The Distributed Dictatorship of Mediocrity

The history of human civilisation is filled with figures who transcended the limits of their time and, for that very reason, were persecuted. From Socrates to Galileo, from Van Gogh to the modern voices that challenge mass thought, the same pattern repeats itself endlessly. Excellence provokes resistance. Today, this conflict no longer manifests through persecution or prohibition, but through something subtler, the quiet, almost invisible revenge of mediocrity.

Mediocrity does not despise excellence because it considers it evil; it despises it because it mirrors it. It reminds everyone of what they might have become, had they dared to move beyond the boundary of safety. Society, for its part, has developed mechanisms that reinforce this conflict, and psychology has provided precise explanations as to why.

In the 1950s, Solomon Asch experimentally demonstrated that people prefer to be wrong with the many than right alone. Even when the correct answer was plain before them, the pressure of the group was enough to distort their judgement. A few years later, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann described this phenomenon as the spiral of silence: the fear of social isolation leads individuals to suppress minority or original opinions.

This is the first stage of mediocrity’s revenge, conformity. The more distinctive someone is, the more they threaten the cohesion of the group, and the group reacts. As Kipling Williams showed, social exclusion triggers the same kind of pain in the brain as a physical wound. There is, therefore, no need for persecution or violence; isolation, mockery, or silent contempt are quite sufficient.

Yet mediocrity does not stop there. Within institutions and organisations, it is structurally favoured. Individuals and systems have a natural inclination to preserve the status quo, even at the expense of progress. As Samuelson and Zeckhauser demonstrated, this status quo bias leads decision-makers to choose what is safe and familiar rather than what is innovative or uncertain. Research by Foster, Rzhetsky, and Evans has shown that genuine scientific innovation is often rejected in its early stages because it is deemed too risky to fit within the established framework.

This pattern repeats itself everywhere, in universities, in businesses, in the media. Systems of performance metrics, indicators, and targets all operate within Goodhart’s logic: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to measure what truly matters. Thus, those who learn to play the system, rather than transcend it, are the ones rewarded. Mediocrity becomes the rational choice.

Technology has come to complete this process. Social networks and algorithms do not distinguish the essential from the superficial; they measure only resonance. Experiments such as those of Salganik, Dodds, and Watts demonstrated that social influence amplifies inequality dramatically. When users see what others prefer, they tend to follow the crowd, reinforcing what is already popular. As a result, original content sinks into the long tail of invisibility. Innovation exists, but it remains unseen.

Behind all this lies a deeper psychological mechanism, the need for equality. Social psychologist Norman Feather showed that people often feel satisfaction when a highly capable or successful person fails. The downfall of another restores the balance of their own sense of inadequacy. Excellence, in other words, is not condemned because it is wrong, but because it serves as a reminder.

The same occurs in the realm of knowledge. As early as 1968, Robert Merton described the Matthew Effect: “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” Established and recognised scientists receive a disproportionately greater share of attention, while younger, often more creative researchers remain in obscurity. The result is the reproduction of the same cycle: innovation lingers at the periphery, while mediocrity occupies the centre.

All this forms a coherent pattern: mediocrity need not conspire against excellence, the system does it on its behalf. Through psychological pressure, institutional inertia, and technological algorithms, society favours the safe and the familiar. Yet progress never arises from safety.

If there is a remedy, it lies not in the pursuit of elitist distinction but in building a culture resilient to difference. Excellence does not require privilege; it requires tolerance, an environment that recognises that dissent, failure, and unconventional thought are not threats but essential conditions for evolution.

Mediocrity will always exist, as it always has. The question is whether we shall allow it to continue avenging all that makes us human, our capacity to surpass ourselves.

The triumph of mediocrity is not merely a psychological or social phenomenon. It gradually gives rise to a new form of power, gentler yet far deeper than classical authoritarian structures. In modern democracies, power no longer needs to be imposed from above; it operates through networks, regulations, systems of evaluation, and technological platforms that diffuse conformity across every layer of social life. What emerges is a distributed dictatorship, a web of control without a tyrant, where obedience is not enforced but internalised.

This idea finds its roots in Michel Foucault’s analyses of biopower and the panopticon. Foucault showed that power does not dwell in a single centre; it circulates through institutions, rules, and everyday practices. In the past, authoritarianism was visible in the faces of rulers and the mechanisms of repression. Today, it manifests in the very structure of systems designed to serve us.

The distributed dictatorship functions as an invisible mesh of mutual surveillance. Citizens, workers, and digital users are simultaneously observers and the observed. Shoshana Zuboff described this phenomenon as surveillance capitalism, an economy in which human experience is turned into data used to predict and guide behaviour. Power no longer needs to say “no”; it merely steers what is deemed normal, acceptable, or socially desirable.

In public discourse, this reveals itself through overinformation and speed. As Byung-Chul Han observed, contemporary society is no longer repressive but hyperproductive. It overwhelms the individual with stimuli, opinions, images, and models of success. Suppression has been replaced by saturation. Those who cannot keep up with its pace simply vanish. The individual feels free but lives in an environment where their choices are already shaped by algorithmic filters, social expectations, and institutional norms.

The same occurs in work and education. Employees and students learn to monitor themselves, to measure, record, and assess their own performance through metrics and targets. Power has become an internal mechanism of self-regulation. Control is no longer imposed from the outside but experienced as duty, a condition Foucault once called discipline without a warden.

Technology magnifies this effect. Social media platforms and rating systems have introduced a new form of social panopticism. Each person is both observer and observed. As Zygmunt Bauman noted, the modern society of transparency does not grant freedom but perpetual exposure. Acceptance, visibility, and social approval function as mechanisms of conformity far stronger than the threat of punishment.

Within this framework, mediocrity becomes a cultural mechanism of stability. Because it is predictable, adaptable, and harmless, it serves as the ideal cell of this new form of power. The excellent, the creative, the different are not treated as enemies but as anomalies in need of correction. The pressure is not institutional but social. Those who fail to conform to the pace and tone of the age are simply excluded.

This distributed dictatorship, therefore, has neither leader nor face. It is a self-regulating system in which mediocrity has found the perfect environment to survive and dominate. The more people learn to censor themselves, to monitor their own behaviour, and to compete for social approval, the less anyone needs to control them. Freedom is not curtailed by force but by behavioural programming.

At this point, sociology and philosophy converge. The German sociologist Ulrich Beck spoke of the risk society, where the demand for safety creates vast structures of control. The French philosopher Jean Baudrillard warned that we live in a world of hyperreality, where representation has replaced experience. And Han, in his more recent writings, argues that psychological exhaustion has become the new instrument of power: people obey not because they are afraid, but because they are depleted.

The distributed dictatorship is, then, the final stage in the revenge of mediocrity. A society that fears difference and excellence ends up designing its institutions so that no one can truly stand out. The result is a kind of courteous slavery, where everyone is free to speak, but only as long as their words fit the collective narrative. Power has become a shared habit.

Corruption as an Interpretive Act

Abstract

This study redefines the phenomenon of corruption beyond its legal and institutional dimension by introducing the term interpretive corruption. It is argued that contemporary corruption does not manifest only as illegality, but as a distortion of the very meaning of truth. Through phenomenological and sociological analysis, the article examines the transition from the individual’s psychic deformation to institutional decline, with emphasis on business organisations and the information era. Interpretive corruption is defined as a new form of social pathology in which the distortion of discourse and values replaces the act of lying, rendering falsehood socially functional and culturally tolerable.

Keywords: corruption, interpretive corruption, institutions, psychic deformation, social justice, business, contemporary society, information, truth

Conceptual framework: corruption in its classical and expanded sense

In the scholarly literature, corruption is defined as the abuse of power or trust for private gain which violates institutional or moral norms with the aim of extracting material or immaterial benefits (Transparency International, 2023; Nye, 1967). Corruption is not merely a legal or moral aberration; it is a social phenomenon that emerges when institutions lose their legitimating basis and when the relationship between power and responsibility is ruptured.

The principal types of corruption identified in sociology and political science include:


• Political corruption, namely the manipulation of public decisions, laws or institutions for partisan or economic advantage (Heidenheimer & Johnston, 2002).

• Administrative or bureaucratic corruption, referring to the abuse of duties by public officials through bribery, favouritism or procedural violations (Rose-Ackerman, 1999).

• Economic or business corruption, manifesting through unlawful or unethical practices in market transactions such as fraud, tax evasion, falsification of accounts, conflicts of interest (Johnston, 2005).

• Moral corruption, which transcends the legal level and concerns the erosion of social values, that is, society’s gradual habituation to dishonesty or cynicism (Williams, 1999).

Research has shown that these types do not operate in isolation, but mutually reinforce one another within broader cultural and institutional environments. Alatas (1999) speaks of ‘systemic corruption’, a diffuse condition in which improper practice becomes the operative norm of a system.

However necessary it may be, the traditional sociological view of corruption gives primacy to its legal and institutional dimensions, leaving aside a subtler and more fundamental form of degradation: the corruption of truth. When actors, political, economic or institutional, interpret facts, rules or values according to their own interests, they undermine collective trust, the very core of social cohesion.

Corruption, therefore, is not merely an act but a discourse; not only a material transaction, but a process of constructing realities. In an environment where information has become the pre-eminent field of power, the distortion of truth functions as a mechanism for maintaining prestige, control and profit. Thus the conventional framework of corruption must be complemented by an interpretive perspective, in which the alteration of truth constitutes its most insidious and corrosive form.

This extension leads us to reconsider corruption not only as rule-breaking, but as an interpretive act, a social mechanism of falsifying meaning, which shapes how we perceive reality itself.

From psychic deformation to institutional decline

Corruption, sociologically understood, is not confined to its institutional manifestations. Every form of wrongdoing presupposes an inner substratum, a moral and psychic erosion that precedes and feeds it. Without a prior inner renunciation of truth, institutional illegality cannot flourish.

Psychic deformation appears as a perversion of conscience, a gradual habituation to falsehood and expediency. Individualism, the instrumentalisation of values and dependence on success lead the person to interpret reality not according to the just or the true, but according to interest and outcome. As Charles Taylor (1989) notes, modern moral retreat is not the denial of morality as such, but its replacement by an instrumental rationality: truth is measured in terms of effectiveness rather than inner consistency.

Within this frame, psychic deformation functions as a pre-institutional mechanism. The person who learns to bend truth within, to justify the small lie, the minor exception, the personal ‘necessity’, will sooner or later become the bearer of a system that does the same at the macro level. Émile Durkheim (1912) would call this a form of anomie of the self, where the inner moral rule loses its binding force. Renouncing inner responsibility gives rise to social anomie.

Hannah Arendt’s (1963) philosophy further illuminates this dimension through the notion of the ‘banality of evil’. The corrupt is not always malicious or consciously criminal, but often the ordinary person who stops thinking critically and surrenders to the routine of obedience or expediency. The weakness of critical self-awareness, the absence of an inner dialogue, renders corruption inwardly normal before it becomes socially acceptable.

Psychic deformation may thus be described as the anthropological root of social corruption. It does not arise from economic need or institutional deficiency, but from mental and moral habituation to inaccuracy; from the gradual loss of the capacity to distinguish the true from the convenient. Paul Ricoeur (1992) would term it ‘moral forgetting’, the loss of memory of one’s duty towards truth.

This inner phenomenon, however, has social consequences. Institutions mirror the people who compose them. When individual conscience is trained in accommodation and silencing, institutional systems do the same. Businesses, state mechanisms and organisations carry within them the moral stance of their members; in this way, psychic deformation turns into institutional decline.

The sociological consequence of this process is a cultural relativism in which the notion of responsibility is weakened. The more the individual is trained to regard their own interpretation as superior to objective criteria, the more society as a whole loses the ability to distinguish authentic from distorted knowledge, legality from the semblance of legality. The result is a society ‘corroded from within’, where institutions collapse not under external pressures, but through an inner loss of meaning.

In sum, psychic deformation is the latent precondition of institutional decline. There is no corruption in institutions without prior corruption of conscience. And, as Ricoeur emphasises, the restoration of truth presupposes moral remembrance — regaining the inner responsibility to see, to think and to speak with clarity, even when it comes at a cost. Only then can external integrity acquire real substance.

Corruption in the information age and in business

The erosion of meritocracy and relationships within the organisation

Before examining the outward dimension of corruption in business, that is, policies, communication strategies and institutional practices, it is necessary to shed light on its inner form, which is born in the everyday operation of organisations. This form does not concern breaches of law, but the erosion of values: the loss of justice, meritocracy, trust and respect among the members of a company or organisation.

The modern enterprise is a microcosm of power. When hierarchy is used not for coordination but for imposition, when the recognition of effort is based not on merit but on expediency, an environment of inner corruption is created. Employees learn that reward depends not on quality or integrity, but on compliance and strategic visibility. Thus injustice becomes a survival mechanism.

The loss of meritocracy constitutes the fundamental form of corruption within business. When promotions, opportunities for advancement or even day-to-day recognition fail to reflect actual contribution, and instead depend on favour networks, political alignment or internal alliances, the organisation ceases to operate on the basis of truth. It creates an artificial reality in which appearance prevails over substance.

Unfair competition among members, often tacitly encouraged by management as a ‘productivity incentive’, is another manifestation of this corruption. Internal rivalry undermines the sense of common purpose, dissolves cooperation and turns falsehood into a tool of survival. As Richard Sennett (1998) has observed, the new capitalist spirit produces ‘corroded characters’ — people trained to adapt to roles without stable moral reference points, with deception becoming part of their professional repertoire.

The distortion of recognition, when effort is not rewarded or truth is punished,  leads to psychic deformation. The worker loses a sense of meaning, detaches from their work and develops coping mechanisms that perpetuate the very system that wrongs them. Thus corruption acquires psychological reproducibility: the person who feels wronged will, sooner or later, legitimise their own small wrong as a means of survival.

The absence of moral leadership completes the cycle. When leaders do not exemplify justice and transparency, the organisation becomes a system of reflex hypocrisy, everyone adjusting to what ‘must appear’ rather than to what is. Max Weber would say that formal rationality asserts itself at the expense of substantive rationality: process overrides meaning.

This inner erosion, often invisible, is the root of outward corruption. From it arise policies of moral display (CSR, ESG, diversity statements, etc.), which attempt to cover the moral deficit with rhetoric. Without fair recognition, without meritocracy and without truth within, no enterprise can be ethical outwardly. The corruption of policies begins with the corruption of relationships.

From inner erosion to outward policies

Corruption that nests within an organisation’s culture seldom remains an internal matter. Over time it assumes political and institutional form, expressed through programmes, corporate strategies and communication narratives that seek to offset or conceal the moral deficit of the internal environment. Internal injustice, bias, lack of transparency and hypocrisy gradually become the structural elements of outward policy.

At this stage, corruption ceases to be a matter of personal conduct and becomes a technology of communication. Businesses that are not grounded in truth and internal justice resort to systems of ‘moral image management’, practices that generate impressions of legitimacy without substantive content. Communication comes to substitute for integrity.

This tendency is particularly visible in the 21st century, where information is the primary carrier of power. Companies no longer ‘produce’ only products, but narratives; they do not merely sell goods, but meanings. This shift enables the emergence of a new form of corruption we name interpretive corruption: the deliberate falsification of the symbols of morality.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Environmental, Social, and Governance programmes (ESG), codes of ethics and sustainability policies often constitute expressions of this phenomenon. They are not inherently corrupt, but when they arise from organisations lacking inner meritocracy and justice, they become mechanisms for legitimising inconsistency. The inner moral void is disguised as outward ‘virtue’.

This process is extremely dangerous because it institutionalises falsehood. Organisations learn to manage morality as they manage marketing: with indicators, campaigns and numerical proofs of ‘progress’. The result is the creation of an administrative aesthetics of the good, where morality is not lived, but used as a tool.

Jean Baudrillard (1981) described this as ‘hyperreality’: organisations do not try to be moral, but to appear moral so convincingly that the difference becomes invisible. The same occurred historically with the language of politics; the notion of ‘transparency’ is used more as a rhetorical device than as practice.

The digital era has amplified this dynamic. The culture of display, obsession with public image and data management have turned transparency into a performative event. Businesses publish ‘accountability’ reports, present statistics of ‘ethical behaviour’, showcase videos and pledges, while the real question — justice within — remains unseen. Thus an externalised corruption of morality is produced, where responsibility is replaced by communication.

What we ultimately observe is a reversal of the moral axiom: instead of inner virtue producing just policies, policies attempt to construct the image of virtue. The organisation that wrongs within will pseudo-legitimise itself without. And as society becomes accustomed to this symbolic reversal, the meaning of corruption is completely emptied. It becomes an aesthetic matter, not a moral one.

Outward corporate corruption, therefore, is not merely a communication error; it reflects the organisation’s inner moral structure. As the body cannot hide its illness for long, neither can an organisation conceal its ethos. In the information age, corruption is not hidden, it is represented.

The social dimension of interpretive corruption

As revealed by contemporary social reality, corruption is not confined to particular institutions or individuals. It diffuses culturally, shaping a new social type of degradation in which truth loses its universal value and becomes a product of management. This process is neither simple mendacity nor isolated dishonesty; it is a systematic distortion of the relation between language, values and action.

This study designates the phenomenon as interpretive corruption. It is the process whereby individuals, institutions or collective systems reconstruct the meaning of truth or justice so as to serve their own purposes. They do not merely falsify facts; they falsify the framework through which facts are interpreted.

Interpretive corruption thus constitutes a third form of social corruption, beyond the institutional and the economic. While the first concerns the abuse of power and the second pecuniary exchange, interpretive corruption amounts to an abuse of meaning. It is a system’s capacity to impose its own ‘lawful falsehood’ (Bourdieu, 1991) and to transform falsification into normality.

At the societal level, interpretive corruption generates cultural relativism. When all truths are treated as equivalent, when the criterion of the true is replaced by the ‘useful’ or the ‘effective’, society ceases to possess a common axis of meaning. This connects with what Habermas (1984) calls the distortion of communicative rationality: the point at which language functions not for understanding but for imposition.

Interpretive corruption has three principal dimensions:


1. Individual, it appears as psychic deformation, i.e., moral accommodation and selective interpretation of truth by the person.

2. Institutional, it appears in businesses, the media and state mechanisms as a process of reconstructing reality to serve interests.

3. Cultural, it appears as social habituation to false interpretation; when society learns to accept the ‘version’ as a substitute for truth.

This form of corruption is self-reinforcing: the more it spreads, the harder it becomes to recognise. Society becomes accustomed to the ‘plausible falsehood’, and the distinction between sincerity and strategy fades. People learn to live amid ‘post-truths’, as modern social thinkers point out (Keyes, 2004; McIntyre, 2018).

Interpretive corruption therefore has multiple effects: it weakens democracy, erodes trust in institutions, nullifies the possibility of dialogue and undermines education as a space for the pursuit of truth. Ultimately, it amounts to the social institutionalisation of illusion.

This new term is not proposed merely as a linguistic innovation, but as an analytical tool. Interpretive corruption describes the shift from the corruption of act to the corruption of meaning, from unlawful deed to lawful illusion. Understanding it is essential if we are to study information societies, where power is exercised not only through material means, but through interpretations.

Conclusions

The foregoing analysis has shown that corruption is not only a social or economic pathology; it is chiefly an interpretive act, a way in which individuals and institutions distort their relation to truth. From the person’s psychic deformation to institutional decline, a continuous line of meaning-distortion unfolds, producing new forms of inequality, hypocrisy and moral relativism.

The study has demonstrated that in the contemporary business and social environment, corruption has shifted from the level of act to the level of interpretation. It is no longer necessary to violate explicit rules; it suffices to alter the framework by which those rules are understood. Injustice, unfair competition, the loss of meritocracy and bias operate as key mechanisms within a broader psychic and axiological distortion that prepares the ground for institutional forms of corruption.

From this perspective, interpretive corruption is the cornerstone of every other form of corruption. It is the primary process by which society learns to translate dishonesty into success and deception into competence. When truth becomes a strategic instrument, the social fabric disintegrates: institutions lose their legitimating basis, businesses operate by the ethics of communication, and citizens lose trust in a shared meaning.

Interpretive corruption is therefore a moral and cultural phenomenon, not merely an administrative or political one. It is not corrected by laws, but by reconstituting moral conscience. Restoring truth requires a transition from informational ethics to existential ethics: from the communicative image of the good to the inner consistency of action.

Scholarly speaking, the notion of interpretive corruption offers a new tool for understanding information societies. It interprets phenomena such as pseudo-transparency, the ‘politics of image’ and institutionalised, and indeed codified, hypocrisy as expressions of a deeper anthropological crisis. Morality does not disappear, it is reframed according to interest and appearances.

The sociological implication is clear: as interpretive corruption expands, society loses its capacity for self-critique and self-correction. Falsehood ceases to be an anomaly and becomes common ground for communication. Only the recovery of inner justice, justice towards truth, can restore balance.

This study does not seek to moralise, but to reveal the shift of corruption from the field of act to the field of meaning. ‘Interpretive corruption’ is not merely a new term; it is a new condition of contemporary society. A society that subsists on pseudo-truth will, sooner or later, cease to generate genuine trust, genuine education and, ultimately, genuine democracy.

Postscript

Truth is not a concept; it is a stance. It does not dwell in data, but in the will of the person to see without expediency. The greatest form of corruption is not that which deforms institutions, but that which deforms our capacity to distinguish the true from the merely useful.

The corrupt person of our time is not always ruthless; he is chiefly unable to see clearly. He has learned to live within a continuous web of interpretations, where every act, every word and every ‘reality’ must serve something. In this condition, truth is not spoken to be saved, but to be used.

If interpretive corruption is the symptom of our era, its remedy lies not in control mechanisms, but in restoring inner sight, that silent moral lucidity which precedes law and surpasses expediency. The person who remains just even when not rewarded is the true counter-cultural hero of our time.

Society does not need more declarations of ethics; it needs acts of truth. It needs people who live without bargaining away the light of their conscience. For only when truth becomes once again a personal duty and not a public strategy will justice - and with it, civilisation - cease to be a mask and become action once more.

References

• Alatas, S.H. (1999) Corruption and the Destiny of Asia. Kuala Lumpur: Prentice Hall.
• Arendt, H. (1963) Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Viking Press.
• Baudrillard, J. (1981) Simulacres et Simulation. Paris: Galilée.
• Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Durkheim, É. (1912) Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse. Paris: Alcan.
• Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
• Heidenheimer, A.J. & Johnston, M. (2002) Political Corruption: Concepts and Contexts. 3rd ed. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
• Johnston, M. (2005) Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth, Power, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Keyes, R. (2004) The Post-Truth Era: Dishonesty and Deception in Contemporary Life. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• McIntyre, L. (2018) Post-Truth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Nye, J.S. (1967) ‘Corruption and Political Development: A Cost-Benefit Analysis’, American Political Science Review, 61(2), pp. 417–427.
• Ricoeur, P. (1986) From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics II. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
• Ricoeur, P. (1992) Oneself as Another. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Rose-Ackerman, S. (1999) Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sennett, R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. New York: W.W. Norton.
• Taylor, C. (1989) Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Transparency International (2023) Corruption Perceptions Index 2023. Berlin: Transparency International.
• Williams, R. (1999) ‘New Concepts for Old? Third World Perspectives on Corruption’, Third World Quarterly, 20(3), pp. 503–513.
• Zuboff, S. (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. New York: PublicAffairs.

Quantum computing is not just “a faster computer”

In the mid-20th century, Alan Turing laid the foundations of classical computing, showing what a machine could and could not calculate step by step. At that time everything seemed clear: computers would always be machines that executed instructions sequentially on bits, tiny units that take the value 0 or 1. Yet nature itself does not work that way. In the microscopic world of quantum physics, particles do not have only one state but can exist in many possibilities at once.

In the 1980s, physicist Richard Feynman and David Deutsch opened the path by suggesting that if nature is quantum, then a computer based on quantum rules could simulate phenomena that classical computers fail to capture. In the mid-1990s, two algorithms gave substance to this theory: Peter Shor proved that a quantum computer could break the encryption that relies on the difficulty of factoring large numbers, while Lov Grover showed how searching through a massive database could be done much faster than by any classical method.

From then on began the transition from theory to practice. Laboratories around the world tried to implement qubits using different physical systems: trapped ions, superconducting circuits, even photons. The first devices could handle only a few qubits, but within three decades we reached systems with dozens or even hundreds of qubits, enough to perform experiments that no classical supercomputer can replicate. Today, major companies such as IBM, Google, and Microsoft, as well as university research centres, already operate quantum computers, even if still with limitations.

But how do they actually work? A classical computer is based on bits that are either open or closed, like a switch on the wall. A quantum computer uses qubits that can be both open and closed at the same time. A simple picture is the coin spinning in the air: while it spins, it is both heads and tails, and only when it lands does it become one or the other. This is superposition.

In classical computers, multiple combinations of bits exist as possibilities but only one is real at any given time. If we have ten bits, there are over a thousand possible combinations, but the computer holds one at a time and must check them sequentially. In qubits the same ten are not in one state but in a superposition of them all. It is as if all the possible keys to a lock are laid out on the table at once, not hidden in a drawer to be tested one by one. Quantum operations act on this whole mixture of states simultaneously, and then interference ensures that the wrong probabilities cancel out and the right one is strengthened. Thus, a quantum computer does not need to run through all the cases one by one, but works on all of them in parallel.

Interference is familiar from waves. When two waves meet, they can merge and grow stronger, or cancel each other out. This is how quantum computing works too: with the right operations, the wrong solutions vanish and the correct one stands out. When we measure the result, the probability of obtaining the right answer is much greater than any other.

Seen practically, it is like having a lock with countless possible keys. A classical computer would test the keys one by one. A quantum computer can handle them all at the same time and, through interference, let only the correct one appear. Problems that would take today’s most powerful supercomputers centuries could be solved by a quantum computer in minutes.

This opens new paths for discovering medicines, designing innovative materials, predicting the climate, and securing communications. It is not just a faster machine, but a turning point in the way we think about computation itself. It rests on principles that may feel strange to everyday experience but are deeply logical: that something can be many things at once, and that from the interplay of those possibilities order can emerge and a clear answer be revealed. That different perspective is what makes it unique.

References

Feynman, R. (1982). Simulating physics with computers. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21(6–7), 467–488.

Deutsch, D. (1985). Quantum theory, the Church–Turing principle and the universal quantum computer. Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Shor, P. (1994). Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete logarithms and factoring. Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

Grover, L. (1996). A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing.

Nielsen, M. & Chuang, I. (2010). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press.

IBM Quantum, McKinsey & Co., RAND Corporation, CSIS – contemporary analyses and popular science articles on the progress and applications of quantum computing.

Homeland

translation of "Πατρίδα"  

Like a rudderless ship in a raging sea,
your sails in shreds,
torn by winds that spare no soul.
They dress you in flags
only to leave you bare.
They call you Homeland,
then barter you for chairs of power.

Your children leave, hearts like stones.
You do not banish them,
yet you make no effort to hold them.
The old are left to die in silence,
while your streets overflow
with cries no one answers.

To whom do you yield now?
To whom do you whisper?
To what glowing screens,
to which kneeling men?
What gods remain
to receive your fading faith?

Hands unseen bind you at night.
They name you an Idea,
yet measure you in votes and percentages.
They mourn you when it suits them,
but vanish when bribery knocks.

Ah, Homeland…
in whose hands
are you dying
a slow, unholy death?

from the collection
“Herons of Death”
titled “Homeland”

Nameless Street

translation of "Ανώνυμη Οδός " 

My mistakes: wounds
and my fears: common silences.

In a narrow street
full of cunning shadows,
I am who I was meant to be.
Whole.

A storm was born
in the light of morning
and a kind of hope
scratches the palm.

My words fall to the ground
and grow into light.

My mistakes: poems.
My fears: saints.

from the collection
“Herons of Death”
titled “Nameless Street”

 

The Plenitude of the Unfathomable

 Inspired by:
Song of Solomon / Song of Songs

I sought the one whom my soul loves;
I sought him, but I did not find him.
I will rise now and go about the city,
through the marketplaces and the streets,
but I did not find him.
The winter has passed,
the rain is over and gone.
I sought the one whom my soul loves,
I sought him, but I did not find him.
I will wander through the city,
through the marketplaces and the streets,
but I did not find him.

The universe is so infinitely generous in order, beauty and possibility that true meaning always eludes us, concealed behind its very magnificence; like light, which in its fullness blinds and renders the visible invisible.

It is the plenitude of existence itself that becomes the mantle of the unfathomable. The mystery does not hide in the shadows, but floods every single thing with such abundance that one is rendered speechless, powerless to name or to grasp it.

The plenitude of the unfathomable signifies, therefore, that mystery, the divine, meaning, the deepest truth of the universe is not offered as a rare discovery, but saturates everything so completely that its very abundance makes it impossible to seize or define. It is the paradox of light which, when overwhelming, blinds; the mystery which, instead of hiding, is found everywhere - so much so that it transcends every effort to explain or to contain it within human bounds.

The plenitude of the unfathomable is the experience of standing within a world so rich in mystery and meaning, that only silence, awe, humility, and love may serve as true responses.

Before such majesty, all knowledge becomes poor, all words insufficient, all certainties insignificant. Human reason teeters at the edge of the abyss, groping for the invisible with the hands of the soul, as the infinite pierces and surpasses every boundary of mind and heart.

Every star that is born and extinguished, every silent wave that crosses the cosmos, every trace of life, every human gaze, is a shard of this generosity - a spark from the inextinguishable fire of creation that fits within no measure, no description.

Yet, this grandeur finds its path even in the humblest of moments: in the smile of a child discovering the world for the first time, in the play that fills the courtyard with voices and light, in the silent wonder before a flower that blossoms for no reason. Childlike innocence, with its unclouded gaze, touches the ineffable and accepts it without question, without anxiety, with trust and wonder.

Nature, with her inexhaustible wisdom, whispers the same mystery in every gust of wind, in every trembling leaf in the light, in every raindrop that slides down to the earth. The forests and the oceans, the mountains and the plains, are temples filled with secrets, filled with whispers from the first Creation, where the presence of the divine is felt, not as an answer, but as a pulse of life.

Within the community of people, in the warmth of sharing, in forgiveness, in the touch of companionship, the light of the infinite is reflected. In moments when pain is shared, joy is multiplied, hope grows fierce through the care of one for another - the mystery of existence expands and merges with the mystery of love.

Prayer - whether whispered in a church, rising quietly in a solitary night, or bursting as a cry in despair or gratitude - is the soul’s footprint upon the grandeur of the world. It is the sincere admission that we do not know, that we do not control, that we can only stand - small yet infinite - on the threshold of Mystery, giving thanks for what has been given to us and for what surpasses us.

And time, which flows relentlessly and sweeps everything away, does not manage to dim the light of this grandeur. On the contrary, through the cracks of decay, through the marks of toil and waiting, the truth shines more brightly: nothing essential is ever lost, beauty, meaning, and wonder permeate the world and bathe it in significance, even when all else seems trivial or vain.

And in the end, this is perhaps the deepest lesson: the grandeur of the universe cannot be measured, cannot be defined, but is experienced as silence before an indescribable superabundance. There, science bows before poetry, and the human being remains at once bewildered and complete. Tears and smiles are united, wonder becomes prayer, and all of existence stands ecstatic before this ineffable and ever-present miracle.

And if, somewhere, sometime, our soul should take flight out of gratitude or heartbreak, let us remember: this happiness, this wound, this silence and this prayer are the language by which the unfathomable grandeur answers the call of the human heart. For we are made to taste the infinite - not to comprehend it, but to live it, to love it, to give thanks for it.

 

Fifty Illusions of Modern Management

In today’s organisational world, management comes dressed in many forms and languages - at times technocratic, at times emotional, and often highly communicative. Amid this constant flow of terms and frameworks, it is easy to lose sight of what truly matters: which practices genuinely support the functioning of a team, and which ones undermine it behind a facade of appearances.
What follows is not a manual on leadership. It is a catalogue of "shadows" - of behaviours, trends and illusions that, when they dominate, erode the authentic craft of management. By recognising them, we may perhaps stand a little more clearly in front of the art of leading and working with people.

1. Managing expectations instead of achieving outcomes
When a manager focuses on "managing" expectations, they learn to adjust the mirror rather than the work itself. The idea is fostered that if people expect less, every result looks like a success. Yet this breeds a culture of complacency and low ambition. True management is not the art of managing impressions - it is the art of achieving substance.

2. Cultivating a positive culture through embellishment
When everything must be "positive", honesty is lost. If difficulty and failure have no space in dialogue, a false reality is created. People learn to say what sounds pleasing - not what is true. Management that seeks to foster a genuine positive culture must be able to bear the truth, even when it hurts.

3. "Open door" that does not exist in practice
How often do you hear "my door is always open", only for anyone entering to feel they are disturbing the sacred time of the manager? An open door is not a slogan, it is a daily act of availability. Without an atmosphere of trust and safety, no door - open or glass - fosters genuine dialogue.

4. Empowering teams through delegation without support
Throwing responsibilities around like hot potatoes while saying "I'm empowering you" is an illusion. Without a clear role, guidance, and framework, delegation turns into abandonment. Empowerment means offering space but also tools, support as well as autonomy.

5. Hollow agile as a stage act
Agile is neither ritual nor excuse. When one sees only boards, retrospectives and stand-ups without genuine flexibility in decision-making, it is empty theatre. Worse still, when "agile mindset" is invoked to mask poor planning or sloppiness, the essence of agility is distorted. Agile without seriousness leads to chaos.

6. Team spirit while incentives remain individual
You cannot preach the value of teamwork while rewarding people for individual exposure and competition. When the incentive system favours "heroes" over collaborators, teamwork collapses - no matter how many fine words are spoken about "team spirit".

7. Coaching that is actually micromanagement
Many managers talk about coaching, yet in practice they guide every step, depriving others of the space for learning and initiative. True coaching rests on asking questions, not issuing instructions; on reflection, not direction.

8. Focus on performance that becomes focus on reporting
When a manager turns into a "numbers chaser", the essence of work is sacrificed at the altar of reporting. Reports have value only as tools for improvement, not as ends in themselves. If all energy goes into "looking good", then being good is lost.

9. Change management that remains just communication
Change does not happen through glossy emails and presentations. If practices, incentives and behaviours do not shift, all talk of a "new era" is empty noise. People judge by actions, not by messages.

10. Productive meetings measured by duration, not outcome
The short length of a meeting means nothing unless it delivers clarity and action. Short but empty meetings are a waste of time. A truly productive meeting is one from which people leave with clear understanding and next steps.

11. Listening culture that becomes pseudo-listening
A listening culture is not about collecting endless surveys or opening anonymous feedback channels that lead nowhere. If people see no change after their voices are heard, then "listening" becomes a pretence. An ear that listens without acting becomes absurd.

12. Ethics washing in the organisation
When a company publicly declares values of ethics and social responsibility but does not embed them in its everyday practices (e.g. in the treatment of employees, suppliers or the environment), it breeds cynicism. Ethics is not communication - it is action.

13. Flat hierarchy that conceals strong hierarchy
Modern organisations love to flaunt their "flat structure". Yet behind it, one often finds an even stronger informal hierarchy where decisions are made by a few around unofficial tables. A flat culture has meaning only when accompanied by transparency and a genuine sharing of power.

14. Continuous improvement that becomes constant change
Endless change without rhythm or stability wears people down. If teams do not have time to build solid foundations, they lose faith in the process. Continuous improvement is a virtue only when accompanied by periods of consolidation and absorption.

15. Inclusive leadership that ends in tokenism
Adding diverse voices to appear "inclusive", without creating a culture that truly listens to, integrates and respects these voices, is mere posturing. Inclusion is not a matter of numbers - it is a matter of voice.

16. Protecting the team that turns into isolation
When a manager "protects" their team so much that it becomes cut off from the rest of the organisation, collaboration and knowledge exchange suffer. Protection should not build a fortress. It should build bridges, not walls.

17. The "nice leader" who is always agreeable
A leader who seeks to be liked by everyone ends up avoiding difficult conversations. The result is a lack of clarity and vagueness in expectations. True leadership bears the weight of others' dissatisfaction when needed.

18. Employee engagement based on parties and gifts
True employee engagement does not stem from flashy events or branded giveaways. It comes from meaningful work, respect, and a sense of contribution. If these are absent, no happy hour will save the culture.

19. Workshops on resilience instead of improving working conditions
When, instead of improving working conditions, you organise workshops teaching people to endure a toxic environment, you shift the burden to the individual. Empowerment begins with the environment - not with how well each person can "cope".

20. 360 feedback as a control mechanism
Feedback is a tool for development - not a weapon of control. When 360 feedback becomes a means to build dossiers or entrench a culture of fear, its essence is lost. Fear is built, not learning.

21. Customer obsession that destroys internal culture
"Customer obsession" becomes destructive when it sacrifices the health and sustainability of the team. If everything is endlessly adjusted to please the customer, people burn out. Customer-centricity must not consume the organisation’s human culture.

22. Failing fast as an alibi for poorly designed projects
Failure as a learning tool is valuable. But "failing fast" must not become an excuse for carelessness. It does not justify poor planning or irresponsibility. Deliberate failure has value only when it is based on structured experimentation - not blind attempts.

23. Goal setting as an Excel tyranny
When planning becomes a fetish of metrics and spreadsheets, real work is lost. Excessive focus on KPIs that do not reflect reality suffocates innovation and agility. Numbers should serve substance - not replace it.

24. AI-driven management that erodes human judgement
Increasing reliance on AI systems and algorithmic decisions can strip managers of responsibility and human judgement. People need to feel they are being guided and assessed by leaders with empathy - not by opaque algorithms.

25. Leadership presence that turns into narcissism
Leadership presence is not about constantly attracting attention. When a leader craves personal spotlight on every stage, they undermine the team. True presence amplifies others - it does not overshadow them.

26. Collaboration tools that cause distraction
When collaboration tools (Slack, Teams, etc.) become a constant source of interruptions and stress, they undermine their own purpose. Collaboration requires rhythm and focus - not noise and fragmentation.

27. Leading by example that remains words
"Leading by example" is not a slogan. If a manager does not embody the values they proclaim daily, the words become empty. People watch actions - and are inspired or discouraged accordingly.

28. Risk management that leads to paralysis
Proper risk management enables action with awareness. But if it results in fear, endless analysis and inaction, the essence is lost. The world never stops - and excessive safety is an illusion.

29. Ownership culture that shifts responsibility downwards
When leaders ask people to "think like owners" but in reality only push down responsibilities without offering real authority or support, they create a culture of anxiety and insecurity. Ownership without a framework of protection is a tool of manipulation.

30. Culture of candour that becomes harsh criticism
Candour and feedback are the foundation of a healthy culture - but when a "culture of candour" turns into a constant stream of critique where everything is endlessly commented on, people grow weary, withdraw or become fearful. A true culture of dialogue requires empathy and rhythm.

31. Process optimisation that becomes a process fetish
When process optimisation becomes an end in itself, living work is sacrificed to an endless pursuit of flowcharts and diagrams. Process should serve value and people - not replace thought and judgement.

32. Authenticity theatre in leadership
"Performing" authentic leadership - with staged personal stories or contrived displays of vulnerability - often becomes a strategic tool for personal branding. Authenticity is not performance - it is a way of being that withstands time and scrutiny.

33. Talent density that undermines the human side
When you pursue only "A players" and remove stable, steady contributors from the team, you destroy its balance. Teams need diverse roles - not just stars. Talent thrives in an environment of coexistence.

34. High performance culture that leads to burnout culture
A "high performance" culture without limits, rhythm or care quickly becomes a mechanism of exhaustion. Sustainability and resilience must be part of performance - otherwise the structure will collapse.

35. Visionary leadership disconnected from reality
A visionary leader who ignores the terrain of daily work builds castles in the air. If the vision is not grounded in the team’s needs and capabilities, it becomes an unattainable myth that breeds cynicism.

36. Managing through fear instead of building trust
Many managers use fear (directly or indirectly) as a lever of control: fear of losing promotion, of exposure, of disapproval. This erodes trust and psychological safety. Leadership based on fear casts shadows, not light.

37. Empowerment through endless workshops
You do not empower people through endless training sessions if in practice you do not change the conditions that allow them to assume real responsibility. Empowerment is a daily act - not a pretty slide deck.

38. Talent management that ends in categorising people
When you begin to view people as "A", "B", or "C" players and invest only in the first group, you undermine unity and the moral fabric of the team. Development must involve everyone - otherwise you cultivate inequality and resentment.

39. Strategy alignment as alignment of slides
Strategy is not aligned in PowerPoint presentations. If decisions, initiatives and daily priorities do not reflect the strategic narrative, it is all communication theatre without substance.

40. Building accountability through constant checks
Accountability is not built through micromanagement and endless reporting. It is built when people have space to make commitments and own outcomes within a framework of trust.

41. Conflict resolution through cheap mediation techniques
Deep conflicts are not resolved through workshops or "quick" mediation techniques. Unless you address the roots - culture, incentives, power imbalances - the conflict will return. True resolution requires courage, depth and systemic thinking.

42. Servant leadership that becomes servility
To serve does not mean to abdicate your role. Servant leadership is not the absence of guidance or an inability to set boundaries. It is leadership that supports, empowers and guides - not one that self-negates.

43. Digital transformation that stops at buying tools
Buying new tools without changing processes, behaviours and culture does not achieve any genuine "digital transformation". Transformation is a deep redefinition of how work is done - not a migration of apps.

44. Innovation as endless brainstorming without implementation
You promote a "culture of innovation", run countless ideation workshops, but no idea is ever implemented. Innovation without execution is merely intellectual entertainment - and it exhausts the team.

45. Flexibility that becomes lack of priorities
If every week goals and directions shift in the name of flexibility, the team dissolves into uncertainty. Flexibility requires a stable core and clear prioritisation. Without these, you create chaos.

46. Recognition of success as a tool for manipulation
Recognition must be authentic and equitable. If it is used as a lever of manipulation or to reward only compliant allies, you undermine your credibility and destroy trust.

47. Company values as wall decor
Values that exist only on posters and corporate brochures are not values. If they do not shape decisions on hiring, promotion and daily practices, they are a false front that breeds cynicism.

48. Transparency that becomes information overload
Transparency is not a flood of useless information. If you overwhelm people with raw data without providing context or purpose, you create confusion - not clarity.

49. Diversity washing
When superficial diversity is promoted for PR purposes but the deeper structures of power, opportunity and inclusion do not change, reverse alienation is created. People do not want to "appear diverse" - they want to genuinely belong.

50. Work-life balance culture that becomes expectation of always-on
Talking about "flexibility" and "balance", while people feel obliged to be constantly available, defeats the purpose. The always-on culture often hides behind work-life balance rhetoric - but it corrodes genuine wellbeing and respect for personal time.