To forward-think is not to predict the future.

It is thinking about and planning for the future, i.e., forward-looking.

In other words, it is not about predicting the future.

Of course, we Pinoys can easily fall into the trap of “alam ko na ‘yan.”

But that is either (a) hubris or (b) finite thinking – that comes from our finite world – aka our instincts: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.

Let’s hold it right there.

Our instincts are so ingrained in Juan de la Cruz and would respond to the lament of historian Ambeth Ocampo: “It is uncanny that much of what Mabini wrote over 120 years ago, especially his comments on government and people in government, sounds so contemporary. It is so uncanny that some make the mistake of declaring Mabini a prophet, a man who saw what we were to be a century later. My take on Mabini’s insights is [negative and] more depressing: Mabini continues to be relevant today means that we have not changed much since 1898. The real question is—is change coming? When?” [“Qualifications for public office,” Ambeth R. Ocampo, LOOKING BACK, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 10th Nov 2021]

Why can’t we change?

Our certitude comes from our firm belief in logical yet linear and incremental thinking – which is the foundation of higher education and how a syllabus is designed, for example.

But that is why the blog never tires of raising our instincts. We take them for granted as gospel truth, and worse, we embrace them as redeeming values.

For example, doesn’t the Pope speak to Christian charity? How can it be wrong?

It is not wrong, and what adds insult to injury is that we translate Christian charity as paternalism. And wittingly or not, it preserves and reinforces hierarchy – that rank has its privileges, aka a caste system.

Let’s test that:

Consider: (a) Our top eight companies cannot match the revenues of one Vietnam enterprise, Samsung Vietnam; (b) Thailand’s income per capita is over twice ours; Malaysia is more than thrice.

Question: How many CSR (corporate social responsibility) initiatives can our top eight companies dispense compared to Samsung Vietnam? Or how much tax revenues does Vietnam generate from one enterprise compared to our top companies combined? Similarly, how much can Thailand and Malaysian companies allot for CSR compared to ours?

Isn’t that what Einstein called “insanity,” to keep prescribing a solution to poverty driven by our instincts and value of hierarchy and paternalism – that brought us to where we are, the regional laggard with tens of millions of Filipinos malnourished and suffering from abject poverty?

Do we recognize that hubris and finite thinking stem from our “reflex” mode – which is a function of our instincts?

Even worse, economists have entertained the notion that “happiness” is the “true” measure of nation-building. How can people that can’t put body and soul together even figure out happiness? Recall the hierarchy of human needs.

We in the elite class are projecting our “self-actualization” needs to Juan de la Cruz, which adds insult to injury.

But our rationalization doesn’t stop there. We search for the ideal “ism” – and malign the model imposed on us by colonizers. We forget that the Japanese did not even write their Constitution. In other words, we are victims of history, of the past. We forget that relentless bombing by the US military razed Vietnam to the ground.

In other words, their war history and experience did not deter Vietnam. Instinctively, they had a “hardy mindset.”

Recall the 3C’s of the hardy mindset: (1) Challenge, (2) Commitment, and (3) Control.

They accepted the challenge of nation-building and stepped up to the plate, committed to traversing poverty to prosperity. Moreover, the Vietnamese recognized that they “controlled” only themselves and had no control over anyone else.

On the other hand, consider the instincts of Juan de la Cruz: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.

And Vietnam benchmarked against the Asian Tigers: To beg for Western money and technology; don’t love former invaders and colonizers. But we are poor nations; we cannot go it alone, and we need their money and technology.

Benchmark. Benchmark. Benchmark.

When it comes to “thinking,” a few great minds would stand head and shoulders above the rest of us. Please note that benchmarking picks the best-practice model, not random picking, especially those within our shores.

Yet, perfection is not of this world; and even benchmarks can’t afford to be static – because this universe never sleeps.

And that is not an ideology. In other words, the dynamism of the “universe” is not about being “progressive.”

Dynamism and interdependence characterize the creation story and the universe itself. Pick a starting point, from either the Big Bang or Eden to Africa to our species.

Thankfully, humankind possesses the hierarchy of human needs. That we, beyond survive, thrive in this dynamic, interdependent universe, exemplified by the photosynthesis phenomenon. If that is a mouthful, it comes down to one word, egalitarian.

And if we carry that premise to the 21st century, we will appreciate why open societies rank high in innovation, e.g., Switzerland, Sweden, the US. And despite China’s rapid rise as an economic power, the above countries rank several rungs higher in innovation.

Let’s pause right there.

Isn’t “egalitarian” contrary to our value of hierarchy and paternalism?

Consider: A tiny blade of grass has its place in the sun, as do the tallest trees or the conifer class. Still, humankind is unique if we believe that we are in the image and likeness of the Creator. And that means beyond the ability to survive is our capacity to thrive.

And that explains why beyond logical yet linear and incremental thinking, we can develop the ability of forward- and lateral thinking – and “connect the dots” and get from point A to point B. A blade of grass can’t step on the moon while humankind has been there and done that.

Recall the two operating systems in the brain that Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Laureate, showed us: (1) automatic or “reflex” mode and (2) conscious or “reflection” mode.

Although Steve Jobs acknowledged that his ability to “connect the dots” – how he defined creativity – comes from experience, consider: not all his ideas panned out, he strived and quickly learned from failures while doing his homework and tapping outside sources, including foreign ones – for knowledge, insights, and talents.

And among those, he paid tribute to his “father” – the one that adopted him, not the biological. He was an artisan who turned woodworking into an art, inside and out. And Jobs would proudly show how “amazing” an iPhone looks inside – unseen by the countless disciples of Apple products – not just outside.

Let’s get to the Philippines.

“Pass crucial economic bills,” EDITORIAL, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 8th Nov 2021.

Are we again prescribing solutions but aren’t yet shifting from “reflex” mode to “reflection” mode? But let’s continue with the editorial.

“Congress is now being asked to focus and work double time on the pieces of legislation they can pass within its very tight schedule. While Congress will resume session on 8th Nov, the Senate expects to direct the bulk of its work to the 2022 national budget deliberations.

“Congress will then adjourn for the Christmas break from 18th Dec to 16th Jan next year, then resume sessions from 17th Jan to 4th Feb, after which it will take a three-month lull for the May national elections. Sessions will resume on 23rd May and finally adjourn on 4th Jun.

“That leaves precious few days for comprehensive deliberations on the crucial economic bills. Legislators cannot waste their remaining time in the current Congress. They must instead help the economy move toward recovery by refining and passing the clutch of pending structural reform measures before them, to improve the country’s much-battered business environment.”

Should we laugh, or should we cry? It is beyond “too little, too late.”

In other words, where is the forward-thinking of Juan de la Cruz?

Consider Vietnam and Thailand, and Malaysia before them, demonstrated forward-thinking by aggressively moving from agriculture to an industrial economy.

And we can’t even utter the word.

Industrialize. Industrialize. Industrialize.

In other words, it is not CSR or Christian charity. Everyone can use more of them, but nation-building is about “traversing poverty to prosperity rapidly.”

It is egalitarian – i.e., shared prosperity is the common good – not hierarchy and paternalism.

See above; Thailand’s income per capita is over twice ours, Malaysia is more than thrice.

Ergo: How much can Thailand and Malaysian companies allot for CSR compared to ours?

Let’s pause once more.

Why can’t we figure out that egalitarianism is consistent with the character of the creation story and the universe itself? Think of the photosynthesis phenomenon as being dynamic and interdependent.

The bottom line: We must traverse poverty to prosperity rapidly.

But is that top of mind of Juan de la Cruz?

Or is it about the inevitability of another Duterte being the next president, if not another Marcos?

Our instincts are so ingrained in Juan de la Cruz and would respond to the lament of historian Ambeth Ocampo.

Will they lead us to traverse poverty to prosperity rapidly? Can they benchmark against Vietnam, the Asian Tigers, and China?

Will foreign money and technology flow to the Philippines with a Duterte or Marcos?

Or is that our value of hierarchy and paternalism run amok?

Juan de la Cruz became a pariah to the rest of the world because of Marcos and Duterte. And true to form, Duterte resurrected Marcos. And as night follows day, Marcos, with the benefit of unexplained wealth, commands the “respect” of Juan de la Cruz.

What do we do in the meantime? Let’s prescribe more of the same cures that turned us into the laughingstock of the region, if not the world?

But that’s who we are. Proud of “Pinoy kasi.”

Let’s get back to the editorial.

“One of the priority measures pending in Congress is the bill amending the Public Service Act, already approved by the House but remains pending in the Senate. The bill seeks to designate certain traditional public utilities such as transportation and telecommunications as “public services,” which would allow the entry of foreign companies into such industries.

“The other measures endorsed by the private sector for Congress to approve are bills seeking to (a) simplify tax payments, (b) boost digital payment systems, (c) update data transmission regulations, (d) ease the Bank Secrecy Law, (e) create the Department of Water Resources Management, and (f) institutionalize the Freedom of Information Act.

“Two other tax reform packages by the Duterte administration — the Passive Income and Financial Intermediary Taxation and the Property Valuation and Assessment Reform — are on the table, along with new initiatives such as the Philippine Creative Industries Development Act and the Rural Agricultural and Fisheries Development Financing System Act.”

Let’s hold it right there.

Recall that the blog introduced the “Theory of Change.” It is a methodology for planning, participation, and evaluation to promote social change. Theory of Change defines long-term goals and then maps backward to identify necessary preconditions.

“Theory of Change explains the process of change by outlining causal linkages in an initiative, i.e., its shorter-term, intermediate, and longer-term outcomes.

“The identified changes are mapped – as the ‘outcomes pathway’ – showing each outcome in logical relationship to all the others and chronological flow. The links between outcomes are explained, e.g., why one outcome is a prerequisite for another.

“The innovation of Theory of Change lies (1) in making the distinction between desired and actual outcomes and (2) in requiring stakeholders to model their desired outcomes before they decide on forms of intervention to achieve those outcomes.” [Wikipedia]

Let’s highlight the following: Theory of Change (a) defines long-term goals and then (b) maps backward to identify necessary preconditions. It speaks beyond “outputs” – aka “preconditions” – and stresses “outcomes.”

Translation: Amending the Public Service Act and the bills seeking to (a) simplify tax payments, (b) boost digital payment systems, (c) update data transmission regulations, (d) ease the Bank Secrecy Law, (e) create the Department of Water Resources Management, and (f) institutionalize the Freedom of Information Act, are necessary “precondition” or “outputs.”

Question: But what is the “outcome” that we seek – as the common good?

Answer: To traverse poverty to prosperity rapidly. How rapidly? Leapfrog the economic output of our neighbors by rapidly driving GDP by an incremental $200 billion.

We can’t stay with a finite metric that has failed us, e.g., a 6%-7% GDP growth rate.

Instead, we must figure out what foreign investment and technology we must lure that will rapidly yield an additional $200 billion in GDP. And it is not rocket science as Vietnam showed the world, and they attracted Samsung while we took FDIs for granted.

The same forward-thinking applies to agriculture. To be an agribusiness powerhouse, we must not stay with a finite metric that has failed us. We must figure out what tropical produce and their counterpart value-added packaged consumer goods will bring us closer to an incremental GDP of $200 billion.

See above; Theory of Change. It (a) defines long-term goals and then (b) maps backward to identify necessary preconditions. It speaks beyond “outputs” – aka “preconditions” – and stresses “outcomes.”

That brings us to the distinctions between “strategic thinking” and “strategic planning.”

“Apple’s strategy is straightforward. What we want to do is we want to put an incredibly great computer in a book that you can carry around with you and learn how to use in 20 minutes. That’s what we want to do, and we want to do it this decade. And we want to do it with a radio link in it, so you don’t have to hook up to anything, and you’re in communication with all of these larger databases and other computers.” [Steve Brachmann, www.ipwatchdog.com, 25th Nov 2014]

That’s Steve Jobs, speaking. How is that for being forward- and lateral thinking? Does that also spell out a desired “outcome” – beyond an “output”? 

What about raising one’s well-being as in productivity and a sense of accomplishment? 

If it is not apparent yet, the blog often references Jobs and Einstein. Why? We must benchmark against those that stand head and shoulders above us, and they should inspire us.

But Juan de la Cruz would instead speak to Duterte and Marcos?

And we wonder why we’re the regional laggard?

“Good ideas can come from anywhere. Most of us recognize the wisdom embedded in that statement, yet we still see strategy as the realm of our organization’s senior leaders. That may be because we tend to equate strategic thinking with strategic planning. Although these practices are related and equally necessary for organizational success, they are pretty distinct.

“In strategic planning, leaders gather data and decide on the path the organization will take to achieve its goals.

“With strategic thinking, employees at all levels and in all functions continually scan for new ways to contribute to the organization’s success. They apply those insights as they carry out organizational priorities and provide input to the overall strategy. In this way, strategic thinking is part of everyone’s job – whatever their role or level of responsibility.

“Why is this ability to think strategically especially important now? Today’s organizations are more dispersed and less hierarchical than ever before. With the pace of change continuing to rise, it’s no longer feasible for people to wait for “orders from above.”

“All employees must keep an eye on the future, not just react to what’s happening in the present. They need to look beyond their functional areas to become aware of the bigger context they operate. And they have to be agile learners who identify opportunities by challenging their own and their team’s assumptions about how things work in their organization and industry.

“With strategic thinking taking on even greater importance in organizations, we’ve made significant updates to the Harvard Manage Mentor Strategic Thinking topic. The content we’ve added will assist people to boost their productivity and effectiveness by making strategic thinking a habit and includes practical ways that enable them to do so.

“One practice is simply taking the time to think strategically – something that’s not always easy in today’s fast-paced business settings. Another involves inviting dissent on your team. To make strategic decisions, you need people on all sides of an issue to speak their minds. By letting team members know that speaking up is an essential part of their jobs, you free them to provide meaningful input.

“Other strategic thinking practices are useful for training yourself to see opportunities and threats well before they happen. For example, most of us are comfortable using convergent thinking – analysis, logic, and reasoning – to come up with the “best” option from a set of choices.

“We tend to be less adept at divergent thinking, which involves generating lots of ideas to find innovative solutions.

“This isn’t an either-or process: When you first diverge as a team to generate ideas and then converge on a path forward, you improve your ability to design and implement strategic actions.

“The future will undoubtedly look a lot different from today. No one can predict tomorrow, but by identifying different scenarios, you and your team members stretch your thinking about what opportunities and threats might emerge, how they might impact your organization, and what you can do about them. You learn to enact significant change rather than make incremental improvements. And it all begins with strategic thinking.

“How do you foster strategic thinking throughout your organization?” [“Strategic Thinking: Because Good Ideas Can Come From Anywhere,” Janice Molloy, www.harvardbusiness.org, 7th Nov 2017]

If it is not apparent yet, the postings take us to different and seemingly unrelated topics. It is a good exercise in lateral thinking that is critical in identifying different scenarios. 

Consider: What foreign investment and technology must we attract to generate $200 billion in additional GDP? What portfolio of tropical produce and their counterpart value-added packaged consumer goods will make us an agribusiness powerhouse? 

And do we wonder why the blog often speaks to the egalitarian ethos? 

And why are we the regional laggard? Consider our instincts: We are parochial and insular, and we value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.

To forward-think is not to predict the future, and it is to think about and plan for the future, i.e., to be forward-looking. 

It is not to be held back by history, as demonstrated by Vietnam or Mahathir to Juan de la Cruz. We don’t have to love former colonizers. But we are poor nations; we cannot go it alone, and we need their money and technology.

Gising bayan!