Conventional Planning based on linear logic requires forecasting of the future so as to prepare a strategy for execution a plan. This plan then becomes the blue print that directs the
operating staff towards action - 'Output'.

The instruction TO DO becomes policy for OUTPUT, & becomes the critical function of - the executor - the manager whose linear function is to DO as per plan & specified by policy.

With Hierarchies getting flatter, and outputs increasingly controlled by digital software and hardware
systems. The "to do" for output is continually getting more automated through digital technologies that now require lesser people. We are infact automating "the tangible and thereby reducing them as the differentiators within competetion. The result is reduced and eroding margins from tangible investments and planning"

We have already started to experience the declining or static rates of growth despite huge investments in automation of production based systems.

The future is indicating the increasing economic dominance of INPUT based services which are either within pre or post production, and almost all INTANGIBLE and dependant on environment. They all require changed responses.

Flattening of management structures is an acknowledgement & acceptance of this Non Linear Era and its poor forecastability . Managing change requires greater discretion & flexibility closer to the point of action.

In this nano-second fast changing market we are increasingly unable to lay down POLICY & "to do" norms that are sustainable. Today "to do" policies are restrictive for operational managers as they prevent flexibility, discretion, and adaptability for the doer.

We need to leave the "to - do" decisions to the executor; The man on the job, on the street and within the market. While being necessary this also raises the level of human resource human and endorses the existing need for giving more “discretion” to our employees. Each Employee can then evolve into a self manager which identified by NLT as our 'basic need for future management'.

Where policy remains based on "to-do" lists as specified by top management we find that a progressively greater investment
is required to execute every next introduction. They require a LARGER volume to permit amortization. We see more spend on
fire fighting to maintain output because changing market conditions make it difficult for the executors to adhere to "to-do" policy norms.


NLT identifies a planning tool that would be more effective within uncertainty

Companies should now plan based on making lists and identifying their policy based on what "they will not do!"

This allows the management to empower executors to do as per market needs and changing environments. BUT this needs to be within some policy! These also should be based on what the company has identified that it will not do!
Top management would thus be able to drastically reduce decision making within day to day operations, by defining WHAT NOT TO DO, based on resources, market conditions, priority and as a corporate objective.

NLT calls this 'Planning by Negation'! While negation policies will themselves require change, in a Non Linear era they would prove to be far more durable when compared to linear direction based to-do policies.

Negation based planning can even help define the future objectives to be based on what the unit or corporate will not do as an operations Policy - for the next time frame and superseding the last negation policy.

This is ideal for “small business” which must compete within the vagaries of uncertainty - and because they do not have the resources that SEEMS to be required for the long gestation that seems to have become the standard acceptance in todays markets.

We currently see 'flexibility' as a unique corporate quality. With negation based planning it can become a common skill.

Examples: A negation based policy can be one that decides that- “It will not”.

• Oversupply the market to achieve sales.
• Provide credit to move product.
• Cut prices to sell unless it is to dispose and close the product line.
• Add product range only to maintain sales.
• Increase prices to cover expenses, it will only cut costs - and so on!

Another Company within the same industry or product group could have a list that could have the inverse objectives and yet their policy would make sense BECAUSE it is based on their circumstance and objective.

While holding prices could be a sign of strength for one corporate based on their objective and circumstance. Another could use price cutting to be their “volume strategy” - and therefore despite having a different list, Both would be correct.

In a non linear era we must get away from seeking to find success based old emulation models. Formulae are dead and every company and product must seek to identify and survive based on its differentiators NOT similarity or equality. Negation based objectives should be more enduring and considered to be based on integrity because the intent is retention.
(see 'Human Values incorporated with Economics' )

The natural ability to conform to negation policies for an extended period would determine the mettle of a Company, its management policy, and its practical understanding of market realities and markets.

This can become the 'cornerstone for evaluation of future management'.

BUT a “will not do” negation policy must like any other be reviewed as per change. The frequency of change would indicate a weaknesses, based on poor fundamentals, lack of market knowledge, or just sudden events. We also need to accept that in a Non Linear era we have to be prepared for unexpected events like war, political change, natural disasters etc.

Non Linear Thinking accepts that contradiction within similar environments is a natural feature of the future.

Negation can create a powerful positioning for every business entity as a natural creation, and can become its policy based on its own resources. Every company would have a natural exclusivity - creating more synergies and less conflict

Even Governments could prioritize their a national or regional economies by deciding “what they should not to do” - in order to insure better utilization of their resources. Social Investments and Inputs would then be based on inherent local resources needs, strengths & skills, with less dependance on external help- insuring a better return and focus on existing resources.


In the future every corporate or entity can be sucessful based on their “difference” and be recognized for the “integrity” of their"will not do" policy. Emulation of a historically successful output formula, in this Non Linear era no longer provides the same return as the past model proposed or indicated.

HONESTY CAN THUS BECOME AN ECONOMIC TOOL FOR BETTER PROFITS.

The Management philosophy of the future should be based on the knowledge of the 'durability of commandment over doctrine'. Even a changed Commandment is indicative of strength as its acknowledgment and framework is based on transparency. It is clear because it is based on "WILL NOT DO"!

WE see visible change where in almost all institutions and corporates erstwhile rules and policy - are replaced by “objectives and mission".

The constant erosion of human values has resulted in our having to face a continuously rising “costs” for integrity and successful execution. We need to pay more and more to the fewer number who manage and control investments. NLT indicates that this narrowing of dependance on a few is almost proportionate to the narrowing of integrity and the lack of it. This is therefore a systems flaw and not necessarily a lapse of human character. This is a failure of our management systems and not human morality.

Example: We see that customer care is providing a higher economic return than any level of technology and capital investment. But to most - this is still considered an intangible input linked to integrity - despite the proof of its economic link and success.

Paradoxically this very NATURAL INPUT has become the privy of a few dynamic corporates. Why shouldn’t this be the norm rather than exception? Most recently successful corporates have proved that human value objectives are more durable as they have given more profit than old “output values” and mere “targets”.

Though most companies have framed objectives, many consider them to be more philosophical than missions. The hypocrisy usually lies in the denial that reality is controlled by economics & within rapidly changing conditions - they may have to be frequently compromised or abandoned.(for economic reasons)

Most successful companies have used integrity as the cornerstone for tangible profit and growth. We MUST inform and teach our students as future managers to consider integrity as a management system and a profit making tool, rather than an intangible
moral component. This would make the tenets of planning more effective, and less philosophical.

The recent CEO backlash within the erstwhile hallowed Fortune corporations is an example of the failure of their management philosophy where the linear logic of economic motivation had turned nonlinear because it had long surpassed the stage of RELATIVE SATURATION.

What are the tangible components of integrity and character within management?

Paradoxically - positive attributes and traits - are just clichés that are external adjectives that can be created and manipulated. The real traits are revealed by “Negation”.

We can appear to have discipline and character by conforming to social norms, visible token gestures, social profile based charity, and “doing” what is visibly moral and pious. These are “clichés”.

To “abstain” requires greater strength than to merely conform.

The most difficult is to List 'WHAT WE HAVE DECIDED NOT DO' - and stick to it!

Since the future is not emulating a past pattern, conventional forecasting based on action plans are Impractical to sustain.

Negation can show and build MORE integrity for a corporate THAN action!

While this logic may feel alien- in practice it will feel right. It is only our reflex pushed by OLD systems that make us retain an output focus.(see 'Input v/s Output - a contradictory relationship')