When discussing organizations, it is essential to consider the efficiency and significance of the organization’s external actions, which inevitably involve examining the issue of organizational mobilization, as the strength of mobilization is a key indicator of an organization’s capability.
2.1: What is Mobilization?
Before discussing mobilization, it is necessary to define what mobilization is. I define mobilization as the execution volume of rights conversion from organizational individuals to the organization. This rights conversion refers to the process by which non-organizational individuals become organizational individuals through rights conversion, or the process by which existing organizational individuals convert their rights to the organization. In this book, mobilization is a relative quantitative indicator for evaluating mobilization behavior. Others outside this book may have different definitions of mobilization, but in the context of this book, the terms “mobilization” and “mobilization strength” adhere to the definition provided above.
Suppose two villages, A and B, engage in a conflict over survival resources. Village A has 3,000 people and mobilizes 300 to fight, while Village B has 500 people and mobilizes 100. In terms of absolute mobilization numbers, Village A surpasses Village B. However, in terms of mobilization proportion, Village A’s is 10%, while Village B’s is 20%, meaning Village B has a higher mobilization proportion. Regarding the mobilized individuals, those from Village A may be more cautious about risking their lives and less willing to endure hardship compared to those from Village B. Some mobilized individuals in Village A might merely show up to make up numbers, without considering how to ensure the organization’s victory, or even being reluctant to engage in combat. Given these micro-level differences among mobilized individuals, an indicator is needed to evaluate the degree of mobilization of individuals, which I term “individual mobilization degree.”
Thus, the formula is: Mobilization Strength = Mobilization Proportion * Individual Mobilization Degree
Unfortunately, quantifying an organization’s mobilization strength in reality is a challenging task. However, the mobilization strength formula still offers evaluative and observational guidance. Particularly in constructing organizations, the concept of mobilization strength can provide design guidance for organizational builders and offer better observational perspectives and dimensions for mobilization-related activities during organizational operations.
2.2: Reflections on Individual Mobilization Degree
Using ancient warfare as an example, in earlier times, soldiers were primarily farmers during peacetime, trained and conscripted into soldiers during wartime. Later, professional soldiers emerged, receiving fixed salaries and more extensive professional training. From the perspective of individual mobilization degree, the former is significantly lower than the latter. However, in terms of mobilization proportion, the former is likely higher than the latter. Delving deeper into the individual mobilization degree reveals many details worth discussing. I propose that individual mobilization degree is synchronized with the amount of information mobilized: the higher the mobilization degree, the greater the information mobilized. In the earlier example, militia-like soldiers engaged in daily production during peacetime without continuous military training. Thus, their actions in military operations were simpler and cruder compared to those of professional soldiers. In combat, they might merely wield weapons to make up numbers, lacking in tactical coordination and combat skills compared to professional soldiers. Hence, their individual mobilization degree is low, reflected in the smaller amount of information mobilized.
In summary, a higher individual mobilization degree corresponds to a greater amount of information mobilized. As the info mobilized by individuals increases, the amount of information that needs to be managed also grows, requiring managers to have stronger information monitoring, feedback, and evaluation capabilities to manage highly mobilized individuals effectively.
The content corresponding to individual mobilization degree, from low to high, can be roughly categorized as follows (this is a personal understanding, not a standardized quantifiable classification):
- Presence;
- Simple physical execution (physically observable);
- Complex coordinated actions (physically observable but requiring training);
- Information processing and response;
- Autonomous decision-making;
- Proactive and extended learning;
- Creative innovation.
As individual mobilization degree increases, organizational managers must address not only the challenge of managing larger amounts of information but also the issue of increasing information uncertainty. Returning to the evolution from militia to professional soldiers, while tactical coordination and professional actions increased the amount of information involved, this information remained perceptible, observable, and evaluable. However, when the individual mobilization degree further increases, it consists of mobilizing individuals’ creativity, decision-making, and proactive learning enthusiasm—elements of “mental actions.” At this stage, organizational managers face the challenge of perceiving and understanding the operational state of the individuals’ intelligence they manage. As discussed in the sections on “Perception of Intelligence” and “Limitations of Intelligence Perception” in the chapter “On Intelligence,” intelligence-related information processing exhibits characteristics of a black box. In high-mobilization-degree states, some individual behavioral information cannot be assessed through tangible data or observable dimensions, making explicit management difficult. Thus, as the degree of individual mobilization increases, the need to optimize or even radically restructure management models and organizational structures arises to address these intelligence-related management challenges. Historically, early management focused on obedience for grassroots soldiers. In modern warfare, some countries have formed independent tactical units that, beyond obedience, require autonomous analysis, coordination, and decision-making. Maintaining a mechanical obedience-based management approach in such scenarios would lead to significant competitive disadvantages.
An organization’s capability and advancement may largely depend on the individual mobilization degree of its members. The more advanced an organization, the higher the individual mobilization degree should be, leading to greater development potential and competitiveness.
This topic will be further explored in the discussion of the Intelligent Consortium in subsequent sections: High mobilization degree implies managing large amounts of information. Rule-based systems (cybernetics) can only manage low-information, low-complexity systems, so cybernetic or mechanistic management systems face bottlenecks in managing high mobilization degrees. Connectionism-based systems may enable higher-order mobilization management.
2.3: The Source of Mobilization
Exploring the source of mobilization requires addressing the question: “Why are organizational individuals willing to be mobilized or ultimately mobilized?” Different individuals weigh benefits differently. For example, some prioritize honor or their children’s lives over their own, while others prioritize their own survival. Overall, each individual’s behavior exhibits particular preferences and limitations, but these behaviors result from their pursuit of maximum benefit within cognitive and environmental constraints.
Based on the conclusions from the section on “Reflections on Individual Mobilization Degree,” higher individual mobilization degrees are associated with greater individual agency and more rights mobilized. As the mobilization degree increases, individuals engage in more critical thinking, enabling goals that were previously unachievable at lower mobilization degrees to be realized. High mobilization typically means individuals are willing to mobilize more intellectual rights, demonstrating a greater supply of thinking rights. However, this supply of thinking rights is difficult to observe and cannot be evaluated using methods for assessing low-mobilization behaviors. The relationship between mobilization and being mobilized involves a rights exchange process. In this process, the mobilizing party uses environmental constraints, coercion, inducement, or suggestions to reach a rights exchange agreement with the mobilized party, resulting in some degree of mobilization. Whether the individual mobilization degree meets the mobilizing party’s expectations depends on the specific circumstances. The effectiveness of mobilization depends on the mobilizing party’s ability to employ mobilization methods, supervise the process, leverage management experience, evaluate outcomes, and enforce rules. Insufficient capabilities may prevent the mobilizing party from achieving the desired results. (Here, the mobilizing party typically refers to the organization or its decision-makers.)
In a slave society, slave owners impose environmental constraints by restricting slaves’ personal freedom and use punishments, death, or hunger as means of mobilization (rights exchange). Given that slaves cannot leave this environment, they choose options they believe maximize their benefits, such as avoiding death or hunger. If a slave prioritizes survival, they may choose labor to secure non-death or non-hunger outcomes. However, some slaves might choose death over labor, reflecting a different set of values.
In essence, mobilization is the execution process of rights exchange. In the slave example, under continuous supervision by slave owners and overseers, slaves might choose to work but not to think about improving work quality, making decisions to maximize the slave owner’s interests, or engaging in continuous learning. However, if slave owners introduce a clause allowing slaves to gain freedom by making significant contributions, some slaves might be motivated to think and learn in ways that align with the slave owner’s interests.
2.4: Diminishing Marginal Efficiency of Individual Mobilization
As mentioned, higher individual mobilization degrees can enhance an organization’s development potential. However, increasing mobilization degrees often requires more resource investment or organizational arrangements by the organization. When an organization invests more in specific individuals to achieve higher mobilization degrees, it should be aware of the diminishing marginal efficiency of individual mobilization. Continuous investment or better organizational arrangements can indeed increase individual mobilization degrees to some extent, but whether the organizational contributions from these increases can offset the costs of sustained investment and the negative impacts of reduced investment in other individuals’ mobilization degrees is a long-term topic for organizational research and optimization. Thus, while aiming to increase mobilization degrees, organizations should also improve mobilization efficiency to achieve mobilization goals at lower costs.
For specific individuals (e.g., exceptional talents like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk), sustained high mobilization degrees may yield significant organizational benefits. However, for others, similar levels of investment and organizational support may not produce comparable results. Moreover, the ability of elite individuals to create substantial surplus value is inherently uncertain, meaning significant investments in specific individuals to achieve sustained high mobilization degrees carry considerable risks. Therefore, under limited investment and organizational coverage, organizations should develop differentiated mobilization strategies based on external environments and internal talent structures to maximize organizational benefits.