From a quantum mechanics perspective we know that our relationship with reality is not only reciprocally interdependent but that we are also creators of our reality. Moreover reality is not just physical, it is also non-physical, non-material (i.e. metaphysical).
So what does this mean or imply relative to the reality of business? Most are familiar with the adage, what becomes important is what is measured. That is, people’s focus of attention aligns with what those in management measure. No wonder numerical goal setting and its associated performance management methods are common practice!
Most, viewing this dynamic through the lens of Newtonian mechanics and assuming people are inherently as we observe them, conclude that we (human beings) are indeed materially driven. What is overlooked in this view is the fact that people are (quite) adaptable to the context within which they feel they must live.
The following excerpt from It’s the EconoME, Stupid amplifies this:
Q: …But what if people are more than economically driven? What if the assumption of economic-man is false? How much more industriousness could have been realized?
S: Your questions are pure speculation, for the empirical evidence of history shows that people are indeed, by their nature, economically driven. Look what has been realized from people following their selfish passions. It must be so, for the amount of wealth created is beyond expectation. How can it be otherwise!
Q: What if, by nature, people are adaptable to the conditions within which they exist?
S: I’m sorry I don’t follow you.
Q: If a person’s behavior is influenced by his/her conditions, then creating conditions of existence that are economically focused, and subsequently observing that his/her behavior is consistent with this context would not (scientifically) prove that the individual is economically driven.
S: What are you saying?
Q: Let us say I hypothesize that people are pain-avoiding and pleasure- seeking creatures. If to prove my hypothesis, I set up the conditions such that people’s options are limited to either choosing pleasure or pain in the next moment, then it would be a mistake for me to accept my hypothesis based on my observing that people choose the course of action that delivers pleasure over that which delivers pain in the moment. You see to a large extent that conditions shape the behavior, especially when the options offered are limited.
S: What are you suggesting? Are you saying that the Divine Plan is wrong?
Q: I’m suggesting that, given the adaptability of people, restricting choices consistent with the theory and proceeding as if the evidence proves the theory, is simply bad science.
I am also saying that people are capable of more than accumulating material wealth. Human behavior is not solely dictated by—or it can’t be reduced to—the choice between seeking pleasure and avoiding pain in the moment.
S: What else is there? Even if what you say is true, the benefit of the theory to society is worth it. Look at the wealth humankind has amassed!
Q: Your question illustrates my point…
The fact that we choose to believe that we are economically driven has led us to create a reality –a life—wherein concern for the materiality of reality dominates the focus of our attention. In effect, by our single-minded pursuit of material growth we’ve shut out other possibilities, other human potentialities. Hence the argument that we must be so because it is so is a logical fallacy—it is so because that’s how we created it.
Therefore, if we want a different reality then we must actually enact it. After all our reality is a participatory reality; a reality determined to a great extent by our participation in its creation. Therefore, reality won’t change if first we don’t change our thinking about our selves! Wanting change is not sufficient; we must change our mind—changing the ideas and beliefs we hold—in order to embody the change (in reality) we desire. Hence the need for the courage of our very own leadership!
As Gandhi exclaimed, “we must be the change we wish to see in the world!” Though he wasn’t a physicist, he clearly understood that it takes a quantum leap for one’s reality to really change. Wishing and hoping, or waiting for someone else to step up, won’t make it so.
[...] Perhaps each of us should question whether it is in our collective—that’s the We– best interest to sustain such a system by continuing to support and cooperate with it or take action to change it. [...]
[...] Moreover, each of us has the freedom to change what he/she holds in mind as well. That is, changing one’s mind is our choice, an act of free will. Human behavior is far too complex to fit neatly into a [...]
[...] Because the precepts—of self-interest maximization and unlimited wealth accumulation—of our economic system have permeated society’s other systems (of government and education), rendering them ineffective, we must fundamentally change our economic system if we expect our reality to change. [...]
[...] in the present moment. Just wishing for change isn’t sufficient to realize change. Our reality won’t changeuntil we change how we think about ourselves and about the purpose of [...]
[...] discussed in a previous article, if we want a different reality then we must actually enact it. Reality won’t change if first we [...]
[...] require short-term profit maximization as the dominant motive? We can only change what is by changing how we think about ourselves. If we wish to experience a better reality, then we need to enact a better belief [...]
[...] we cannot predict the future with certainty, we certainly do influence it. We do in deed participate in creating the reality we will experience. Since we will live in the future doesn’t it make sense to turn our [...]