We still have a major problem. An efficiency problem that leads to inefficiency. Further inefficiency is created by using a primary approach and an intermittent approach that specifically asks for feedback.
First Example
It is counterproductive, thus less efficient, for companies or government agencies to send out surveys periodically or send emails after you've interacted with them, or ask you to answer some questions at the end of a phone call or cause messages to pop-up on websites asking for feedback.Why does this approach create more deficiency?
Because the guiding context is deficient.
If any person or company or agency understood the process of becoming, they would also understand the process of becoming more efficient. Thus the pursuit of efficiency would be continuous as a part of everything. Thus we would self-assess more by remaining always conscious of the feedback we are getting through all forms of interaction with every customer, citizen, vendor, employee, friend. Feedback is always being given, even if we don't call it by that name.
Self-checking is the most efficient way to overcome deficiencies.
Most approaches are deluded forms of self-stroking lipservice to our own ego to help us feel good that we're doing something and trying, while aiming at the wrong end of the target. Here's a part of the double conundrum that comes from an approach that specifically asks for feedback as if feedback is something different and separate from anything that takes place when we interact.
For instance, when I call and tell you I've been waiting a long time. That's feedback. Anytime I call you for any reason is feedback. Any form of communication by fax, email, letter or in-person is feedback.
My experience has been, when you specifically point out that you are giving feedback or suggestions, that most of that information doesn't go any further, and if it does, whoever touches it next, finds a way to dismiss it, then the company turns around and asks for feedback. This forces us to judge the preponderance of evidence to be that most requests for feedback are intentionally disingenuous in order to placate dissatisfaction and redirect attention. We are efficient at that.
But every now and then an individual or company will surprise us and actually quickly make a change for the better.
Second Example. This One Further Expands The Context Of Efficiency
Relatively speaking, it is easier to meet a person of the opposite gender and have sex with them, than it is to become their friend and not have sex with them.We must improve our relationships with each other, but can't until we improve relationship with self, such that body, mind, emotion and spirit have a better relationship inside us. But this can't happen as an island ideology. In order to become more efficient with the different aspects of self, we must simultaneously have a better relationship with the natural world. Of course humans are a part of the natural world. If we are having trouble relating to people, then perhaps we should go back to the teachers, the rest of the natural world., then come back and doublecheck our relationship with self, then with other humans, especially on a human to human basis and not based on any other relationship we have or think we might have with that human. This approach must be continuous. In other words, more to the root of the problem of why we use a fragmented disconnected approach in attempts to become more efficient, is because we do the same thing with ourselves in understanding the continuous feedback we are receiving from body, spirit, mind and emotion. This lack of self-awareness translates outside of self, into the home and into our workplaces and thus we have a very deficient approach to becoming more efficient. A clear example is when our interaction with the other gender becomes deficient when gender infuses too much into the thought process. This then becomes out of balance with the rest of self. And this is why, however, it's easier to be out of balance with a person and have sex with them, and harder to be in balance with a person of the opposite sex and be their friend and not never ever have sex. Going back to the first example, so then the problem with companies is they they pursue an imbalanced sexual relationship with those they interact with by seeking the limited benefits they want. When instead they should be seeking the friend approach and listen more, especially to those calls they say they're always recording. Companies and all those listed in the first example , if they truly seek efficiency, must reset their context and truly have the person's best interests in mind rather than always setting them up to be used for profit. That's essentially the same as being logically drugged and date raped.
The Need For Efficiency Must Be In Tune With The Incentive To Be Efficient
Without the need incentive, we will fall short of efficiency. In an environment where feedback is treated as a separate item with suggestion boxes, comment cards, rating systems and all other sorts of contrivances, the mindset of everyone involved becomes numbed down waiting to be stimulated and awakened to make a Pavlovian response when called upon for comments, feedback, suggestions, etc. The kind of efficiency we need comes from improving harmony with the whole. There is no efficiency that does not perform better in relation to the whole. Any efficiency otherwise obtained, must create unsustainable deficiencies, which, until corrected, beget more and more deficiencies, until we begin seeking to improve the deficiencies of deficiencies without awareness of the larger causal deficiency. It is self-defeatingly counterproductive to get caught up in a personal culture, family culture, community culture, workplace culture, religious culture, member of sports team culture or country culture to the point that knowledge and use of the specific language used in that culture overrides the ability to understand language common to all. Instead specific cultural language becomes more of an ego-tripping opiate that causes anyone who doesn't speak that language to be considered as not knowing what they're talking about. Efficiency is not culture specific and neither is knowledge; however how information is understood is. Thus most people and places have a lot of information but don't understand how to use it for lack of knowledge. This lack starts from a misplaced context and a need disconnected from the appropriate unifying incentive. It is simply not possible to be more efficient in a healthier way, when our driving ideologies are incompatible, incongruent, disharmonious with each other. When this is our status quo, it is only possible to be more efficient in an unhealthy way.In others word, as we already know, it is possible to get better and be better at something, and as we do, we are making things worse overall. Lastly, as discussed elsewhere, one of our main subcontexts we must straighten out is our confusion regarding maximizing and optimizing.
To use a public example, Serena Williams has within her a conflict between her understandings of the role the concepts of optimizing and maximizing are having in her quest for more championships. This is not a denigration of her in anyway, but is used so perhaps we can look at Serena and then through her, see ourselves as individuals and as twos, threes, organizations, businesses, communities, towns, villages, counties, states, prefectures, districts, provinces, countries, humans and creations. It is not possible to maximize everything and also optimize.
We are all spirit transformations having all sorts of continuous relations in concert with the Circle. This Circle being the model and epitome of efficiency which has allowed it to maintain the efficiency of Preexistence despite the inefficiency of Existence, especially inefficiency caused when the wielding of free will becomes unwieldy because too many pieces of logic float under their own authority. The solution is the problem reconfigured. We must unify our consciousness of the many until we again see the many as one, that is, if we seek efficiency that leads to life and not the efficiency that leads to death.
Efficiency starts with each person, their context and their topmost need incentive. Until we resume the process of becoming one, we won't be able to truly understand ourselves, thus not be able to truly understand much else, thus not understand how to become more efficient. We love to claim we know ourselves, but, based on the productions of our collective thinking and behavior, we have somehow become convinced we are closer to perfection than we've ever been as humans. Thus, we say to ourselves, as long we keep doing mainly and mostly what we are doing, and throw in a few pieces of feedback now and then, we should be okay and able to stay on the right track. The feedback to that mindset is, if it ain't broke (not in need of fixing), why even tinker with it?
