The power of creative thinking

v. Taking the path of least resistance

Two very successful entrepreneurs share with the writer their problem-solving instincts. Though continents apart, they have a common perspective; one is Filipino and the other an Eastern European. Both learned the ropes while recognizing that the environment was not exactly friendly to them. And so sensing an oncoming obstacle meant avoiding it beforehand, while pushing forward to reach one’s goal.

On the other hand, a very successful business person from the West talks about putting on one’s thinking cap. But are they really different? Or do these two perspectives in fact converge?

In the West they recognize that there are different thinking caps (we’re familiar with one of them: playing devil’s advocate). And thus they develop a range of options, not through one and the same prism, but after putting on each of the different thinking caps. (Of course, greed can be overriding as we saw in the implosion of the global financial system. Yet, they can be equally aggressive in addressing a problem.)

The bottom line: neither means taking the path of least resistance as we know it – because in both cases, reaching one’s goal is the object. Taking the path of least resistance risks sub-optimizing, or even missing one’s goal entirely?

From the very beginning we chose to take the path of least resistance? For example, scores have written about the folly of import substitution. But at the time it was the thing to do – to take the path of least resistance, being a young country that needed to be nursed along.

Unfortunately, we have stuck to the same instinct – avoiding hard decisions? We did not have an established manufacturing industry; and so we took the path of least resistance, and opted instead to field millions of OFWs globally . . . for decades! The bottom line: we have avoided taking hard decisions – like stepping up to the competitive plate? Thus it is no surprise where we stand in competitiveness?

We wanted to develop agriculture yet as the Vietnamese are demonstrating, developing agriculture requires taking hard decisions – moving from small-scale to high-technology and integrating biotechnology. (Today they’re poorer than us – tomorrow?) We wanted to upgrade infrastructure yet we’re now looking at Clark – good for the future – but still, we did not want to take the hard decisions on NAIA; thus not surprising the EU slapped our airlines with a ban, undermining our tourism industry? We wanted to step up power generation yet did not take the hard decisions to ensure implementation of our energy program?

What about our major industries, say, San Miguel or PLDT? Are they geared to raise our competitiveness as a nation? Or are they similarly taking the path of least resistance, i.e., be dominant in local businesses like infrastructure? (How can we award bids to failed bidders, for example?) Of course we need infrastructure, but precisely because they’re inward-looking, they’re not geared to compete globally? (Or why Gorbachev is critical of Russia – they remain an oligarchy, not a modern, developed economy?)

(Our competitiveness ranking and economic freedom index are not great (an understatement!), especially our corruption rating. A study at the University of British Columbia (Fair Play: the origins of selflessness; The Economist, May 18th) may give us some clue: “People living in communities that lack market integration [or market infrastructure] display relatively little concern with fairness or with punishing unfairness in transactions” . . . . And that “the development of [global] trade and the rise of organized religion” play a role in fairness.)