Execution, Decision-Making, and Mobilization

The execution and decision-making behaviors of organizational individuals are part of their rights exchange with the organization. Execution implements a predetermined rights exchange scheme (single path), while decision-making selects a single path from multiple options. When choosing a path, individuals tend to select the scheme most favorable to their rights exchange (either maximizing short-term execution benefits or securing opportunities for future efficiency gains). Mobilization, for organizational individuals, is the process by which the organization presents or promotes a rights transformation scheme. This is akin to displaying goods in a marketplace; when individuals accept the internal value and price of the goods, they exchange rights (e.g., time, money) to complete the “transaction” and take the goods (completing mobilization). Thus, organizational mobilization involves collecting, processing, managing, and delivering information about the needs and goals of individuals, who then make decisions and execute in a manner they deem acceptable to complete the rights conversion.

Decision-making by organizational individuals occurs constantly, accompanied by various execution behaviors that impact the organization or external environment. These decisions continuously adjust the individual’s behavioral path to align with what they perceive as most advantageous. When the behaviors of mobilized individuals benefit the organization as a whole—enabling the organization to gain greater overall rights in interactions with the external environment—mobilization is positive. Otherwise, it is negative.

In the “executor” category, “executors” are individuals primarily tasked with execution within the organization, distinguished from “decision-makers.” This does not mean executors lack decision-making; it indicates many of their decision-making paths are restricted, even if they believe certain decisions could benefit both the organization and their future rights transformation efficiency. Executors cannot act on their judgments. While they retain decision-making in areas not restricted by “decision-makers” or organizational rules, their inability to influence the organization or predict decision-making benefits makes them more passive and short-sighted. With significant decision-making space stripped away, their potential to influence the organization diminishes, reducing interest in information related to long-term organizational development. Executors either trust that current “decision-makers” will provide better rights transformation prospects or focus on maximizing short-term efficiency within limited decision-making paths. Long-term organizational development becomes an unrealistic and hollow aspiration. For example, it is challenging for managers to inspire dishwashers in a restaurant or factory workers to focus on the organization’s long-term future, as their enthusiasm for organizational improvement wanes under sustained execution-focused work.

In the “decision-maker” category, traditional top-down organizational systems mean most decision-makers are subordinate to a higher decision-maker, limiting their decisions to specific authority scopes. When systemic issues across organizational modules require holistic optimization for further development, decision-makers with limited authority may realize their decisions cannot drive organizational progress for greater future efficiency. If they can maximize personal rights transformation by harming the organization within their limited authority, they may propose decisions detrimental to the organization’s overall interests.

Both “executors” and “decision-makers” are like children in a toy pile; without meticulous control from parents or guardians, maintaining order is challenging. In most traditional organizations, mobilization remains effective when systems and basic development logic are functional, akin to a supermarket profiting despite minor theft or employee opportunism. However, in rapidly deteriorating external environments with rising operational and competitive pressures, outdated and inefficient management may fail. Implementing better mobilization and management schemes or curbing harmful behaviors may help, but decision-makers still are decision-makers, executors still are executors as well, and the cybernetic system’s limitations persist, capping mobilization potential.