The unicist business strategy is an emulation of the intelligence and evolution of nature in order to develop strategies in adaptive environments. It is a conscious planning process to achieve possible goals developing maximal strategies to expand one’s boundaries and minimum strategies to ensure profits. It integrates expansive and defensive strategies as a unit.
The unicist approach to strategy, developed by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute, introduced a paradigm shift in strategy building that emulates the intelligence of nature, which always has a maximal strategy to grow and a minimum strategy to ensure survival. This approach includes the concept that “There are no strategies but strategists”, because strategies begin to exist in the mind of the strategist.
The discovery that human actions are driven by the concepts people have in their minds changed the approach to develop strategies. It requires managing the unicist concepts and fundamentals that underlie businesses because they are the root causes of their functionality and define the possibilities to develop successful strategies. (Click on the book to access)
Unicist Strategy: An Emulation of Nature
The discovery of the triadic ontogenetic intelligence of nature that regulates the evolution of living beings allowed understanding the structure of evolution, which is driven by two integrated actions that have been defined as maximal strategies to grow and minimum strategies to ensure survival.
The applicative developments based on this discovery demonstrated that all complex entities evolve in the same way, including the artificial complex systems developed by humans.
The emulation of nature was the basis for the development of the Unicist Strategy and its applications to all the fields of human activities that require a strategic approach. Thus, the maximal strategies to expand the boundaries and the minimum strategies to survive were established.
The double dialectical logic allowed transforming supplementation and complementation laws into strategic functions that drive the maximal and minimum strategies making evolution reasonable, understandable and predictable.
Therefore, the simplicity of the unicist strategy is based on the emulation of the intelligence that underlies nature. It has to be considered that strategy requires dealing with the future and the past and the future are not symmetric. The past and the future are only symmetric in stagnated environments.
The Unicist Approach to Infer the Future
The Unicist Approach to Future Research is based on the research of the unicist ontogenetic intelligence of nature that started at the beginning of the 80’s. It was a step by step discovery based on the apprehension of the nature of social phenomena entering afterwards in the institutional and individual evolution. Its integration with biology and physics was the final stage that was achieved.
This approach is based on the fact that future and past are not symmetric. This is the case of all the environments that are evolving or involving. The past and the future are only symmetric in stagnated environments.
The objective of the unicist approach to future research is to define a future scenario in order to adapt and influence it.
When an individual “looks back” at the history, the events that occurred are reasonable, understandable and logical. Therefore, when approaching the future what is required is having the “logic” that is evident when analyzing the events of the past.
The building of future scenarios is based on the fact that the structure of the unicist ontology of a specific environment needs to be found in the past and that the facts of the present are used to infer the future.
The unicist approach to future research is based on inferring the future based on the laws of evolution established by the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, which allowed developing the unicist ontology of evolution. This allows building reliable future scenarios.
The Nature of Unicist Strategies
Essentially, it can be said that a Unicist Strategy is a conscious process to influence the environment in an adapted way. This implies that the nature of a personal strategy requires an adaptive attitude in order to influence the environment and profit from it. Therefore, over-adapted people cannot develop but subjective strategies that work as anti-strategies.
It has to be considered that individuals or institutions grow if the energy they appropriate is higher than the energy they consume. That is why developing a strategy requires being able to increase the value of what is delivered while reducing the cost of producing it.
The purpose of developing strategies is to grow in an environment. Individuals or institutions either grow or involve. There is no possibility of being fixed at a level because the environment is evolving and that transforms any “inaction” to remain at the same level into an involution process.
Five types of functionality have been defined:
- Operational Strategies
- Non-influential Strategies
- Specific Strategies
- Universal Strategies
These are the strategies that allow developing operational activities in demand driven activities that have no differentiation. This level is exceeded when such strategies are able to integrate the efficiency of methods with the efficacy of the leaders.
These are the strategies developed by the “followers” in an environment. They are functional when price strategies can be developed or when they are extremely focused activities. This level is exceeded when they are able to generate a differentiated value in the environment.
These are the strategies that integrate both maximal and minimum strategies that allow ensuring the permanence of an organization. This level is exceeded when such strategies begin to develop successful long-term strategies.
These are the strategies that are driven by future scenarios and innovation. It is the natural strategy of all institutionalized organizations in changing environments. This is the superior level of maturity in strategies.
Unicist Strategy: The Nature of Market Confrontation
Marketing is a permanent confrontation with competitors. Confrontation may be active or passive but it is always present. If the parties understand that confrontation is a permanent condition they will be conscious of each one’s possibilities and the objectives that can be achieved in the market.
That is the reason why developed and developing countries have such different conceptions of marketing.
In the conquest of markets, clients acquire a product or another, so that, one competitor wins and the other one loses in each purchase.
This is a natural situation in every developed culture. On the other extreme, underdeveloped countries have a very different conception of confrontation.
Underdeveloped cultures are characterized by their identification with the victim, while they seek for obtaining benefits from the victimizer.
That is why it is very difficult for them to participate in confrontations to achieve a competitive advantage in relation to a competitor.
Independently of each person’s individual attitude, companies need to be in condition to start a confrontation against their competitors.
The different types of confrontations that have been researched in the history of wars and competitive strategies, including the benefits for winners and the consequences for losers can be synthesized as follows.
Marketing implies positioning products as “the first option” for the client. Everybody has to “want them”. That is the reason why there is a confrontation. Confrontations have winners and losers. There are always winners and loser, even when it is about a stable, not competitive, technological or commercial oligopolistic market.
There are no confrontations under monopoly conditions. All the competitors prefer their suppliers’ markets to be competitive, but their own market to be a monopoly.
Few people realize that in monopolistic markets, there are either appropriate succedanea that balance monopoly, or a third party (usually the State) that interferes. In this case, a conflict with the State begins that may end as a confrontation or not.
In the following pages, different confrontation situations will be described and then the markets confrontation will be explained in terms of each competitor’s position.
Pilot Testing of Strategies
Strategies are omnipotent fantasies unless they have been tested. The testing of strategies implies testing their functionality and requires a precise design of the tests. The “trial and error” use of objects is not a pilot test.
Pilot tests are the drivers of the unicist reflection processes. Pilot tests have two objectives:
- Destructive testing of strategies
- Non-destructive testing of strategies
1) Destructive Testing
Destructive testing, in the field of complex problems, implies finding the limits of the validity of a given knowledge. To do so, it is necessary to develop experiences in homologous fields until the limits of validity are found. It defines the unified field that can be apprehended.
The falsification process is a destructive test for knowledge that is applied to realities with incomplete homologies. The destruction occurs when a condition is found to demonstrate the fallacy of the knowledge.
2) Validation – Non-destructive Testing
Validation implies the factual confirmation of the validity of knowledge. Validation is achieved when knowledge suffices to exert influence on a reality in a predictable way.
The non-destructive testing process is homologous to a non-destructive test in the field of material research. Validation implies cause-effect relations. Therefore, validation can only be applied to a simplified field of a complex reality.