In a historical moment dominated by speeches on technology, From 'artificial intelligence and sustainability, re-focusing attention on reasoning and philosophical method could be useful to reaffirm the centrality of human capital. The new essay by Emmanuel Priest Business philosophy – proposes new philosophical arguments that could strengthen the company strategy management.
We are in the midst of the fourth industrial revolution in which the greatest attention is paid to innovation, technology, artificial intelligence and talking about philosophy seems intriguing and against the trend. Why is this book coming out right now?
“Actually I should have let him out earlier. I wanted to look for a new perspective to encourage “good reasoning”. I think that, precisely in this historical moment of great innovations, but also of great uncertainties and broad focus on the most executive issues of the company, refreshing and recovering more human-centric and pure-thinking approaches and methods could be advantageous. The book is not a philosophy text. It is an essay that proposes the involvement of some philosophical methods in the entrepreneurial field to facilitate and improve the effectiveness of strategy and good governance”.
Could you give me some examples of this mixture?
“I have selected eight philosophers – Socrates, Aristotle, Bacon, Descartes, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Husserl and Popper – who in my opinion can help to elevate the strategic action of the governing body. For example Socrates tells us that it is better to always be humble: you know you don't know and, therefore, question. Or Aristotle advises us that it is necessary to deduce if you want to have some more certainty. Finally, Popper encourages us to search for error through evaluation and refutation as methods of validating a concept. These approaches seem to me to be very suitable for stimulating organizations to evolve and/or rethink themselves. My idea is that these philosophical methods – doubting, questioning, debating, enunciating – could mediate and increase the understanding of the surrounding reality, of the situation, of the different points of view and, finally, hopefully, empower the decisions to be undertaken in the near future” .
Don't you think that asking an entrepreneur to doubt might be a bit risky?
“I honestly hope not. I speak from lived experience. Doubt to believe more strongly. The purpose is not to object or contest the work done. The aim is improvement, effectiveness, full satisfaction. I honestly think that doubting is not a sign of weakness. Indeed it is a sign of reason and wisdom. I'd say being scared and/or lacking courage could be part of the problem. Doubting and asking questions can only represent a normal attitude and good behavior that assumes a reasoning behind decisions and actions. Doing to do, acting without reasoning, seems to me rash. Thinking too much and not acting maybe even worse. Furthermore, in the long run, the risk of dealing little and badly with the surrounding reality exposes the company to unconscious deviations from the desired route”.
What is the starting point why an entrepreneur should consider doubting?
“The first question in my long progressive inventory asks: What is the general, widespread and perceived level of satisfaction currently within the governing body? If the unanimous answer is not solidly affirmative then it would be worth starting to think/rethink what to change and renew, as without changing the existing status quo it will be difficult to hope for a significant improvement. Therefore the question is how to initiate the necessary change. Philosophy aside. For example, I have found many affinities and potential relationships of this method with various sustainability and ESG topics. The question technique has made a decisive contribution to better identifying strong areas and weak areas”.
In this sense, his reflection on the maturity of the company is interesting. What can it tell us?
“I believe that underestimating the maturity of a business project is the most dangerous strategic risk. In this phase there is a risk of altering and deteriorating the status quo and the consolidated reputational and competitive position as well as entering the tunnel of irreversible obsolescence. Hence, premature aging is among the worst evils. If we then add the more frequent cognitive biases connected to information asymmetries and the lack of self-critical thinking, there are many strategic risks to overcome in order not to enter a crisis. Of course, many businesses find a stable equilibrium which, however, risks being compromised due to uncontrollable external causes”.
Surely the connections are perceived, but what are the real benefits between philosophy and strategic management?
“In my opinion, the main benefit of using the philosophical method lies in internalizing greater realism, awareness and synthesis on one's actual condition through a profound investigation of self-awareness on one's limits and potential and on one's reality. To understand the essence of the enterprise, it is necessary to decode the purpose, the values and the reasons through a careful investigation of the attitudes, behaviors and practices implemented by the executive that governs and directs the venture towards its future. It is my opinion that we are always a co-responsible part of our dissatisfaction. Very pragmatically, all the gist of the speech proposes how to become more satisfied with one's fortune. The proposition for achieving this higher satisfaction is to become more critical, assertive, and eventually wise. The "philosophical way" proposes a method based on realism and awareness, commitment and, of course, pursuing the future. Very pragmatically to substantial projects in which to invest for the future (ed, such as sustainability)”.
So, could the proposed solution of grafting a pre-strategic loop be the solution?
I consider strategic planning and brilliant industrial plans a good way to try to intercept one's future. But I realize that many companies struggle to use them constructively and continuously. I have also realized time and time again that the flaw in much strategic planning lies in incorrect initial assumptions and considerations. The idea of a pre-strategic cycle, before drafting the executive strategy, could serve to better outline where we are and plan where we are going. My proposal suggests using Aristotelian deductive reasoning. Good governance should question itself more about its own established reality and future options. Good governance should strengthen domestic consensus through more debate. Good governance should always state and deliberate the pre-strategic premises and conclusions on which to base the corrective and change initiatives aimed at stimulating the vocation for progress. The practical benefit of this pre-strategic work is that it should last longer, if the results testify to it, and it should facilitate the implementation of the executive strategy. I tested it various times on some projects and it gave its results.
I understand the complexity of the topic, but could you give us some details?
“As mentioned, first of all you have to doubt whether you can and want to do better and then ask, debate and enunciate. The method wants to investigate facts, productivity, choices, results, ambitions, motivations, deadlocks and then try to find new arguments and more solid and robust options to increase governance, directionality and the vocation of progress . Thoroughly investigate the agents of progress. 1) Vitality (represents the sphere of identity and the area referred to consolidated assets, executive and evocative capacity, the magnitude of growth). 2) Management (represents the current and potential skills and abilities of governance, decision-making, strategic planning, ordinary and extraordinary operational management and administration as well as the cultural, social, environmental sensitivities of the owners, the board of directors and the command group). 3) Regeneration (represents the progressive and innovative forces able to modernize, modernize, renew, evolve). 4) Membership (represents the human capital that participates, works and executes the strategy and investigates hardskill and softskill aspects that create a participatory, cohesive, effective and efficient organization in a consensual environment). These four keywords are sized through 466 semi-open progressive questions that are part of the first section of the method. Then we debate together to seek convergence and synthesis and, finally, the new pre-strategic premises and conclusions that represent the corrective initiatives on which to base the strategy of the future are identified and stated".
