Many managerial debates lose themselves into a vicious circle. People try to “predict” or “estimate” possible futures, while at the same time very little effort is put on determining the future. This is undoubtedly wrong.
Independently of predicting or not predicting the “future” –for example the consequences of a particular public policy–what really matter is the commitment of the people who are responsible of making decisions. The decisions themselves determine the future.
If we analyse closely what such exercises in “prediction” entail, we will see that they are mostly directed to avoid or delay action, under the false assumption that development has to be “gradual.” As a result of gradual measures -in fact incomplete measures, and prediction games which are little less than wishful thinking, the future gets determined negatively by precisely the people who are supposed to act.
Time and again I have to point to the fact that regardless of what we think about the immediate future, the social drivers which determine the current techno-centric world are already established and do not cease acting, and hence our “opinions” and “anticipations” count very little.
On the basis of such drivers, it is easy to see that the “trends” which will impose themselves upon us mean the increase of social intermediation, technological indirection and the continuous fragmentation of the individual into symbolic, digital facets.
People lose time and effort trying to “stage” initiatives, to “moderate” options, and to “evaluate” impact, when in reality what counts is our own conscience confronted with these changes, an not what other people –trapped in the same global vortex we are in– think about our “managerial” expertise.
These drivers will not change whatever our thoughts about them are: they have been present for decades and will reach full expression.