Fabián Campos is a Business Economist from the Metropolitan University and Coordinator of Scenarios and the Multisectoral Business Survey at Datanálisis. Photo: Social media.
Guacamaya, September 18, 2025. Carlo M. Cipolla, in his book The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976), explored the traits that define a “stupid person.” His work presents 5 fundamental laws of human stupidity:
Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of “stupid individuals” in circulation.The likelihood that a person is “stupid” is independent of any other characteristics of that person.A “stupid person” is someone who causes losses to others without gaining anything for themselves, and might even incur losses themselves.“Non-stupid people” always underestimate the damaging power of “stupid people.” Unfortunately, “non-stupid people” often forget that engaging with a “stupid person” is costly, no matter when or where it occurs.“Stupid people” are the most dangerous kind, even more so than a “bandit1“
From this, various reasons can be derived for why consumers sometimes act irrationally. But is it plausible that irrationality starts at home?
Research into the behavior of Venezuelan companies reveals a consistent pattern when confronted with a “crisis.” Companies experiencing a crisis, whether due to international economic and political factors, market changes, or internal organizational issues, often “cut investments,” mainly in three types of services:
Memberships to chambers, guilds, or business associations.Economic-political environment analysis services and market research.Advertising.
According to Dr. José Antonio Gil Yepes, the mission of a business chamber is to “bring companies together to articulate their interests in relations with the government and other sectors while developing alliances and ‘coopetition’ mechanisms that lower transaction costs to boost productivity and competitiveness.”
Therefore, when a company pulls away from guilds or chambers, it loses the ability to articulate interests with peers in the sector to advocate for public policy proposals, which can significantly affect the improvement of environmental conditions that might be causing the crisis.
A second “pain point” for companies in crisis arises from cuts to environmental analysis services and market research.
In this context, management may feel compelled to prioritize the “operational” over the “strategic.” This is when the organization tends to enter a “firefighter mode,” where management focuses primarily on immediate issues (putting out fires). As a result, there are “fewer studies and advisory services” and “more operational tasks.” Such a situation detrimentally affects the organization’s strategic dimension.
Reducing investment in environmental analysis services leads to a “loss of compass calibration,” making it harder to define strategic guidelines in an increasingly volatile environment, plunging the company into greater uncertainty. Consequently, inaccuracies in cost projections, demand, and investments begin to escalate.
The implications of cutting back on market research are even clearer. Given that the “crisis” influenced the decision to stop ongoing studies or delay scheduled ones, it seems illogical for a company to cease learning about new market attributes that clients, equally affected by the “crisis,” now prioritize. In other words, it stops understanding its clients’ needs, limiting its sales opportunities in an effort to protect cash flow or prioritize “more urgent tasks.”
On top of this, some companies impose advertising cuts. Even if the company is fortunate enough that 1. Changes in the economic environment did not particularly harm its business; and 2. Its clients still value the same attributes from its value proposition, it’s decided that communicating how you will continue to support them during this “crisis” is not a priority.
Thus, the “magic recipe” during a crisis appears to be:
Eliminate memberships to chambers or business guilds.Suspend environmental analysis and market research services.Reduce advertising.
The question arises… If we perceive “stupid” people as those who harm society without receiving anything in return, how should we label managers who negatively impact their organization or clients by misjudging their priorities?
The three laws… of corporate stupidity?