Engineer: Well, you somehow very primitively told. There are many subtle points.
Consultant: But just at the subtle points, differences in methodologies begin in an amount equal to the number of methodologists! :) What time do you need to start catching, where is it better to dig for worms, what kind of bait to throw into the water to lure the fish, and so on.
Writer: You also need to spit on the worm before throwing it into the water…
Consultant: Shh… !!! :) These are secret techniques, they are revealed only to the “elite” during additional personal trainings!
Engineer: For an extra fee?
Consultant: For an extra fee. :) But this is not the main thing. A person remains on the surface, without looking, so to speak, into the depths. Nothing is told or understood about how life is organized under water.
Writer: Does a person need this? After all, if the method works, if the bucket is full of fish, why know how everything is organized there under water?
Consultant: Exactly! I wanted to tell you about this. People learn a working technique and stop there. If there are more conventional “fish” than a neighbor's – it means that the technique is better, or it has been mastered better. You can calm down…
But suddenly, the situation changes. Instead of a calm lake, there is a turbulent river. The old approach doesn't work. We need a new method and a new methodologist. It may happen that there is no suitable method – there is no one to ask or the situation is unique, no one has ever encountered such a thing. What to do? Starving to death? Trying to go through all sorts of options with the hope that something will accidentally work and a new method will be found? Isn't it more effective to understand what is really going on under water? Then the techniques themselves will be baked like hot cakes. If the general principles are clear, the particular option is always obvious. I hope it’s clear that I’m not talking about fishing for a long time, but about any methods.
Engineer: It seems to me that you demand too much from an ordinary person. A common man needs a method when he can take money, go to the store and buy fish. If the store is closed – there is a 24-hour supermarket nearby.
Consultant: Well, of course I'm not talking about an ordinary person. You yourself asked about science and methods. Science looks at the root, understands the foundations. And the method is how knowledge is applied in a specific situation. Although, you know, sometimes, in general terms, for any person to be successful in his field of activity, it is necessary to “look under the water”. In my training sessions, I often start with this slide:
The first level of maturity of understanding is "HOW?"
"The little son came to his father and asked: what is good and what is bad?" At this level, they usually say, “Do it! Don't do that! ” Without much explanation. Our managers sin with this. They give orders and wait not for questions, but for exact execution. Subordinates in this case gradually degrade, turning off their own brain. Or they connect it only in order to think of not rushing to carry out the order, because it can be canceled or another, more important task will come down.
The second level of maturity is "WHAT?"
I remember that it was a real discovery for me in management training. Before that, I felt like a very cool specialist, who knew "HOW" in the first specialty. And then it turned out that the world is more complicated, and if you did the right thing that nobody needs, then I'm sorry … “HOW” was not enough to be effective. It was necessary to understand “WHAT” to do in the current situation, which can, of course, change.
The third level of maturity is “WHY? WHAT FOR?"
If knowing "HOW" is practical, knowing "WHAT" gives tactical advantages, then the answer to the question "WHY?" – strategic! This is about maturity, about long planning horizons. For large companies doing business for a long term, this is the main question – "WHY?" Because you can win all the battles, but lose the war. Simon Sinek talks and writes a lot about this in his books. One of them seems to be called – “Start with WHY”
Engineer: I also noticed how people seemed to make completely different choices in the same situations. Some thought in the category “I need it now, and then at least the grass won't grow!”, while others took into account the consequences that may come in the future in a few years.
Writer: Agree, in this light, the behavior of a true believer may seem less naive, who answers the questions “why” at a particular moment, having eternal life as the planning horizon…
Consultant: Well … three levels: "HOW", "WHAT" and "WHY". But I have defined one more – the highest level of maturity, the fourth – ONTOLOGY. This is a search for answers to the question – how everything is organized. For example, we do not ask ourselves a question – why not take a step from the roof of a 15-storey building? As if everything is clear: if you take a step, you will fly down and crash to death. This is how the physical world is organized. Therefore, I am sure that once you understand the ontology, you can very easily answer all the previous questions – WHY? WHAT? HOW? This means that it can help anyone in any area. Although in scale it already looks like science. And if the answers are given only on the first three levels, on the first two, or, in general – only to the question "HOW?" – this is definitely a methodology!
Writer: “Methodology” – from Greek – the teaching of methods. As I understand it from our conversation today: science is more powerful than methodologies, which can be many different on one topic. And you, by the way, do not bother that there are also a lot of sciences? A whole Academy of Sciences was established :)
Engineer: It's getting late, can we continue next time?
Consultant: I have an answer to your question! But, in order not to interfere in a heap, I agree – let's go next time.
Engineer: Fine!
Writer: Well, good. See you again, my friends!
03 Philosophy
Consultant: I definitely enjoy our philosophical conversations with you. At first, I confess, the Writer seemed too emotional to me. You, Engineer, were too rational. And the only common thing that united us then, as it seemed to me, was that together we graduated from one "applied mathematics" at the university, there are common themes and a common language. But then our life paths diverged, and when we began to communicate again, I asked myself – "why be together again if we have become so different?" Is nostalgia for adolescence a sufficient condition for friendship?
Writer: Heartless bastard!
Engineer: I agree.
Consultant: Wait a minute, let me finish! Engineer, do you remember how we argued about communism and capitalism? I had just finished my second managerial education and was trying to explain to you that “it's easier to break than to build”. That it is possible, probably, to return the plundered factories, but then they also need to be competently managed and developed. It is wrong to make a revolution, demolish the existing organization and say that you have done your half of the work and someone else has to continue somehow.
Engineer: I didn't say that. On the contrary, we then invited you to a meeting of our cell, so that you made a presentation about management to us.
Consultant: