Driving, Action, and Mobilization

To ensure the continuous and regular operation of the Intelligent Consortium network, organizational individuals must ensure that Action Nodes and Driving Nodes within the network are fully mobilized and fulfill their intended roles. During network operations, the effectiveness of Action Nodes is relatively easy to observe and evaluate, as actions inevitably produce results and feedback. By analyzing these results and external feedback on the environment, the performance of Action Nodes can be assessed. When the Action Nodes of the entire network are refined to a single organizational individual, although this Action Node (organizational individual) encompasses both “Decision-making unit” and “Execution Unit,” considering that this organizational individual is the most basic unit within its organization (indivisible further, as defined in the chapter “Definition and Description of Organizational Individuals” in Organizational Settings of Intelligenism), and since we do not need to subdivide further the network of the most basic organizational individual (e.g., analyzing it from the perspective of neural networks structures), this basic organizational individual, which includes both “Decision-making unit” and “Execution Unit,” can be regarded as the “Execution Unit” component of the Intelligent Consortium’s organizational network (i.e., blurring its “Decision-making unit” and “Execution Unit” into a single “Execution Unit” entity). At this point, the output results are typically easy to attribute responsibility to and evaluate for quality.

When focusing on Driving Nodes, it is undeniable that any Driving Node, in performing its driving function, relies on Action Nodes within a smaller, subordinate network. For instance, a Driving Node’s role may involve providing suggestions, voting, or determining rewards and penalties for Action Nodes within the same network. In the smaller, subordinate network corresponding to this Driving Node, actions such as issuing suggestions, conducting votes, or determining reward and penalty outcomes inevitably involve action elements.

However, for the purpose of observing and evaluating network operations at a single network structure level, when analyzing a network as a Driving Node, we treat the Driving Node as a purely driving entity, ignoring the “action” characteristics it may exhibit in its subordinate network. This is because, during observation and evaluation, we should not consider the Nested relationships between the network and its subordinate networks or the issue of infinite network subdivision, as excessive subdivision can lead to confusion in evaluation and responsibility attribution.

After clarifying the observation dimensions for Action Nodes and Driving Nodes, it becomes evident that evaluating the results (effectiveness) of Action Nodes is relatively straightforward, while evaluating the results (effectiveness) of Driving Nodes is more challenging. For example, when a procurement officer (as an Action Node) completes a cost-effective and satisfactory procurement, or a salesperson (as an Action Node) secures a large order, observers within the organization can easily assess the procurement officer’s or salesperson’s work results and calculate their performance. However, evaluating the effectiveness of the opinion groups (providing operational suggestions) or appointment groups (determining the appointment of the procurement officer or salesperson) behind these Action Nodes is much more difficult. The challenge lies in the fact that without the empowerment from Driving Nodes within the network, Action Nodes may not be able to complete their tasks successfully. Without a comprehensive and advanced evaluation and reward mechanism for Driving Nodes, their contributions may go unrecognized.

For the Intelligent Consortium’s organizational network to operate continuously and perform well, the sustained functioning of both Driving Nodes and Action Nodes is essential. In this process, effectively mobilizing each node is key to the network’s successful operation, as better mobilization means that organizational individuals within the nodes can leverage higher levels of intelligence degree, enabling the organizational network to achieve a higher degree of intelligence degree manifestation.

Based on the definition of mobilization in Organizational Settings of Intelligenism: “Organizational mobilization is a method by which an organization provides information to organizational individuals, who then make decisions, determine actions in a manner they approve (achieving a Rights conversion form they are satisfied with), and ultimately complete the Rights Conversion.” Therefore, the purpose of mobilizing organizational individuals is to enable them to complete their Rights Conversion with higher efficiency. Whether for Action Nodes or Driving Nodes, mobilization follows the following framework:

The Node Individual Mobilization Degree (m) is determined by the Rights Conversion Benefit Ratio (G) and Driving Influence (A):

Node Individual Mobilization Degree (m): Refers to the mobilization degree of the organizational individual corresponding to any node (see the chapter “Reflections on Individual Mobilization Degree” in Organizational Settings of Intelligenism for the definition of mobilization degree).

Rights Conversion Benefit Ratio (G): The ratio of an Individual’s total uncompleted rights conversion value in the specific organization to their Individual’s total uncompleted rights conversion value across all organizations.

Rights Conversion Benefit Ratio = Individual’s total uncompleted rights conversion value in the specific organization / Individual’s total uncompleted rights conversion value across all organizations

For example, suppose Individual X has an uncompleted rights conversion value of 80 yuan in a specific organization and 100 yuan across all organizations. In that case, their Rights Conversion Benefit Ratio in that organization is 0.8. If Individual Y has an uncompleted rights conversion value of 100 yuan in the specific organization and 200 yuan across all organizations, their Rights Conversion Benefit Ratio is 0.5. Although Individual X’s rights conversion value (80 yuan) is lower than Individual Y’s (100 yuan), Individual X’s benefit ratio (0.8) is higher than Individual Y’s (0.5), suggesting that Individual X is theoretically likely to have a higher Node Individual Mobilization Degree than Individual Y in that specific organization.

Driving Influence (A): Refers to the extent of an individual’s influence within a specific organization. A higher A value indicates greater influence, meaning their opinions are more likely to affect the behavior of other organizational individuals. In comparison, a lower A value indicates less influence, making it harder for their opinions to impact the decision-making or execution of others. When exerting influence, organizational individuals must act as nodes (either Driving Nodes or Action Nodes) within an organizational network structure. Driving Nodes exert influence through methods specified in the network’s consensus-building mechanisms (e.g., suggestions, voting, or reward/penalty decisions). In contrast, Action Nodes exert influence by acting on the external environment, combining the Driving Influence of Driving Nodes with their own preferences.

Based on the settings of Intelligenism, I believe that an individual’s Node Individual Mobilization Degree (m) is determined by G*A (positively correlated). In an output network, if an individual has high G and A values, they will be more motivated to make decisions (drive) the network to achieve better Rights Conversion benefits for themselves. If G is high but A is low, meaning the benefits from the network are critical to the individual but their ability to influence the network is weak, they may become passive or disengaged. Conversely, suppose G is low but A is high, meaning the benefits from the network are insignificant to the individual despite their strong influence over the network’s output. In that case, they may also become passive or disengaged.

The total mobilization degree of the entire network is denoted as M. In network operations, the goal is to maximize each individual’s m to achieve the maximum value of M. When M reaches its maximum, the network’s total mobilization degree is considered to be at its peak. However, in real-world operations of the Intelligent Consortium network, M can only approach its maximum value infinitely, but is unlikely to reach the absolute maximum M(MAX). Thus, the goal is to make M as large as possible rather than achieving a perfect M(MAX).

In an organizational network, ensuring that individuals with a high Rights Conversion Benefit Ratio (G) also have a high Driving Influence (A) is key to approaching M(MAX). In the formula m ∝ G*A (m is positively correlated with G*A), G is an independent variable (determined by the individual’s allocation of rights resources). At the same time, A is a dependent variable (determined by other organizational individuals and consensus-building mechanisms). Since a specific organizational individual cannot significantly alter their Driving Influence (A) within the organization through their own actions, to make M approach M(MAX), the network’s mechanisms should quantify an individual’s G value and then derive a quantified A value based on G, using A as the determining factor for the individual’s influence within the organizational network.

However, in the practical planning and management of a specific organizational network, determining an individual’s Rights Conversion Benefit Ratio (G) is challenging because it requires knowing the individual’s total uncompleted rights conversion value across all organizations in which the individual is involved. Since organizations cannot thoroughly investigate the uncompleted rights conversion values of all other organizations associated with an individual, calculating a fair G is impractical. To address this challenge, a substitute metric, Proportion of an Individual’s Uncompleted Rights Conversion in the Organization (G’%), is introduced to improve the design of the individual mobilization scheme.

G’% : Proportion of an Individual’s Uncompleted Rights Conversion in the Organization

G’ : Individual’s uncompleted rights conversion value in the organization

G’TOTAL : Total members’ uncompleted rights conversion value in the organization

G’% = G’ / G’TOTAL

Admittedly, G’ may not be as accurate as G in reflecting an individual’s motivation. Referring to the earlier example, calculating G shows that Individual X is theoretically more motivated than Individual Y. However, calculating G’ cannot confirm that Individual X is more motivated than Individual Y. The G’ metric can only revert to the conclusion: “Since Individual X’s uncompleted rights conversion value in the network is lower than Individual Y’s, Individual Y is more motivated.” Although this conclusion may not be entirely accurate, from the perspective of the entire organizational network, the logic that “those with greater interests are more engaged and motivated” still holds some guiding significance. Since G’ only requires assessing an individual’s actual situation within the organization, its calculation is significantly less complex, making the derivation of A based on G’ more practical. (As noted in the chapter Philosophical Foundations of Intelligenism, Theoretical Adaptability is constrained by the Cost-Benefit of Theoretical Adaptability. While G has stronger guiding significance, in practice, we must resort to G’ to construct the network. Although G’ has weaker Theoretical Adaptability, it offers a higher Cost-Benefit of Theoretical Adaptability.)