 We have a simple and obviously effective path to improvement. It is to eliminate waste, to stop doing things that do not yield us value in return. We have orientation to performance with tools like the black box to identify value cycles that create and deliver what we can value. We have both practiced using this tool in a number of different areas of civilization and have identified massive sources of waste. We have even developed a list of potential actions that have a good chance of finding mandate. Our next step is to look at our own potential for actions, looking for the greatest effect from the efforts we are willing to commit in support of creating change. The general process is to sample the public to identify highly likely mandates. It is then reasonable to use the same sampling to enlist leadership to do its job, leading the mandate effort that is overwhelmingly supported by the public. Then further publication closes the loop by establishing the mandate as a public reality. It becomes an assigned task for the leader. The process of modern leadership includes isolating citizens and bringing them together only where they end up opposing other citizens. It has such focus on division and competition as to deny even the possibility of coming together for much of anything. This is just a cost challenge for the one who commits to lead a change action. It is a cost that privileged leadership is almost compelled to put upon commoners. Little six-year-old Susie attends her first college football game. Her father notes that the purpose of the game is to move the ball to the end of the field. It is exciting but a bit puzzling. After the game, while her father talks to his old coach on the sidelines, she waters onto the field. It is several minutes later when she comes back from the end zone carrying one of the footballs wrapped in her arms and proclaims, I knew it couldn't be that hard. Our orientation to doing instead of accomplishing is part of our culture. Division creates drama, entertainment, not performance. Even in our legal system, led by a declaration of citizen rights and constitutional amendments, we have the intentional ignorance of proclaiming that this is actually about giving special people superior rights. It is the people who are hired into news organizations who have the right of the press, not the people who have equal protection rights to publish and speak. It is the right of church leaders and religious organizations to legal protection from government, not the rights of US common people who worship freely. With this lesson, we will be addressing that strong leaning toward isolation and competition with a simple and very understandable alternative. It is nothing new for us. We are humanity. There is nobody else. We are society. We are the public. There is nobody else. It is that same principle presented from the beginning of the course. We accomplish little working as individuals. Most of what people are able to get done come from many people working in coordinated efforts for a shared purpose. It is the nature of mandate that we are agreed. We have the capacity to present our sense of value to other people. We have been developing the communication tools and approaches that can reasonably assure that others who listen will understand that they too will find value. You are not alone. You do not have to contact half a billion people. If there is mandate, you only have to carry the message to others so that they too have potential to commit some effort to gaining what they value. If what you promote is a real basis for mandate, they will join in your effort. You do not have to do it alone. You only have to commit your time and effort to such effect that others are willing to commit theirs. It is human to come together to gain what all people value. And that is what we have been developing from the first. This lesson addresses efficiency and effectiveness in presenting a path to people gaining what people value. This is change that starts with you. We should not have any expectation of success from repeating the things that have not accomplished anything in the past. Doing them with greater effort and focus is unlikely to suddenly get them to work for us. Our path to performance starts with change, and change starts with someone committing to do something different with someone initiating a change action. We have five couples going out for the evening as a group by a show of hands. Four want to go to an Italian restaurant. The fifth prefers Mexican. Will the fifth couple stubbornly insist that the group dines Mexican or go along with the consensus of the rest? Calling for a second vote would be ineffective. As the matter has already been decided, there had been a high level of agreement the first time and all of them knew that they had reached this general consensus. Even the fifth couple let it be known that they would greatly prefer the other. It will not have any expectation of gaining new support. It would be their personal preference, not a serious challenge to the more popular alternative. The Purito principle is named after an early economist, Vilfredo Purito, who studied wealth in a segment of Italy. He discovered that 80% of the wealth was in the hands of just 20% of the people. With a strong orientation to socialism, he apparently found the inequality of this to be quite disturbing and unfair. Performance engineering notes are very different but quite practical understanding of the results. Things go wrong randomly. If we address just the most prevalent 20% of causes of error in the production process, it will eliminate 80% of the errors that would otherwise occur. If a business addresses the most common 20% of customer complaints, it will be eliminating 80% of the total number of complaints. This is the 80-20 rule or Purito principle. This 80-20 split is common to all normal populations, to all random occurrences. Our use of this principle is from recognizing that people are always normal. Our variations are random. Where our personal difference occurs randomly, this Purito principle is appropriate for our use. The powerful new understanding is that this can define effective agreement among people where 80% of any population of people are agreed and know of their agreement. They are effectively agreed as a people. This is our source of mandate. Mandate is effective when 80% of the people support some direction of action and when those people are aware that they really have found this level of agreement. We as people are variable. There is almost no chance of finding universal agreement on anything in a larger population due to our variability, but we do have a very real opportunity to find agreement in 80% of the people when we address human value-driven activities. There is nothing fair or unfair about the Purito principle's applications. It is just a practical reality, a part of what it means to be human. When opposition to an agreement is 20% or less, it becomes statistically insignificant. The people in opposition are not likely to even come together in opposition but act as individuals. And it is not that this is some hard and fast rule before which we must bow. It is not a universal truth. It is just a statistical observation of who we are as human beings. One important observation is how very different Purito decisions are than majority rule. A Purito level agreement is a group decision where majority rule sets some people to overcome others. Authoritative rule over people is based on a consensus so great that it effectively is a public consensus. Our technical side of business provides us with an approach to establishing mandate and it is called acceptance sampling. The need was recognized by business. They had materials that were generated by or purchased from other businesses. There are always variations, defects, that reduce the value of some items in a manufactured lot of physical materials. The challenge was determining whether it was economically feasible to accept a production lot for use. Was it worth the price that was asked knowing that it would have some level of random defects? The answer was acceptance sampling, a selection of a random sample from the larger lot and intensively inspected, these were inspected for errors that would interfere with their use. The technical study was too complex to use directly. It not only had to deal with the defects themselves but with how well a random sample actually represented the whole lot. For practical use, industry developed statistical tables that could be used to establish sampling plans. These were predetermined sampling instructions that would identify the number of allowed defects in a sampling from a larger lot to reasonably assure an acceptable level for defects in the larger lot. With just this short orientation, almost any inspector could apply the tables based on given criteria or requirements from the business. What the sampling plan provided was a sample size to select and a number of defects in that sample that could indicate an acceptable lot. If there were more defects than allowed, the entire lot would be rejected, not be purchased or not be accepted as fulfillment of prior business arrangements. This worked to good effect for both the provider and receiver so long as the criteria had been a matter of their agreement. As a curious side note, the military had lot-based acceptance sampling as a business foundation in the 1960s when I was most involved. It has shifted orientation to process sampling in its more modern application. This is just one more indication of shifting from decision-based lots on what suppliers have accomplished to decisions based on activities what suppliers are doing. This is wholly consistent with other observed changes created by influence of leadership. To bring this to focus, we also need to note a generally accepted reliability in the sampling plan. People in business, both suppliers and receivers, generally accept the decisions from the sampling process to be reasonable when it has 95% statistical reliability. What this means is that there is statistically less than one in 20 chances that a lot might be accepted under a sampling plan when it, in fact, has more than the acceptable number of defects. It addresses how reliable the data from the sampling is as to accurately representing the lot from which it is drawn. For our purpose in the development of mandate, we will be addressing the lot as the public. We have the acceptable defect rate of 20%. If there is more than 20% who do not support the action, it cannot be public mandate. That will be the basis for our acceptance that a mandate is reasonably potential for any proposed change action. The development of these sampling plans was to intentionally simplify inspection to the point where any inspector could focus on their inspection of items in the sample and just compare the results to the plan to know whether to accept or reject. Selecting a specific plan simplified the go-no-go decision to the number of items in the sample and the number of defects found. Our sampling plan for mandate uses a single criteria, some action intended to generate value for people. We select a sample, primarily those interested enough to volunteer to receive the criteria and compare the number in the sample to the number who would refuse to support that action. The simplicity is rather obvious. You use the criteria to sample by seeking out those in the general public who will volunteer to spend the time and effort to receive it. And the question is whether they accept this as something they would support or oppose. Each person opposed is approached as a defect and the sum of those in opposition indicate the number of defects in the sample. If the number exceeds that of the plan, it is unlikely to be accepted as a mandate by the rest of the public. If there are fewer in opposition, then the mandate is reasonably assured. Should the public become aware of their potential for agreement? The final statement is a hard limit on mandate. Mandate is inherently intentional and it only becomes effective as people are aware of both the criteria and the potential agreement of others. Specifically note how few people are required for these sampling. A single person has the capacity to complete the sampling action. A single person can, acting alone or with just a few others as support, do the sampling and establish a mandate potential. This is a level of empowerment that flies in the face of today's common use of polling or authoritative proclamation of direction for action. This is intentional in-your-face empowerment of a person by taking that first step in initiating a public instruction to those who otherwise would rule over actions, leading actions to their own best understanding of what they should be doing. The sampling can be so small because we are all human beings and that is a very real basis for coming together to proclaim values we all recognize. For review, these are personal freedom, prosperity, and trust-based social interactions. We can come together whenever we are able to enhance these. We can come together to mandate our receipt of what we value. We can come together to stop waste or interferences that deny our receipt of that value. But there is ever so much more empowerment here. Any sampling criteria that can get the support of 80% of the people in one public forum is very likely to have similar results in every public gathering. Unlike polling, any bias would have to be through seeking out some intentionally restricted population for sampling. And then the result of this effort is not a statement of popularity, but recognition is something that we are so agreed upon that it is likely to become the voice of the people in any public that becomes aware of it. It is still only a potential mandate, but this approach is an effective test whether that sampling criteria is the basis for such agreement that there is no supportable alternatives. It is worth a moment of your time to pause here and bask in the personal empowerment that comes into focus when you are able to establish a potential mandate. It is where a common citizen can speak for the public of all common citizens, even those who feel most privileged. You will see the cost of denying it. The potential is fact, no longer just belief in the popularity of taking sides in an issue. If this potential gets published to others, there is 19 of 20 chance that they will, as a public body, embrace what you have just established from that sampling. While it is not true power until it becomes an in fact mandate, you will have discovered an agreement that is a doorway to public-driven change. That door is open and awaits only publication for the public to step through it. There is ever so much more in this. Yes, you are wonderfully empowered. The limit is that you are in a position of influence, but it is only in those things that are public. It is in doing things that are wider public values, enough to come to agreement that it be done. It has not really empowered you, but given you a path to empowerment that was already yours for the taking, this is just a how-to realizing that ultimately human power that comes to us when we gather for a shared purpose. Consider a gathering of parents of students for a school. There are not some sampling of parents, but nearly 60% of all parents. This is a body of people who have volunteered to be there. They have supposedly gathered because the administrative educators decided to embrace an educational approach designed to promote acceptance of lifestyles that these parents do not consider appropriate. In accord with traditional authority, approach the school principal backed by system administrators, present the value of this for preparing all well-rounded citizens for the future. Empowerment is appropriate. One of you rises. Let everyone see the hands of those who would have us, parents, decide what is appropriate for our children. As this is parents who were concerned about this, it is likely that more than 80% of those present will actually raise their hands, especially seeing for themselves that this is a general consensus. You have just brought the public of parents to awareness of its agreement. You turn to those who did the presentation with something like, this is the public you are hired to serve. They get to see it too. An agreement that is negative to their choice as leaders. I need a few volunteers to help me present this to the city council. You have just directly empowered that population of parents and it is very likely that several others will quickly rise to join you. But that is just the beginning of empowerment. That is the shadow, not the reality. This is an in fact mandate as the agreement is already effectively published. The recommended action, which will be discussed shortly, is then to turn to the principal and administrators, gentlemen. We have hopes that you will help us establish a parental review process and go with us to the county council, presenting this as a recommendation. This is the same process suggested for sampling, without the need to do any further sampling or publication to establish the agreement among the people who are at that point representing the county population. For our purposes, the action is citizen empowerment. Citizens assuming a volunteer based management over the public authority that felt privileged to act to its own goals and objectives instead of what the public felt to be more appropriate. Those who act on privilege will try to do what they accept as right and proper. Others, commoners, are to benefit from their actions. They then consider those commoners as beneficiaries of their administration. Surely people do get good results because of their chosen actions. Others are not approached as customers or as owners. That is the nature of leader privilege. The more intense the leader's sense of privilege, the less responsibility they feel to answer to even owners. Privilege can often challenge what peasants would prefer for leaders to do. Local citizens are not peasants but owners of the local government and they represent the larger public directly. The power of ownership is theirs. And however they come together and find their agreement, they become the only real party in interest. Our potential for gathering the people in agreement is set before us in such situations. Though it is rare to have this obvious a situation, it does happen. The wisdom that you are learning in this study is to include those administrators you have just removed from active authority preventing what they would do as the right things. The act is to enlist them to lead, inviting them to take active leadership and accomplishing the public change that you have set in motion by active agreement. The purpose you learn in this class is efficiency and effectiveness and such things. You want to minimize the time and effort that you spend in initiating and managing changes rather than taking on personal responsibilities that are otherwise already assigned to those public leaders. Your desired result is what has such value to you in its accomplishment that you have committed time and effort to it. It is assignment to these leaders so that they become active in leading the change and assuring their ongoing authority of otherwise being in charge. This is arranging parental support for what they do. It is also enlisting them to the larger change through presenting a way to harness the support of parents. It is very likely to be both accepted and actively supported. I am sure that more than a few of you paused and stepped back at the thought of trying to bring the administrators and principal into the effort. But there is a great deal of intelligence in support of this. The purpose is getting something done, not the disempowerment of these officers. The performance orientation is toward coming together with them and arranging for these public employees to work for you. Just that quickly, you are the parents helping the school accomplish what you value instead of taking over from them. The effective mandate is specific, covering a single change. We need a variation on this for our sampling process. The efficient approach is to document the potential sampling, both the criteria and how many were contacted and done their rate of approval. Our purpose is getting things done and it includes bringing people together for what almost everyone values. In this case, that includes the initially contrary leaders. They may be a personal challenge, but they will almost certainly recognize the same value that stands behind the mandate. The purpose is to enlist them to lead the change. It is to call upon them as public leaders to lead where the public has decided to go. It is a call for them to establish the true mandate and then to become the voice of the people that has no public opposition. It is an offer to empower them, right along with empowering the people. They already have the pulpit for presenting the mandate to the public. They already have the motivation to harness the public under their leadership. However strange it may appear to those who are oriented to privilege, this is obvious personal empowerment for the leader. For your own commitment, you still have to perform the management of the mandate. Your personal initiation takes on a whole new wrinkle when you promise to carry the leader's responses back to the public that initiated it. It is a promise to publish not only the criteria and potential mandate, but the leader's decision to lead or not to lead it. Make no mistake in seeing this. It is the people assigning a leadership duty to the one in office. It is a promise of consequences following his or her leadership decision. It is also a leadership opportunity for the one in office. An opportunity to embrace what the people value and let everyone see his or her commitment to that leadership task. There are very few more enticing opportunities for someone in leadership than everyone they lead, seeing how they are fulfilling what the people would have them do. The other side of your commitment includes management, a plan for how the leader expects to accomplish the change which may well encompass services to the efforts from the wider population. The good news is that anything that reaches mandated one sample of people is very likely to have the same potential in the areas served by other leaders. If this becomes a public mandate, the public that mandates is likely to put forth the effort to contact citizens in other areas, initiating the same sort of mandate for other leaders, but to join in the public effort. The initial leader is likely to stay in leadership position as an initiator and be leading other area leaders as part of their mandated activities. There is a need for some sensitivity. Most modern leaders are not familiar with receiving orders from those they could rule over. A short time of adjustment may be required. This might be accepting a delay of answer for a set period, a delay while they sort out their own position and plan for action. It should be a limited time as this is the owner setting an assignment and the employee owes an answer. On agreement to lead, the leader has just empowered him or herself right along with empowering the people who will support the mandate. The first concern must always be establishing the in fact mandate. It must be published and it will be of greatest value if the leader is the one who takes on that task as the one publicly taking charge. There is a second side to the Pareto principle of the 80% who agree those who are personally seeking the valued result, it is likely that 20% or more of those 80% are willing to do something in support of the mandate. This is at least 16% of the public. It is an effective army of potential volunteers who are willing to step up to support any reasonable plan for accomplishment. These are people who will carry the message at need into the jurisdictions of other leaders. The simple truth is that the existence of a mandate empowers the public and there is no real alternative. Those who raise potential alternatives and issues may obstruct for a time but promoting any goal based alternatives are likely to spur public challenge. Mandate once established is a reality, not one alternative among many options. If the leader refuses to act on the mandate you have made a commitment to that leader and it is to publish his or her refusal to the very people who would establish the assignment. That leader has just put a work requirement on you, one of publishing that leader's refusal to lead. It is your duty and your place to bring the potential mandate to reality by your action enlisting others to the task as necessary, depending on how serious that refusal or how witnessed the attitude of refusal and the value that the leader would deny to the public, you can add new potential to the mandate that you communicate. It would not only note the refusal and pertinent facts in it but can also recommend follow-up agreement on reaction. This is a different exercise of mandate. It can suggest considering the refusal in later votes. It can suggest initiating a recall. It can even suggest firing the leader if the refusal is sufficiently harsh. It can be a suggestion to declare the office vacated by that refusal to lead. The action is then to petition those public officers who are able to fill the vacated office. It could set a duty upon them to recognize the abandonment and initiate the action to replace the officer who refused. Again, if there is sufficient agreement in the public, that action can also be mandated. In the final sense of the mandate, the public is the owner and there are no other parties in interest. In the following section, we will be examining the sampling criteria and some of the considerations for presenting a change concept to the public for voluntary receipt and possible support. That too can be done effectively and efficiently. It can minimize the commitment of time and effort while maximizing the value that it can deliver to those who receive it. Our subject is empowerment. And it is your empowerment by empowering others as well as yourself. I am indeed your technical support in this, helping you see what you might do and to see most clearly what it can cost to gain what you value. That is power. The power of choices that have previously been denied to people.