Forum

As promised, I finally gathered my thoughts and put into words what has always seemed so obvious to me that it didn't need to be verbalized...

So, let's say there's a boss - a king/president/foreman on a construction site (it doesn't depend on the form of power) and he has a certain number of people under his command. In the boss's eyes, this group is divided into several groups:

1) The support group. People whose goals coincide with the boss's goals, both strategically and tactically.

There are few conflicts within this group, discussions are constructive and closed, and from the outside, this group looks like a single entity.

2) Systemic opposition. People whose goals coincide with the boss's goals at the level of general principles (where are we going), but may differ tactically (how and at what speed are we going).

Conflicts do occur, but discussions are usually constructive and open, reduced to finding a consensus, and if this is not possible, then at least to finding a compromise. That is, a normal public political process.

3) Non-systemic opposition. People whose goals diverge from the boss's goals. Conflicts are chronic, discussions are unconstructive, consensus is impossible in principle, although in some cases a tactical compromise is possible (a temporary truce).

4) Anti-elite. Revolutionaries and conspirators of all kinds.

5) Neutrals. Those who do not fall into the above groups.

One of the basic management principles is not to make concessions to the non-systemic opposition. Because it perceives these concessions not as a reason to seek consensus/compromise, but as a reason to continue the pressure, to try to get the next portion of concessions. Therefore, when a claim arises from this group, you either have to immediately agree (if the claim is reasonable) or stand your ground.

For this reason, it is extremely unproductive for the systemic opposition to cooperate with the non-systemic opposition - the effect will be at the lower limit, and you can also end up on the list of non-systemic people.

If the systemic opposition cannot independently draw a line between itself and the non-systemic opposition, then the boss must draw this line on his own initiative. The task of the non-systemic opposition is, accordingly, the opposite - to attach itself to the systemic opposition as much as possible, to impose its own agenda on it.

Phew... I think I managed... I'll read it again later and maybe correct it where I formulated it poorly.