Especially if you are in business, dealing with people is probably the biggest problem you face. If you are also a housewife, architect, or engineer, that is also probably true. Research done a few years ago, uncovered a most important and significant fact—a fact later confirmed by additional studies. These investigations revealed that even in such technical lines as engineering about 15 percent of one’s financial success is due to one’s technical knowledge and about 85 percent is due to skill in human engineering—to personality and the ability to lead people. When it comes to the conditions of copresence, however, they are found in less variable circumstances: persons must sense that they are close enough to be perceived in whatever they are doing, including their experiencing of others, and close enough to be perceived in this sensing of being perceived. In our walled-in Western society, these conditions are ordinarily expected to obtain throughout the space contained in a room, and to obtain for any and all persons present in the room. On public streets (and in other relatively unobstructed places) the region of space in which mutual presence can be said to prevail cannot be clearly drawn, since persons who are present at different points along the street may be able to observe, and be observed by, a slightly different set of others. This qualification aside, the term gathering will be used to refer to any set of two or more individuals whose members include all and only those who are at the moment in one another’s immediate presence. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

By the term of situation we shall refer to the full spatial environment anywhere within which an entering person becomes a member of the gathering that is (or does then become) present. Situations begin when mutual monitoring occurs, and lapse when the second-last person has left. In order to access the full extent of any such unit, the term situation at large will be employed. Along with “gathering” and “situation,” another basic concept must be tentatively defined. When persons come into each other’s immediate presence they tend to do so as participants of what we shall call a social occasion. This is a wider social affair, undertaking, or event, bounded in regard to place and time and typically facilitated by fixed equipment; a social occasion provides the structuring social context in which many situations and their gatherings are likely to form, dissolve, and re-form, while a pattern of conduct tends to be recognized as the appropriate and (often) official or intended one—a “standing behaviour pattern.” Examples of social occasions are a social party, a workday in an office, a picnic, or a night at the opera. Some social occasion, a funeral, for example, have a fairly sharp beginning and end, and fairly strict limits on attendance and tolerated activities. Each class of such occasions possesses a distinctive ethos, a spirit, an emotional structure, that must be properly created, sustained, and laid to rest, the participant finding that one is obliged to become caught up in the occasion, whatever one’s personal feelings. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

These occasions, which are commonly programmed in advance, possess an agenda of activity, an allocation of management function, a specification of negative sanctions for improper conduct, and a preestablished unfolding of phases and a highpoint. Other occasions, like Tuesday afternoon downtown, are very diffused indeed, and many not be seen by participants as entities with any appreciable development and structure of their own that can be looked forward to and looked back upon as a whole. (Here the individual may see a line of development in one’s own period of participation but not in the occasion as a whole.) In these cases the very useful term employed is behaviour setting, and that seems to be sufficient. Diffuse social occasions can, of course, develop a structure and direction as they go along. Many adults need training in effective speaking, they need still more training in the fine art of getting along with people in everyday business and social contacts. There is usually a combination of strategies in which each individual’s action is the best response to that of the other. Given what the other is doing, neither wants to change one’s own move. This outcome is called an equilibrium. Having exhausted the simple avenues of looking for dominant strategies or ruling out dominated one’s, the next thing to do is to look for an equilibrium in the situation. After years of observation and experience, over fifteen hundred engineers learned that the highest-paid personnel in engineering are frequently not those who know the most about engineering. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

One, for example, hire mere technical ability in engineering, accountancy, architecture or any other profession at nominal salaries. However, the person who has technical knowledge plus the ability to express ideas, to assume leadership, and to arouse enthusiasm among people—that person is headed for higher earning power. The ability to deal with people is as purchasable a commodity as sugar or coffee. And many presidents of corporations will pay more for that ability than for any other under the sun. What do you do when a phone call between Peter and Paula accidentally gets cut off? If Peter tries to call Paula, then Paula should stay off the phone (and not try to call Peter) so as to present her phone from being busy. If Paula, on the other, is waiting for Peter to call, and Peter waits too, then their phone conversation will never be completed. What is best for one depends on what the other does. Again there are two equilibria, one in which Peter calls and Paula waits, and the other way around. The two need a social convention to help them choose consistent strategies, that is, a common understanding of which equilibrium to attain. One solution is for the person who originally made the call to also make the callback. The person who answered the phone waits for the phone to ring again. The advantage of this is that the originator knows the other party’s phone number, while the reverse may not always be true. Another possibility is that if one person can call for free and the other cannot (say Peter is in his office and Paula is at a pay phone), then the person with the free access should call again. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

To test your ability to communicate an on equilibrium, consider the following question: You are to meet someone in New York City sometime tomorrow. They are told to meet you. Neither you nor the other person is given any more instructions about where to meet or when. When and where do you go? According to the Strategy of Conflict—there is no predetermined right answer other than the one most commonly given. Among our students, Grand Central at noon continues to be the most common answer. That is true even for Princeton students whose train arrives in New York at Penn Station. When it comes to most people, health is the prime interest of most adults—and their second interest is people; how to understand and get along with people; how to make people like you; and how to win others to your way of thinking. For years, some people have driven and criticized and condemned their employees without stint or discretion. Kindness, words of appreciation and encouragement are alien to their lips. However, if a boss sharply alters one’s philosophy of life, one may find one’s organization will be inspired with a new loyalty, a new enthusiasm, a new spirit of teamwork. For instance, if your company has 1,000 employees, 1,000 enemies will be turned into 1,000 friends. The employer will find that in the past none of his or her employees greeted one when they would walk through one’s establishment. However, that will change. One’s employees will no longer look the other way when one is approaching. Now they will all be your friends and even the environmental waste engineer will have respect for you. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

This particular employee gained more profit, more leisure and—what is infinitely more important—he found far more happiness in his business and home. Countless numbers of salespeople have sharply increased their sales by the use of these principles. Many have opened up new accounts—accounts that they had formerly solicited in vain. Executive have been given increased authority, increased pay. One executive reported a large increase in salary because he applied these truths. Another, an executive of a historic mansion in the Bay Area of California, USA; was slated for demotion when he was thirty because of his belligerence, because of his inability to lead people skillfully. This training not only saved him from the demotion but brought him a promotion with increased pay. On innumerable occasions, spouses attending the banquet given at the end of the course on how to become more human report that their homes have been much happier since their husbands or wives started this training. People are frequently astonished at the new results they achieve. It all seems like magic. In some cases, in their enthusiasm, they have telephoned me at my home on Sundays because they could not wait forty-eight hours to report their achievements at the regular session of the course. One man was so stirred by a talk on these principles that he sat far into the night discussing them with other members of the class. At three o’clock in the morning, the others went homes. However, he was so shaken by a realization of his own mistakes, so inspired by the vista of a new and richer World opening before him, that he was unable to sleep. He did not sleep that night or the next day or the next night. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

Dealing with people in a work setting is like a prisoner’s dilemma. Again the selfish pursuit of one’s interests leads to an inferior outcome. When no one will compromise, everyone gets a harsh sentence. The problem is how to attain such cooperation given the competition to obtain an especially good deal for oneself. Well, behind every good scheme to encourage cooperation is usually some mechanism to punish cheaters. A prisoner who confesses and implicates one’s collaborator may become the target of revenge by the others’ friends. The prospect of getting out of prison more quickly may look less alluring given the knowledge of what waits outside. Police have been known to scare drug dealers into confessing by threatening to release them. The threat is that if they are released, their suppliers will know they have squealed. When we compare this example with a work-related situation. If the owner of the business threatens to fire everyone, unless they cooperate, those who cheat to get ahead or pursue their own selfish interest, instead of helping the group, will not likely find working at the company very pleasant because others have lost their job security. And likewise goes for those who do nothing, but ride along for the credit. Some social occasions, often called “unserious” or “recreational,” are felt to be ends in themselves, and the individual avowedly participates for the consummate pleasure of doing so. Other occasions, called “serious,” are officially seen as merely means to other ends. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

Finally, some occasions are seen as “regular” ones—instances that form part of a series of like occasions, the series being seen as a unity, and developing as such, in terms of daily, weekly, or annul cycle, often with the same participants. Other occasions, such as spur-of-the-moment parties, are one-shot affairs, or their series-like character is not perceived as such. There are many complication associated with the concept of social occasion, but some such term must be used, for when a gathering occurs it does so under the auspices of a wider entity of this kind. It will become apparent that the regulations of conduct characteristic in situations and their gatherings are largely traceable to the social occasion in which they occur. What is understand? Try to ask yourself this question and you will see that you cannot answer it. You have always confused understanding with knowing or having information. However, to know and to understand are two quite different things, and you must learn to distinguish between them. In order to understand a thing, you must see its connection with some bigger subject, or bigger whole, and the possible consequences of this connection. Understanding is always the realization of a smaller problem in relation to a larger problem. For instance, suppose I show you an old Russian sliver ruble. It was a piece of money the size of a halfcrown and corresponding to two shillings and a penny. You may look at it, study it, notice in which year it was coined, find out everything about the Tsar whose portrait is on one side, weight it, even make a chemical analysis and determine the exact quantity of silver contained in it. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

You can learn what the word “ruble” means and how it came into use. You can learn all these things and probably many more, but you will not understand it and its meaning if you do not find out that before the last war its purchasing power corresponded in many cases to a present-day English pound, and that the present-day paper ruble in Bolshevik Russia corresponds in many cases to an English farthing or even less. If you find out this you will understand something about a ruble and perhaps also about some other things, because the understanding of one thing immediately leads to the understanding of many other things. Often people even think understanding means finding a name, a word, a title, or a label for a new or unexpected phenomenon. This finding or inventing of words for incomprehensible things has nothing to do with understanding. On the contrary, if we could get rid of half of our words perhaps we should have a better chance of a certain understanding. If we ask ourselves what it means to understand or not to understand a man, we must first think of an instance of not being able to speak with a man in his own language. Naturally two people having to common language will not understand one another. They must have a common language or agree on certain signs or symbols by which they will designate things. However, suppose that during a conversation with a man you disagree about the meaning of certain words or signs or symbols; then you again cease to understand one another. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

From this follows the principle that you cannot understand and disagree. In ordinary conversation we very often say: “I understand him but I do not agree with him.” From the point of view of the system we are studying, this is impossible. If you understand a man, you agree with him; if you disagree with him, you do not understand him. It is difficult to accept this idea; and this means that it is difficult to understand it. There are two sides of man which must be develop in the normal course of one’s evolution: knowledge and being. However, neither knowledge nor being can stay still or remain in the same state. If either of them does not grow bigger and stronger, it becomes smaller and weaker. Understanding may be compared to an arithmetical mean between knowledge and being. It shows the necessity for a simultaneous growth of knowledge and being. The growth of only one and diminishing of another will not change the arithmetical mean. This also explains why “to understand” means to agree. People who understand one another must not only have an equal knowledge, they must also have an equal being. Only then is mutual understanding possible. Now, picture to yourself how mastery a vigorous determination to increase your ability to deal with people will help you lead a richer, fuller, happier, and more fulfilling life. Say to yourself over and over: “My popularity, my happiness and sense of worth depend to no small extent upon my skill in dealing with people.” #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

I knew a woman who had been office manager for a large insurance company for fifteen years. Every month, she read all the insurance contracts her company had issues that month. Yes, she read many of the same contract over month after month, year after year. Why? Because experience had taught her that she was the only way she could keep their provisions clearly in mind. Learning is an active process. We learn by doing. So, if you desire to master the principles you are studying here, do something about them. You are tempting to form new habits. Ah yes, you are attempting a new way of life. That will require time and persistence and daily application. Whenever you are confronted with some specific problem—such as handling a child, winning your spouse to your way of thinking, or satisfying an irritated customer—hesitate about doing the natural thing, the impulsive thing. This is usually wrong. Develop a deep, driving desire to master the principles of human relations. Harnessing complexity involves acting sensibly without fully understanding how the World works. Themes of exploration versus exploitation can be clearly seen in personnel policy. In the short run, it pays to promote the person who best fits the current vacancy. In the longer run, however, it may pay for an organization to sacrifice some of these short-run gains to develop a set of people who will provide a better set of options in the future. The period ahead has been characterized by a number of experts as likely to produce what has been called a Revolution in Military Affairs. They compare it to other periods in history when dramatic changes occurred in military capability and doctrine. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

It is evident to military planners that future combat could be very different as a result of advances not only in information technology but also in nano- and bio- technologies. Of course, it is not possible to say now just what those differences will be. While technical changes of the current magnitude have historically had major implications, the path from technical change to effective military operational capabilities is often convoluted, and the actual implications are frequently not what was anticipated. For example, it took years to discover the best use of the advantages conferred by night-vision equipment and stabilized naval gunnery platforms. The early prospect for aircraft seemed to be reconnaissance. The arquebus, an early gun, is a typical case. It took nearly fifty years before it provided an important military advantage. Though the gun was powerful against archers, it was also to reload. It could only be effective after a drill called countermarch was invented and taught to soldiers. Then a rank could advance and fire while other ranks fell back to reload. The technology alone was not effective. Routines had to be found, refined, and disseminated to make it effective, and this required decades to accomplish. A key observation is that the transformation of technical possibilities into meaningful capabilities is frequently accomplished concurrently with the career developments of personnel. This is true for all kinds of organizations, not just armies. It suggests that employees or organizations or officers in military services might be usefully analyzed as populations of agents that form a Complex Adaptive System. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

In the years ahead, nations will still form new economic blocs, play currency games, impose tariffs and grant subsidies (increasingly clocked in environmental, cultural and other justifications). They will continue to blame unemployment on unfair competition from other countries. They will demand so-called “level playing fields.” They will make all the noise. And they will, of course, take their citizens. Rising powers such as India, China, Africa and Brazil will demand to be treated like Great Powers in such international institutions as the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), organizations whose decisions affect trade, currencies, credit, bank reserves and a host of other wealth variables. However, while nations will compete ever-more-fiercely on familiar territory—what we might call the nation-state game board—they will all be playing a kissing game. For whether national governments like it or not, power is leaching away from all of them. The great powers are increasingly less great. And that goes for America as well. The reason is that nations ad states are no longer the only powerful pieces in a new meta-game made up of many different-games linked interactively and played simultaneously. Neo-chess on one level. Neo-poker or neo-backgammon or neo-EverQuest on others. The players compete under non-linear rules that change after—or during—every move. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

Corporations have been playing multinational chess for a long time and have wielded disproportionate influence at the international level. Today, because they are increasingly global, major corporations and financial institutions shift pieces around on their own game board and are less and less accountable to their nation of origin. When Microsoft, Citigroup, Buick, Hearst Corporation, BMW, Royal Dutch/Shell, Cresleigh Homes, Philips or Maytag talks, national government listen. However, it is not only national games and corporate games (or the interactions between them) that count. Nations and businesses alike now need to deal with the fast-growing community of NGOs and other rising forces. Many NGOs battle corporations such as Monsanto, Shell Oil and McDonald’s. As we have seen, they fight free trade and re-globalization. They march for peace. They campaign to save whales and trees. In doing so, they make daily headlines. Less visible but more numerous and, in aggregate, far more influential are countless other NGOs like Worldwide business associations, professional groups, sports clubs, scientific organizations and other entities. Most focus on highly specialized issues of concern to various other industries and groups ranging from custom brokers and matrimonial lawyers to geneticists, notaries, plastics distributors, chefs, models, and textile designers. Some NGOs defend producers’ interests. Others defend consumers. Still others organize or represent prosumers—like the groups that coordinated thousands of volunteers from all over the world to assist victims of the 2020 pandemic. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

Taken together, armed with computers, Internet access and the latest communications equipment and supported by lawyers, doctors, scientists and other professionals, NGOs form a fast-growing cross-border force with which nations and corporations both will be increasingly compelled to share power. Moreover, the proliferation of NGOs is just beginning. This is so, first, because the Internet, the Web, mobile phones and improved connectivity make it easier and more affordable for people to identify common goals or grievances,  to find one another, link up and organize. Second, because the speedup of change brings new opportunities and fears. Before stem cells were identified, for instance, no one set up an NGO to support stem-cell research—or to suppress it. Today there re many NGOs for both purposes. The changes now transforming work are not a result of wooly-headed altruism. They are a consequence of much heavier loads of information and communication needed for wealth production. In the past, when most businesses were still tiny, an entrepreneur was able to know virtually all that needed to be known. However, as firms grew and technology became more complicated, it was impossible for any one person to carry the entire knowledge load. Soon specialists and managers were hired and formed into the characteristic compartments and echelons of the bureaucracy. The knowledge load had to be diffused throughout the managerial ranks. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

Today a parallel process is at work. Just as owners became dependent on managers for knowledge, managers are becoming dependent on their employees for knowledge. The antique smokestack division of the firm into “heads” and “hands” no longer works. In the words of Teruya Nagao, professor of information and decision sciences at the University of Tsukuba, “The separation of thinking and doing in the traditional model…may well be appropriate for constant technology but is hardly in keeping with rapid technological process.” Because technologies are more complicated and turnover more frequently than in the past, workers are expected to learn more about adjacent and successive jobs. Thus, a General Motors as proudly speaks of workers’ helping to choose the lighting in their plants, selecting the sandpaper, the tools, and even “learning how the plant runs, what things cost, how customers respond to their work.” In computer-integrated manufacture, says consultant David Hewitt of United Research Company, workers “need not to know how the specific machines work, but…how the factory works.” What is happening is that the knowledge load and, more important the decision load are being redistributed. In a continual cycle of learning, unlearning, and relearning, workers need to master new techniques, adapt to new organizational forms, and come up with new ideas. As a result, “submissive rule-observers, who merely follow instructions to the letter, are not good workers,” says Nagao. In fact, in today’s fast-change environment, he points out, rules, too, need to be changed more frequently than in the past, and workers need to be encouraged to propose such changes. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

This is so because the worker who helps frame new rules will also understand why they are necessary and how they fit into the larger picture—which means the worker can apply them more intelligently. In fact, only regulations which are endorsed by the majority of the work force have a chance of being abided by. However, to invite workers into the rule-making process is to share power once held exclusively by their bosses. It is a power shift not all managers find easy to accept. Workplace democracy, like political democracy, does not thrive when the population is ignorant. By contrast, the more educated a population, the more democracy it seems to demand. With advanced technology spreading, nonprofessional labour and high school graduate workers are being squeezed out of their jobs in cutting-edge companies. This leaves behind a group perceived as being more educated, which cannot be managed in the traditional authoritarian, do not-ask-me-any-questions fashion. In fact, asking questions, challenging assumptions are becoming part of everyone’s job. When it comes to the role of manager, here the pressure comes from inside the work force that challenges management and does not accept its dictates or authority. Here people question objectives…Just because you are a member of management does not make your ideas holy. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

What we see, therefore, is a clear pattern. Workplace power is shifting, not because of fuzzy-minded do-goodism, but because the new system of wealth creation demands it. The 1970s saw a revolution in Western attitudes toward the natural environment. Concerns with pollution, deforestation, and species extinction exploded. With the rise of these concerns came an ambivalent attitude toward technology and the wealth it was producing: some said that human beings re destructive to the environment in direct proportion to their power. This immediately suggested that technology and higher living standards were bad, being inherently destructive. “Wealth” cam to imply environmental destruction. The revolution in attitudes toward the environment has changed the idea of wealth. Our national statistics may not reflect it—not every last citizen or politician may agree—but the concept that genuine wealth includes not just McMansions, refrigerators, BMWs, factories and machines, washers and dryers and roads, but also green lawns, landscaping, cleanliness, fields and forests, owls and wolves, clean air, clean streets, clear water, and wilderness has taken deep root in minds and in politics. “The wealth of nature” has come to include nature as a value in itself, not merely as potential lumber, ore, and farmland, and livestock, as well as locally grown produce. As a consequence, greater wealth has begun to mean cleaner wealth, greener wealth. Richer countries can afford more expensive, more efficient equipment—scrubbers and filters on smokestacks, catalytic converts on cars—and so they can produce goods with less environmental impact. Some have even recommended planted trees around smokestacks because trees need carbon to grown. This trend gives at best a hint of the future. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

Nanotechnologies have the potential to produce plentiful consumer goods with much lower throughput of materials and much less production of waste, thus reducing carbon dioxide buildup and reducing global warming. They also have the potential to reduce waste, especially hazardous waste, converting it to natural materials which do not threaten life. If we regain a sense of purpose and embrace the new industries based on information and nanotechnology, the future could be great! These add enormous value to molecular-sized pieces of matter, and need not be a threat to the environment as were the heavy polluting industries of the past. Should we boast of “high technology” while industry still cannot produce without polluting? Pollution is a sign of low technology, of inadequate control of how matter is handled. Inferior goods and hazardous wastes are two sides of one problem. With processes based on molecular manufacturing, industries will produce superior goods, and by virtue of the same advance in control, will have no need of burning, oiling, washing with solvents and acids, and flushing noxious chemicals down their drains. Molecular-manufacturing processes will rearrange atoms in controlled ways, and can neatly package any unwanted atoms for recycling or return to their source. This intrinsic cleanliness inspired environmentalist to call nanotechnology “the most radical of the clean visions.” This clean vision will not be fulfilled automatically, but only with effort. Any powerful technology can be used for good or ill, and nanotechnology is no exception. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

Today, we see scattered progress in environmental cleanup and restoration, some slowing of ecological destruction, because of organized political pressure buoyed by a groundswell of public concern. Yet for all its force, this pressure is spread desperately thin, fighting enormous resistance rooted in economic forces. However, if these economic forces vanish, the opposition will crumble. Often, the key to success in battle is to give one’s opponents an attractive alternative to fighting. The most powerful cry of the anti-clean opposition has been that clearing and polluting the land offer the only path to wealth, the only escape from poverty. Now we can see a clean, efficient, and unobtrusive alternative: clean wealth, clean smokestack energy, clean gasoline, compatible with natural wealth. I learned many years ago that it is foolish to scold. I have enough trouble overcoming my own limitations without fretting over the fact that God has not seen fit to distribute evenly the gift of intelligence. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, people do not criticize themselves for anything, no matter how wrong it may be. Criticism is futile because it puts a person on the defensive and usually makes one strive to justify oneself. Criticism is dangerous, because it wounds a person’s precious pride, hurts one’s sense of importance, and arouses resentment. People rewarded for good behaviour will learn much more rapidly and retain what they learn far more effectively than one punished for bad behaviour. When criticizing, we do not make lasting changes and often do incur resentment. As much as we thirst for approval, we dread condemnation. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

Cresleigh Homes

We know; we know – the pictures of #Havenwood Model 3 look so gorgeous, they could be a resort. But don’t worry – this is everyday life when you join our community! 🤗

The well-designed gourmet kitchen overlooks a bright casual dining area, and is highlighted by a large center island with breakfast bar, plenty of counter and cabinet space, and ample walk-in pantry.

Give our office a call and ask about Homesite #32 – it’s ready for move-in! Looks like it’s time to give yourself that perfect holiday gift. 😉 https://cresleigh.com/havenwood/residence-three/

#CresleighHomes