Mutumwa Mawere

Maybe it’s useful to be guided by Andrew Carnegie, an illiterate, poor immigrant who arguably became the richest man alive. His path as an entrepreneur was laden with obstacles, but he had bigger dreams. The bigger the dream the bigger the legend. the mechanistic construct of our society creates rigidities which any undeveloped mind will accept as fact and will be beholden to many myths and nuances that do nothing to us but make us afraid to be different.

To progress as individuals and consequently as a society we must embrace the following:
- The individual as one with enough creativity and imagination to change the world.
- The individual is mortal but the “company “ as a legal person is eternal. The important lesson we learn from Pick and Pay is that it has the ability to outlive its founder and its founder’s great grand children. It can marry, divorce- multiple, divide and have many lives- granted only if it is premised on a strong vision and purpose. E.g Nokia which used to be in the printing business. The cow boy- fly by night me-too companies we see will never even outlive the founders, because of the shaky ground on which they were founded.
- debunk the myths and social treatise that pollute our society. Such as government for the people, free this free that.
- By trying to help the poor will invariably make everyone else poorer.
- Embrace that true heros as well as true villains are hardly motivated in the slightest by money.
- That the average person wants to be led, but is highly motivated only if he is part of a cause, the stronger and powerful the cause/vision, the more the individual becomes a superhuman- and achieves super human feats.
- Society is only as powerful as its imagination. A society that is highly mechanistic e.g Zimbabwe can never see beyond its natural resources- Sweden was built by the entrepreneur and the entrepreneurial imagination. Tell me how imaginative is the slogan, the “land is the economy and the economy is the land”. This is the metaphor/slogan that inspires goats to pastures and nationalistic nuances that lead to statements like MY ZIMBABWE. Bill Gates built his company in a garage, his metaphor was in the metaphysical. Osama’s wrath is built on a network that exists in the follower’s minds.
- Empires were built and will be built by men who love to sweat! Enough said on this except that a useful barometer is how comfortable you are in your current environment If you are not fidgeting enough, and bumping against obstacles, its safe to assume you are not doing anything worthwhile....

Questions which any leader, potential or actual, should be asking themselves

1. Isn’t leadership most effective when it is by example?
2. If we believe that leadership is better “seen than heard”, should emphasis primarily be on how we lead others or on how we lead ourselves?
3. Isn’t the desire and cry for more collective government nothing more than a reflection of poor personal government?
4. In the economic realm (as opposed to the political) and in the era of contract, what is more fundamental; the capacity to organize people or the capacity to organize resources and capital?
5. If there were no obstacles, problems, uncertainty, and resistance, would there be any need for leaders, as distinct from administrators, coordinators, and organizers?

Arguable the fundamental question you pose about ability and capacity to organise people, or resources and capital is very useful. My thoughts are that the nature of capital and resources is such thatthey can be rationally reduced to axiomatic tenets which if followed or through the use of experts you can maximise utility, that is why debt for example can be provided with no human interaction at all but system based, land/office space through newspapers. Thus the ability to manage and lead people becomes imperative, leaders and managers fail because of the inability to motivate people. That is why management is best learnt in practise rather than in business school. This again goes to your first question of leading by example, the first thing to draw followers and trust from fellow human beings is by showing them how well you can lead your own life. Perhaps to understand better may I draw you to the pluralist world view as expounded by Karl Popper. Popper extolls the premise of believing the world is beyond physical/monoist or dualistic I.e more than just the physical but also our experiences of the world but beyond into the metaphysical where we view the world as a work of art. Thus the individual can create a company through simply organising resources(physical) and through products/and services the world can experience the unique proposition of the "company" but the highest realm of existance is when a company and becomes a manifestation as a work of art, timeless like the fifth symphony, monalisa, shakespeare etc. An easy way to see this is the eiffel towers in the middle of paris, a purely physical structure, secondly a unique value proposition as experienced by the many tourist- but its also a work of art, very symbolic of a culture, pride, of all that is french. If tomorrow we wake up and its no longer there- indeed the french and the world will feel the soul of france is no more. True leaders create works of art

1. To CREATE, and not to RUN a company; who do you need to mobilise;"people", or your bankers and investors?
2. When relations are based on contracts, is not the fundamental question how you will obtain the resources to fulfil the contracts you will enter into with staff/suppliers/etc, for you to have an oppurtunity to motivate them? Is not the ticket to entry into the entrepreneurial realm CAPITAL?

An important read for students of ideas www.henrymintzberg.com/pdf/devleaders.pdf

Oracle:
essentially the world view of \"contracts\" is that of a monist, the realm of which consists of the physical world. This is a strong argument, and in your case the premise on which you argue relations should be based on contracts. But Poppers\' erudite treatise following on the works of Heidegger, Hume see this as world 1 of which our existence revolves around 2 other worlds. In our example above, the Eiffel Towers was created by physical objects and relations which could be zeroed down to contracts.

To create the Eiffel Towers, Capital was essential. But you see the banker/investor, staff, supplier etc coalesce resource based purely on the entreprenuarial\'s esoteric vision. There is nothing to tell the capitalist that the Eiffel towers shall retain a greater return than where his/her money is currently invested. The capitalist must put FAITH in the entreprenuer\'s dream. What is paramount is that the entreprenuer\'s vision must espouse the pluralist world view.

having mobilised resources* the entrepreneur must create an experience, beyond an experience must create \" a work of art\". see it this way, in our world its easy to conjure a sonnet but the experience and conjectures of a sonnet must be unique to be appreciated. and for them to be timeless the pluralist argument is relevant.

For a timeless work of art called the COMPANY, the entrepreneur is mortal, but the company can be eternal, driven by PEOPLE. Tafira uses the example of jesus christ, a very good example of how Jesus founded the gospel which has become eternal beyond his mere 33 years on earth was through firstly his disciples with whom he shared his vision. Secondly through rituals, story telling-parables he cemented a relationship with the Christian faith beyond mere contracts.

Indeed that is the challenge the ackermans have, if they are to create a work of art, a good test is whether the company can live beyond the family. the important question to ask is can pick and pay live beyond 2000yrs?

notes:
* resources fortunately have become commodities, e.g capital is now ubiquitous courtesy of firstly financial markets, secondly use of debt, thirdly governments stupid liquidity injections.
** refer to axiomatic tenets in the first installment and Ackerman\'s 90% guts and 10% capital

caveat:
my instance and disposition to use philosophy is for us to originate and get to the route of an idea.

1. There is no need to focus on "ists" and "isms", as such classification in the case at hand does nothing but emphasize the peripheral at the expense of the fundamental. Not much philosophical abstraction is required to understand and interpret historical and contemporaneous fact; and the fact I am highlighting when referring to the current age as the age of contract is as follows; When absolute kings, castes and aristocracies ruled the world relations between men were governed by status, i.e. where one stood in the social/racial/caste hierarchy determined the nature of his interactions with other men. That is what made on man a serf whilst another was a lord, and made on man till another’s farms whilst his master went to hunt red foxes on horseback However, throughout most of the world such stratification has been superseded by the concept of equality under law, meaning that (legally) no one has innate dominion over anyone, and consequently relations between men are governed by mutual agreement and not force or duty i.e. they are governed by contract. This conception requires no deviation into the realm of metaphysics to understand, and referring the statement of such a historical fact as “monism” is as helpful, relevant, and insightful to referring to the statement that the sun rose this morning as “the views of a sunist”.
2. What the capitalist wants to know is can you pay back the money you owe him, end of story. Any buying into your vision that he does is but a means to convince him that he is not throwing funds into a sinkhole. Few bankers and investors, or at least none of the ones who manage to remain solvent for very long, care much about your “world view” as they do about your forecast cash flow.
3. Using the founding of a religion as a comparative analogy to the founding of a business is fundamentally flawed. By definition, the vision which guides a firm must be continuously renewed and revisited, and is continuously under threat from new, more relevant ideas and ways of doing things. A religion, on the other hand, is supposed to espouse fixed and timeless principles that are applicable to all men at all times. The methods applicable in the establishment and running of the two are therefore largely dissimilar.
4. Kindly explain the relevance of “motivation”, “pluralist world views”, and “creating a work of art” in the establishment of a lead mine, the running of a waste disposal company, and the extraction of methane gas? 90% of the work of the world is by nature routine and repetitive, making the efficacy of the methods you profess in most instances a waste of time and a source of ridicule from your employees; unable to achieve a fraction of what can be attained by simply creating a good working environment, providing reasonable work related benefits, and performance based remuneration where such performance can be quantified. Focusing on such phantasms at the expense of focusing on your p&l will have a very predictable outcome.
5. Philosophy is a tool, and like any tool can accomplish great things when used for the right purpose but can be detrimental and awkward when used out of context. A man will have a very tidy and clean meal if he were to use a fork to eat, but the same cannot be said if he were to attempt to use that same fork to clean the wax out of his ears. Your insistence to use philosophy is therefore unnecessary, and I will defer criticism of the philosophical element in your writings as needless.

I will assume we are scholars of ideas and are interested in the great ideas of times and helping us formulate our own great ideas in time. By making this assumption i am then acutely aware that we must exhaust the history of ideas and understand the birth and route in which all ideas came from. Ability to do this is in no way peripheral but is fundamental. What is more fundamental the tree leafs or the seed from which the tree grew from? You miss this understanding early on by arguing the contract as defined in today's time- equality under the law. You sir, are only interested in the letter of the law, typified and guided economic affairs through contracts. the letter of the law is only a half truth, or quarter truth for that matter, as everyone knows the letter is equally if not less equal to the prowess of the spirit of the law. "the spirit" of the law immediately enters the metaphysical realm. Infact if the law is a tree then the seed from which the law came from is the spirit and the leafs/fruit is the letter. commenting and deeming to understand the tree from its fruit is very devious for any scholar of ideas. And as true scholars we would be making a similar mistake if we did not understand the fruit, tree and its seed. This is the core of a pluralist world view...


You then argue the strength of contracts today and believe less in yesteryear contracts which you reduce as status. In my first reading of your installment i assumed you meant Statutes, but pondering and on second reading of your argument i realised that indeed this was no typo. How wrong can you possibly be. the very beginning of a monarchy was etched in contract between the monarch, church and its citizens. You are more interested in the present state of the contract and yet need to understand the evolution of the contract. May i suggest reading of one of the best books on companies, THE COMPANY!


The you make stunning pique about 90% of work of the world as being by nature routine and repetitive. Again i am left at a loss to either believe you are trying to test my knowledge or simply lack depth and breath in ideas. studying Adam Smith intermittenly will not yield much than to totally misunderstand him. The argument you pose was fathered by one Jeremy Bentham if your disposition is economics, and Taylor if your disposition is management. In both cases the theory has been debunked, infact bentham utilitarian theory left its most astute scholar ever John Stuart Mill distraught, resulting in a nervous breakdown. ( a warning of what may happen to your factory of workers in repetitive and routine jobs)Mill's erudition, consequently making him one of the greats is etched in beliefs that nothing can be rational coming out of an irrational human being! Adam smith the father of economics is surely quoted wrongly and out of context based on one of his important writtings, the wealth of nations and little is done in understanding his theories holistically through for example cursory study of moral sentiments- an important bedrock to his idea formation. Perhaps it might be useful to know what Smith thought of the economic man and entrepreneur- he is flesh and blood, suffering from uneasiness,disgust and desire and driven by such, unrealistic dreams and desires of fabulous wealth and driven to exchange of goods propensity from which is least the product of reason. Schumpeter identifies with this man, as not motived by any hedonistic notions but at times simply to outdo and outwit. Keynes talks of the animal spirit in people, Shchiller the irrational exuberance. In all this the metaphysical comes to life as the waste disposal company you see becomes a community of people with different needs and motivation. If the entrepreneur maintains a monist view of the world and see his employees as simply resources to carry out routine and repetitive work then such is his tragic defiance that will lead to tragic consequences.

The difference between GM and toyota is revealing, Toyota's success is premised in a culture and embedded in a spirit of community where THE PEOPLE are engaged in creativity and imagination whereas their counterparts focused on productivity. It is Mintzberg you argues By focusing on productivity the US motor industry grinded to a halt- American companies fired its employees, the same employees who were the heart and soul of the companies, the people who knew the esoteric values and idosyncracies of the unique value proposition. it is the japanese Phantasms that translated to huge profits of its p&L whilst the american motor industry wained in routine and repetitive discourse.

Your fork used to clean wax out jib is very amusing indeed. it reveals again the scholar that you are, refusing to see the philosophical route i had taken. any cursory understanding of my post above reveals the connection of world view with empirical evidence that support the pluralist view. to understand Toyota/ Eiffel Towers through monist lenses will only reveal a blurred image, clarity of vision will occur through the pluralist lenses .

1. Anyone who has ever signed a contract in their life in a place where the rule of law prevails will know that what is written down in black and white is all that is needed to inform their decision. Reference to the “spirit of the law” is rarely, if ever, made in the daily conduct of practical affairs, and only rises in very rare and isolated cases in the event of dispute. If our object of analysis is therefore the real world we live in, as opposed to that of verbal smoke and mirrors, then the construct of interrelations based on contract is as close to reality as we will get. In addition, browse through your own employment contract and see what proportion of it has to do with monetary terms, in order to see how absurd the reference to contracts as “monist” is
2. True to form, you again try to build an argument on baseless historical fables which only serve to highlight unfamiliarity with historical and contemporaneous fact. Monarchies and aristocracies existed long before the church, and even when the church came to existence it was never recognized universally. What “contract” exists between the “church, state, and citizens” of Swaziland? In addition, kindly explain what “contract” existed between serfs and landowners? Or Slaves and their masters? An O-level history student will tell you that serfdom was largely coerced labor by serfs on the landowners property (fields/mines/etc) on terms dictated by the lord without mutual agreement, in return for protection and the right to work on those fields. The serf himself was little distinguished from the property of the landowner, and no agreement or “contract” in whatever form existed here. What you need to understand is that aristocracy, monarchy, etc, conferred certain PRIVILEDGES on the higher classes to which the lower classes were not entitled, hence the importance of STATUS. The relations between individual men were therefore largely determined by their standing in the social hierarchy. The concept of equality under law simply means that no privilege accrues to any man or group relative to others, and as such relations are governed by mutual agreement and not coercion or “divine rights”.
3. Regarding the amount of rote work in the world, there is no need to refer to Jeremy Bentham et al; all one needs to do is speak to any man on the street and ask them what proportion of their work is routine and repetitive. How much variety of work and scope for creativity exists in the employment of a bank teller/accountant/coal miner/auditor/nurse/taxi driver/back office clerk etc? The nature of modern business is such that the majority of roles below the senior manegerial levels must simply involve execution and little decision making (ie doing what they are told to do); what most workers do is simply follow orders as dictated by management. And we are not talking about the entrepreneurial function here; the point was to show what the actual day to day work of the EMPLOYEE consists of, since entrepreneurs will always constitute an overwhelming minority in any society. Again, deference to long dead authorities and ideas will serve no purpose if our own common sense and familiarity with the real world have gone on holiday.
4. Toyota is more successful simply because they make better cars and use better processes. Of course, all the other wind about a “spirit of community” will be repeated so as to add as much flesh as possible to business school seminars and case studies to delude the student into thinking he is receiving value for his money, but that doesn’t change the essence of the matter.
5. There is no “monist” view being propagated here; however, I will gladly be called a “realist” if you are bent on applying the “ist” suffix.
6. The reason why philosophy, like economics, has a bad name with the average man is largely thanks to the poor application of it, usually to issues where it is totally irrelevant, by those with a poor grasp of it. You have done little to repair this bad image with your above post.

May i suggest this wonderful intellectual enlightenment be toned down to an informative standard were one can actually achieve something by reading your responses rather than a display of who is most read.

This in my opinion is the problem with African development were when one gets the opportunity to help they take this as an opportunity to display their intellectual abilities funny enough based on principles foreign to their local problems.

Lets support this remarkable forum and share ideas that work.