sexta-feira, dezembro 12, 2014

"Gente sem espaço para a surpresa, nunca irá longe"

Em perfeito alinhamento com o que penso e escrevo sobre os académicos que fazem parte da tríade:
"Debate is fine but practice is what matters. The particularization or localization discussion above gets closer to practice than a purely theoretical discussion allows. Practice is often presumed to be the implementation of theory. But theories are always constructed with simplifications, excluding some features while attending to others. Thus no theory can embrace all the issues a practice engages.
Put differently, real practice must be evaluated in the world of experience that is never of a single dimension or embraced in the abstract world invoked by a theory. Judgment is always necessary to reasoned practice, a view theorizing tries to deny. [Moi ici: Não consigo deixar de pensar nisto]...
In von Clausewitz’s time military thinking had tilted towards excessive rigor in theories of formation, lines of fire, general rules about the center of battle gravity, and so on. [Moi ici: Recordar Lanchester, recordar Cornwallis, recordar David] The assumption was that a proper application of the scientific method would lead to theories about surefire ways to win, [Moi ici: Só mesmo os franceses, para acreditarem em leis que definissem a sorte da guerra!!!] changing the face of war and international diplomacy forever. War would no longer be a matter of chance; it would be a science. These notions were central to the training in the French military schools. Von Clausewitz, who fought the French and feared they would overrun Europe, thought thinking of war as a science a grave error, a misunderstanding of its indeterminate (foggy and chancy) human nature, and that the real issue was not whether any of the available theories were valid or not, but rather how they might be best applied under battle conditions. He did not dismiss theory, far from it.
The key to von Clausewitz’s thinking lay in his “dialectical” method, his sense that in the real world there were always at least two opposing or mutually exclusive ways of thinking about something [Moi ici: Faz-me lembrar "Existe sempre uma alternativa"]- perhaps two theories or heuristics. He thought of strategizing in terms of natural language and its openness to surprise and creativity rather than formal language and deterministic theory. The Clausewitzian world is one of trade-offs—matters of practice inevitably involving judgments supported by, but never dictated by, analysis.
Von Clausewitz argued no theory should be presumed relevant without first identifying its antitheses, the opposing ideas or critique, and then second, appreciating that choosing between the opposing ideas was the very essence of strategic work, a judgment-call that lay outside any of the theories being judged."
Gente sem espaço para a surpresa, nunca irá longe.

Trechos retirados de "Business Strategy - Managing Uncertainty, Opportunity, and Enterprise" de  J.-C. Spender.

Sem comentários: