Organizational and Individual Goals in the Intelligent Consortium

In traditional cybernetic organizations, the top decision-maker typically sets the organization’s overarching goal. Some organizations may align the personal goals of the top decision-maker or owner with those of the organization. Regardless, the organization as a whole is bound to a singular organizational goal. In some organizations, this goal is clear and known to most or all organizational members, potentially becoming an integral part of the organizational culture and guiding its development. In others, the true organizational goal may be covert or non-public, either because the decision-maker unintentionally overlooks its communication or because the actual goal conflicts with traditional values, individual visions, or external environmental acceptance, leading to deliberate concealment or disguise. For example, a charitable organization may operate under the guise of charity to fraudulently obtain government subsidies, with its true purpose being to acquire subsidies. Since this true purpose is unacceptable to the external environment and contradicts mainstream societal values, the decision-maker disguises it as a form of charity. In summary, in traditional organizations, the organizational goal is typically set by the decision-maker and is highly generalized, reflecting the top-down structure of cybernetic organizations.

In the Intelligent Consortium, based on the settings in the chapter Organizational Settings of Intelligenism, the organization’s purpose is to achieve the goals of organizational individuals through rights exchange. Since the goals of organizational individuals are inherently diverse, these varied goals are realized by organizational individuals acting as driving nodes to influence the action plans of action nodes.

The rights conversion benefits of each organizational individual acting as an action node are determined not only by the actual rewards from their actions but also by the influence of other driving nodes in the network, as the allocation method is also a means by which driving nodes exert influence (drive) on action nodes. Therefore, the goals and actual rewards of driving nodes are tied to the action nodes in the network. As mentioned earlier, driving nodes are also action nodes in another network, exerting influence on the larger network by taking action as action nodes in their respective networks. (For specific diagrammatic examples, see the next section, On the Nested Relationships of the Intelligent Consortium’s Intelligent Network.)