We can’t keep shrinking Juan de la Cruz’s world

Let’s hold it right there.

We can’t be in denial mode and hope the world will give us a break. Darwin is reality. 

That’s why the blog never fails to bring up the treaties of the late George Gorospe, SJ, on “reality.” It is beyond our experience or any system that is a human construct.

Our caste system will keep shrinking our world, full stop.

Wittingly or not, Padre Damaso personifies who we are today – especially in the Philippine elite and chattering classes?

The problem magnifies because we take these instincts as “redeeming” values – and why they are hard to undo. They reinforce our defense mechanism – as in “pwede na ‘yan“ or the claim of “resilience.”

And they trap us in a vicious circle?

Consider: “Although rice is the main staple in the country, it is a highly political commodity. The Philippine rice sector has always been the center of the government’s agricultural policies.

“The focal points of the policies revolve around promoting rice self-sufficiency and providing high income to farmers while making rice prices affordable to consumers.” [Source: FAO’s FAOSTAT database online and AQUASTAT database online, as of September 2012]

Does the above make the point? We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.

We import rice while Thailand and Vietnam export rice. Yet, rhetoric is all we can show. We can’t provide high income to farmers. We can’t make rice prices affordable – and why consumption per person is less than our neighbors.

We can’t keep slicing the salami. Whether rice, the education budget, healthcare, or affordable housing, it boils down to how much we generate income-wise – per person – as an economy or nation.

The PH pie is too small to slice and dice for Juan de la Cruz.

We can’t shroud Juan de la Cruz with mere motherhoods and turn around and claim “resilience” – or “pwede na ‘yan.”

We can’t keep shrinking Juan de la Cruz’s world even if it benefits us in the Philippine elite and chattering classes. We are a consumption-service economy driven on the backs of over 10 million Filipinos toiling overseas absent families and the over a million call center workers.

That is why we have the most inequality in the region. Sadly, we take it as a given, if not a source of pride, because of our caste system.

In other words, our paradigm is out of sync with the century’s demands. Recall the challenge to leadership highlighted by the Harvard Business Review article referenced in a prior posting. 

For example, enterprises must seek to differentiate themselves from the rest of the crowd beyond the imperative to adapt to a digitized world. 

Consider: Benchmarking – which we are yet to embrace – alone won’t suffice. And it is not a one-time effort, given the dynamism of this universe. The object is to be head and shoulders above the competition.

Think of Tim Cone winning 23 championships — and why we can learn from him.

And that is why the blog discussed embracing a “growth mindset” in agriculture in a prior posting.

Let’s hold it right there.

Do we recognize that our “fixed mindset” failed us in agriculture? We must instead pursue an innovation-driven, globally competitive agribusiness industry.

We must learn – in short order – how to move across the “cognitive development” continuum of binary and relative thinking.

And that’s why the blog introduced “design thinking,” the latest version of brainstorming.

Thanks to Google: https://www.ideou.com/blogs/inspiration/what-is-design-thinking

“Design thinking is a process for creative problem-solving. It has a human-centered core. It encourages organizations to focus on the people they’re creating for, which leads to better products, services, and internal processes. When you sit down to create a solution for a business need, the first question should always be the “human need” behind it.

“In employing design thinking, you’re pulling together what’s desirable from a human point of view with what is technologically feasible and economically viable. The process starts with “taking action” and understanding the right questions. It’s about embracing simple mindset shifts and tackling problems from a new direction. It also allows those who aren’t trained as designers to use creative tools to address a vast range of challenges.

“Design thinking can help your team or organization: (1) Better understand the unmet needs of the people you’re creating for; (2) Reduce the risk associated with launching new ideas, products, and services; (3) Generate revolutionary solutions, not just incremental; (4) Learn and iterate faster.

“Design thinking is applicable no matter your role or industry. Whether you work in business, government, education, or nonprofit, design thinking can help you develop innovative solutions based on your customers’ needs.

“Design Thinking has been credited with innovations such as the computer mouse, Palm Pilots and Apple iPhones, and Pixar’s hit movies. And beyond developing new products and services, proponents insist it can even transform organizations.  

“A mantra of Design Thinking is that experts may not have good insights. Experts may get in the way of progress if they attempt to advance their ideas before users. While significant, as in the case of Steve Jobs, expert views are more often regarded inferior to the contributions of an entire group working together.

“It complements analytical thinking. If analytical thinking is deductive and linear, Design Thinking is abductive and non-linear. It “unrestricts” problems through brainstorming, or the more modern term, “ideation.”  It is iterative: its practitioners flip back and forth from design to prototype to redesign and will change their minds (“pivot”) frequently.  

“But it is not free-wheeling, endless creativity. Ideation and pivots are finite, and “practical costs” and technical limitations constrain final products. Risks are important yet managed. Metrics are defined and carefully monitored. It is not all abstract art.”

Here’s a quote from a prior posting. “The North Star – or our desired “outcome” – for Juan de la Cruz is “To traverse poverty to prosperity rapidly.” And to define its specific “output,” we will raise GDP by an incremental $200 billion to leapfrog the output of our neighbors, including Malaysia.

“And the $200 billion will come from the three legs of the economy: services, industry, agriculture.

“If we were a marketing-oriented enterprise, why shouldn’t we, when we are in a market economy, especially globally, think of Einstein and Jobs, who saw a world bigger than themselves? We must first have a product to market.

“Recall that “we must define the portfolio of our agribusiness industry, focus on “produce” and manufactured products that will generate scale – in revenue and margin.”

“For example, rice, beyond being our staple, has an export market, as demonstrated by Thailand and Vietnam. And coconut is a significant export generator for the Philippines.

“What else will meet the yardstick of generating scale revenue and margin-wise that we can and must pursue?

“In the meantime, let’s test where we are in agriculture versus the hypothesis of generating scale revenue and margin-wise?

“Although rice is the main staple in the country, it is a highly political commodity. The Philippine rice sector has always been the center of the government’s agricultural policies.

“The focal points of the policies revolve around promoting rice self-sufficiency and providing high income to farmers while making rice prices affordable to consumers.” [Source: FAO’s FAOSTAT database online and AQUASTAT database online, as of September 2012]

“If we only learn to benchmark, we will know that Thailand, for example, has over twice the land we have for rice production. By sheer scale alone, we must not be surprised if they are a significant rice exporter while we are importers, i.e., we have failed miserably to meet our desire of self-sufficiency.

“First, we want to double our land for rice production. We also want to consolidate what we have to attain economies of scale. And we want to focus on modern varieties with higher yields and differentiate and generate export revenues and healthy margins.”

“We need an “iterative” approach to problem-solving that intentionally seeks out people with different perspectives, knowledge, skills, and experience and has them work together to create a practical solution for a real-world problem” – aka Design Thinking.”

Can we pause – and ponder?

Recall that when the wife and I first came to Eastern Europe as a volunteer expert to represent USAID, the locals showed such deference that they assumed I was going to spoon-feed them. And when I did not, the deference turned into “outrage.” Because they did not yet appreciate the object of a “workshop” – i.e., they’re used to rote learning.

See above; expert views are often inferior to the contributions of an entire group working together.

Then consider: Juan de la Cruz values hierarchy and paternalism.

Think of democracy – it is an exercise in self-government that “personal responsibility” is imperative.

We don’t question it; instead, we ask, “How high,” when asked to jump. Our instincts are beyond deference; it’s abdication.

The bottom line: Design thinking is not in our comfort zone especially given, “A mantra of Design Thinking is that experts may not have good insights. Experts may get in the way of progress if they attempt to advance their ideas before users. Expert ideas, while important as in the case of Steve Jobs, are more often regarded inferior to the contributions of an entire group working together.”

Again, from a prior posting: “We can create a de facto group to brainstorm and craft how to traverse poverty to prosperity rapidly.”

“And the group will be as varied as can be – from the winningest basketball coach, Tim Cone, to Jon Canto of McKinsey, who proposes a radical, targeted design to attract FDIs from China to PH. Also, from IRRI to Arangkada to AmBisyon to someone like the late George Gorospe, SJ, whose treatise on “reality” reinforces the dynamism of this universe, among others. 

“But why should we create a de facto group to brainstorm and craft how to traverse poverty to prosperity rapidly? Why not leave it to the experts? But experts on what?

“Can we agree that nation-building takes a village? Do we buy the idea that democracy is self-government? And that “personal responsibility” is inherent?

“Then think of the “4 Cs to 21-century skills” – communication, collaboration, critical thinking, creative thinking.

“For example, we cannot keep talking to ourselves in the Philippine elite and chattering classes. We are among the fastest-growing economies, and over a decade, we attained the global yardstick of a 6%-7% GDP growth rate.”

Yet, Vietnam overtook us, no different from the Asian Tigers and China earlier.

We can’t keep shrinking Juan de la Cruz’s world.

And it comes from our caste system.

Wittingly or not, Padre Damaso personifies who we are today – especially in the Philippine elite and chattering classes?

The problem magnifies because we take these instincts as “redeeming” values – and why they are hard to undo. They reinforce our defense mechanism – as in “pwede na ‘yan“ or the claim of “resilience.”

And they trap us in a vicious circle?

Gising bayan!