Subjects’ ability to interact is determined by their world views. Subjects’ interaction can be divided into internal and external.
Internal interaction is possible between subjects within the same team (company) united by a common purpose and action. This is an interaction of individuals within the business community and social organizations, parties, family and other collective subjectivity.
External interaction is possible between subjects with different objectives and different activities. This is an interaction of collective and individual subjectivity, each of which has a personal aim: producers and consumers, politicians and voters, market participants, and so on.
Internal interaction of individuals forms collective subject reputation. The principle of forming collective subjectivity’s reputation is a hologram where each particle carries information about the whole and is part of the ideas’ formation about it by outside observer. Accordingly, reputational profiles of individuals that form the collective subjectivity should be as similar as possible.
External interaction – cooperation / competition – is based on the coincidence / difference of world views. In other words, the most effective interaction in the areas present in the interaction’s participants world view.
At the same time world views’ full match and their complete mismatch prevent such an important form of communication as a dialog (as a form of interaction).
In the first case there is no need to engage in dialog; in the second case there is nothing to talk about.
Internal reputations’ interaction. In modern related on communication and information open world the importance of world views’ correspondence of each individual within the collective type subjectivity increasing. This also applies to countries and business organizations and political parties.
A person at work is showing loyalty to the company (political party), but on his page in the social network (and optionally under a pseudonym) writes how disgusting his job is and that every day he harms himself with conscience flogging companies idiotic products to customers. Of course, his readers are inclined to trust him. And his words in many ways (often – dominant) influence the formation of their ideas about the organization. This problem has existed in the past when customers and organizations’ partners engaged in direct interaction with such employees. But today the destructive role of such “double agents” repeatedly strengthened with the communication platforms development. Naturally, with the more individuals united by a collective subjectivity the greater the risk of negative signal “from the inside”. This issue is relevant today for almost all types of organizations in all parts of the world. And it is the most relevant for countries with entrenched traditions of double standards and double standards of communication, such as the former Soviet Union countries.
How to minimize these risks?
Prohibition tactics are ineffective in this situation, even more harmful. Social networks access blockage is an attempt to catch the wind with net. Attempts to track and prosecute (to fire out) particularly vicious hypocrites are a little better, but for a short period. The most effective way is to synchronize individual’s world view and collective subjectivity (organization).
At the first stage (hiring process) organization must include testing for world views coincidence for potential employee and the organization.
At the second stage the work to explain and promote organization’s world view in the hearts and minds of its employees must be implemented – the difference between the alignment of reputational profiles of employees and the company. This is the hologram principle where in every part the whole picture is displayed. It is important to understand that the complete profiles of employees and company’s identity are not possible and even harmful, it leads to the internal “difference of potentials” disappearance and, as a consequence, the internal entropy growth (employees passiveness).
External reputation’s interaction is built on the principle of convergence and difference of world views. To analyze reputations’ interaction reputation’s matrix for subjects are used (fig. 1).
In the situations where the difference of potential is maximum and inevitable conflict occurs (due to fundamentally different positions): conservatives and innovators, materialists and idealists, collectivists and individualists are the most typical and traditional conflict couples. On the other hand, the coincidence of individual vectors with similar force in each profile provides an opportunity for cooperation between the two subjectivity in one direction. And it allows to gradually expanding cooperation on vectors, which currently are in a conflict position for such subjectivity.
In a situation of vectors of the difference in their numerical values coincidence there is the possibility to work in the “master-slave” format when subjectivity with higher values serves as the master. It is important to consider cooperating pairs and groups in the subjectivity dynamics and taking into account their “reputational weight.” It is also important to consider vectors’ force for subjects in relation to the current and future value of the vectors’ force for key respondents groups of society, government and so on.