Why and How Berean Resultsology Was Born

ow when people hear the word Resultsology, they still think it’s just fancy semantics by someone who has nothing else to do or to offer. First, I am geoscientist and an environmental engineer by formal education and training; and there are lot of environmental problems to solve in the world. The only big challenge is that Africa is not as serious as Europe, America and Oceania is environmental management issues. If Africa were serious I would have told you so. This global failure to successfully pursue our sustainable development goals is not driven by lack of the scientific and engineering pathways or parts of the solution. The failure lies squarely on environmental and sustainable development strategy and leadership issues. But this is a subject for another day.

Now, you might already know my work in organisational, business, environmental management and organisational strategy and performance including strategy advisory to CEOs, Board Chairpersons and Top Decision Makers, designing and facilitating strategic planning sessions, retreats and events. You might also already know my work in performance and results management including training, education, mental equipment and development including my work in teams and their recruitment, training, education and development, design, assembly, leadership and results management. I have done these things for years and for many different companies. I also continuously research around these areas and learning from some of the world’s best in those areas in terms of both knowledge, theory and practice.

So for me, learning from Albert Einstein and my science background, everything has two sides; the theory and the practice, the visible and the invisible. What I found out doing strategy ad performance work and also doing my researches in the difference disciplines of my interest was over 90 percent of the organisations that I had worked with were not run strategically but rather tactically. First, I found out that organisational leaders where not investing enough time in marrying theory and practice and thinking about their results but more on their performance.

Also found out from the Gallup Organisation’s employee surveys and other researches and studies on organisations and their performance that the overwhelming majority of companies, organisations, economies and businesses where underperforming. Here is the thing;

There is a big difference between poor performing and underperforming businesses, companies and organisations and economies. Can you explain how these are different?

Traditional companies, organisations, businesses and economies manage performance instead of results and this leads to underperformance or poor performance. In addition the traditional performance management models are deeply flawed in that they address the issue of performance way too late because they are focussed on the performance outputs and much less, if at all, on performance inputs. Yet,

The quality of performance outputs is a function of the performance inputs and performance outputs. This means, simply, managing performance inputs and processes is more important than measuring performance outputs. If we have the right performance inputs and performance processes in the right environmental conditions, then our performance outputs are guaranteed. The traditional post mortem approach is therefore, in my own thinking, defective.

The second problem I discovered was that in many organisation, strategy and its meaning is problematic in many countries, companies, organisations, businesses and economies. Strategy in many of these institutions in misunderstood and poorly, if not badly used. Strategy is treated as a separate thing divorced from performance and results. There is a combination of theoretical confusion and disjointedness in the traditional organisation including business organisations and economic organisations. This is one big reason why so many companies, economies, businesses and organisations underperform and produce mediocre results compared to their potential and why in any industry as little as 20% of companies and businesses enjoy 80% of the marketshare. I call this problem where there is lack of coherent integrated theory strategic corruption.

So I realised that the only way to improve things in organisations was to move way from managing performance to managing results. But this was not new then because the NGO world had already proposed what it called results-based management. This is a was brilliant insight but which did not gain as much traction as was needed to make it a new default in organisational strategy. But if you remember Stephen R. Covey Seven Habits of Highly Effective People talks about “Beginning with the end in mind.” In others words;

Start with the results that you want and then work backwards.

Then I had more fundamental questions to answer about organisations, economies and societies;

1.???? How exactly do humans produce the kind of situations, performance and results that they produce as individuals, teams, organisations, societies, companies and countries in different areas such as personal life, environmental management, economics, Ceoship, business, politics, governing, sport, careers, academics and so on?

2.???? If there were some science and engineering behind the situations, performance and results humans produce in the different areas of life, what would be the science and engineering?

The desire to figure out the science and engineering arose from the realisation that the majority of humans fail to produce the kind of performance and results that they produce. Self-help material such as success motivation and advice on how to succeed or how to achieve goals was more managerial than scientific and most did not work for most people. If we discovered the science and engineering behind human performance and results, the world would change and we will achieve any performance and results that we want and prevent or solve most of the problems that are creating and failing to solve.

One of the most things I relatively quickly discovered was to create a unifying theory that linked four main things;

Situation

Performance and Results

I came up with what I now call The Berean General Universal Equation which is;

?Results(X)=-+A (X) +- A (B + C) + U

Where;

R(X) is the result that you want to produce,

A is Action

A(X) is the Action need to produce the result

B is Strategy for producing the result

C is the performance needed to produce the result

U is the unknown factor covering what the unknown that has an impact on the results that we want to produce.

The foundations of results are now set and the genera taxonomy is as follows so far,

1.???? General Resultsology

2.???? Personal Resultsology

3.???? Environmental Management Resultsology

4.???? Economic Resultsology

5.???? Organisational Resultsology

6.???? Business Resultsology

7.???? Government Resultsology

8.???? Political Resultsology

9.???? Metastrategy

10.? Human Performance Resultsology

Each of these has many branches such as Brandology, Marketing Resultsology and Sales Resultsology under Business Resultsology.

Resultsology is a science!

?If you want the full taxonomy of Resutsology you can email [email protected] or call +263-77-444-74-38

?Simon Bere 2025