As expected, the article in the last issue about work and mindset raised some questions.
I can’t respond to all the readers who wrote to me, but before I continue, I’d like to clarify at least two things.
It is obvious that, regardless of the situation, we do not want to act in conflict with the environment in which we find ourselves; if this happens nonetheless, we have three options:
a. to accept the conflict;
b. to change the environment;
c. to change our behavior.

The Illusion of Control and the Art of Adaptation

Accepting the conflict almost never leads to positive results but, at best, to unproductive complaining. The possibility of changing the environment exists, but it is usually something that is out of reach and requires a great deal of time.
Changing our behavior is infinitely easier and faster; however, this does not prevent us from contributing to the creation of a better environment.
That is why the issue I raised regarding mindset referred to understanding the environment and the ability to adapt to it, and not to criticizing and judging.
In this sense—and here is the second thing I want to confess—it may seem as though I approve of and defend the American mindset and way of reacting. I’m sorry for the few dozen friends I have in America, but that’s not the case.
America is clearly a great country that has achieved extraordinary results in the technological and economic spheres. But it is a country where 30 million people live below the poverty line, where per capita consumption of sleeping pills, cocaine, and heroin is the highest in the world, and where the crime rate reaches terrifying levels (if you happen to end up in certain neighborhoods in Los Angeles or New York and manage to escape with your life, you’ll realize that Bucharest is paradise); therefore, I hesitate to recommend this standard of living to you.
The American system generates dollars, but it does so at an extraordinarily high social cost, at the expense of other things that seem more important to me: health, the environment, family, social harmony, culture…

Management Lessons from Ancient Rome

Speaking of which, every time I talk to an American, my Latin soul takes over and I can’t resist the temptation to point out that back when they were hunting bison, we were building the Colosseum and the Imperial Forums and running an empire without the help of computers, phones, or fax machines. (I’ll take this opportunity to let you in on a secret: I’ve read hundreds of books and attended dozens of seminars—American ones, of course—on management, communication techniques, negotiation, running a business, and so on.
Well, if you want to save time and money, read Cicero, Epictetus, and especially Seneca: you’ll find everything there is to know about the subject explained much more clearly and much more enjoyably).
That being said, let’s see why it’s so important to understand and get used to the American mindset.
It is, once again, a matter of adapting to the environment; whether we like it or not, today, American influence is the strongest: all commercial transactions take place in English, the dollar is the international currency by definition, and American multinational corporations are invading and colonizing us with their products and methods.
Everywhere you look, you see “Coca-Cola,” “McDonald’s,” “Marlboro,” etc., and every television station broadcasts American TV shows, movies, and music daily, following a policy of grotesque cultural colonization (while stronger nations like Germany or France try to limit this invasion).
It is likely that in the coming decades we will face the issue of colonization by powers from the Far East, especially China, but at least for now we must get used to a dominant mindset.
Therefore, returning to the subject of our article, the approach we must draw inspiration from will certainly be the American one, seeking to do everything possible to limit the negative consequences: the faster we manage to adapt, the faster we will achieve positive results, at least commercially.
I said that, in a competitive environment, the one who survives is the one who manages to adapt better and capitalize on the resources specific to that environment: the result is that—and here we make a direct connection to what was said in the previous issue—we must first understand the environment in which we operate.

The Dynamic Era: The End of the “Brick Maker”

If I had to define the world we work in today with a single adjective, the word that comes to mind is “dynamic,” meaning constantly in motion and changing.
Romania faced a change brought about by a revolution, and perhaps this seemed traumatic, but every entrepreneur finds themselves every day in the situation of having to face a change in the environment: new technologies (how many people, 10 years ago, used a computer, fax, or the Internet?), new competitors, new markets, legislative changes…
A hundred years ago, things could have been different: an entrepreneur would produce bricks and face no particular problems—prices were stable, as were manufacturing techniques and the market. Today, however, that is no longer possible: everything changes at an incredible pace, and every decision is characterized by uncertainty and risk.
Economics textbooks provide us with theories and methods that are aesthetically pleasing, but in practice, things almost always unfold differently.
Usually, situations are complex, data is unknown, as are the variables at play, and there is almost never enough time for an in-depth study. To succeed in the business world, it is no longer enough to graduate from college with a solid education; you also need qualities that no one can teach: intuition, creativity, experience, and, of course, luck. In a free market economy, everything evolves according to the same laws that govern nature: there is competition, and ultimately, only those who adapt best survive.

Risk Takers vs. Task Executors: The Crossroads of Wealth

“There are many ways to classify categories of workers, but the simplest—and the one that allows us to understand many things—is based on just two types:

• those who are occupied with the solution;

• those who are preoccupied with the problem.”

I mentioned in the last issue that the value of work is determined by the desirability of what is produced; today we have seen that there are few situations in the business world that are known in advance, especially people’s desires and competitors’ intentions.
It would naturally follow that anyone in a position to make decisions and take action at any level in the contemporary world must accept the necessity of taking risks and dealing with wrong decisions.
In other words, they should be willing to take risks. Everyone who works and makes calculations under conditions of uncertainty takes risks: entrepreneurs, merchants, freelancers, artisans…
They must be concerned with customer preferences, the competition, the political situation, their own health, and the behavior of their own employees. And, to the extent that experience and knowledge can help, every decision to be made is always like a bet at roulette: there is both the possibility of winning and that of losing everything.

Who takes care of it?

The answer to this question is: those who do a specific task, with no other responsibilities than those related to its proper execution. It matters less whether the work is complex or requires years of study: the responsibilities are not theirs, but those of the manager who entrusted them with the task.
If there is one thing that makes the difference in terms of earnings among workers, it is precisely their willingness to take risks and assume responsibilities—and to personally bear the consequences of failure. Everyone would love to have no worries and earn a lot, but, returning to the roulette example, it would be like claiming to play with a guaranteed win.
This is certainly the case for every employee: they trade the possibility of higher earnings for a secure salary, regardless of results.
But, obviously, the motivation to perform one’s duties well and improve results will be extremely low, unless coercive methods are used (just walk into a public institution—do you need any other examples?).

Who cares?

Today, more and more, companies are trying to get their own employees to care, precisely to achieve better results without having to resort to dictatorial methods.
All sales agents paid on commission care, just as managers do; and companies try through various methods to foster a bit of competitiveness at all professional levels.
It is evident that an economy based on the ethics of success and competition brings with it many negative consequences and extremely high social costs, as I said at the beginning. (Socialist theories were born precisely as an alternative to this type of society, but the results were not great.)
Various development models, such as the Japanese one, are probably better, but quite far removed from our way of thinking, so that for the moment they are totally inapplicable.
Returning to ourselves and our adaptation to our environment, let’s reflect on these two points:

– Today’s workplace is a “competitive” arena where we can survive only if we are willing to fight and give our best;

– whether we work for ourselves or for someone else, our earnings will always be commensurate with what we actually achieve, with our initiative, and with our ability to take risks and assume responsibility.

It will be up to each of us to choose what we want to do, but… let’s abandon the idea of having both financial success and a peaceful life at the same time.
GOOD LUCK!