that management technologies should be fundamentally reimagined and constructed from the ground up. “Bastau” represents the inception of a new global information environment designed to eliminate countless hours of mechanical labor, thereby liberating resources for more creative and impactful endeavors. This vision is at the heart of our development team’s mission.

Organizations—whether governmental or corporate—that are early adopters of spatial management technologies stand to make significant advancements in their development.

The only question remains: who will be the first?