Methodologist Georgy Shchedrovitsky developed a way to organize a team’s thinking and actions so it can deliver large, complex projects. I built my strategy session format on these principles. In this article, I explain how the session works and what a company gets at the end.

Why a strategy session matters — and what happens there

To work on big projects, you first need to pause and design the future. If you only follow trends, the project may either never happen — or it will happen with major difficulties and not in the form you originally planned.

The reason is simple: we’re standing at the edge of a new industrial revolution. Old rules stop working, and new rules are still being created. The winners are the projects that shape those rules. Strategy sessions are where teams do exactly that.

Most teams are good at day-to-day execution and quick results. But sometimes there is no shared understanding of where the company is going:

• what Point A looks like today and what future the company wants;
• what context the company will operate in — and whether it plans to influence it;
• what each department must do to reach Point B.

Here is how one department’s scheme looks: a person plays a specific role inside the department. The department operates in a certain context. Tasks move the department toward it goal.

And here’s what teamwork sometimes looks like: each department is on its own, with its own goals and its own way to reach them.

But it should look different: the team has one shared goal. Everyone moves toward it in sync and understands what is expected from them at any moment. To see this goal clearly, people need to take a reflective position — step back and look at their work from the outside.

So what’s the real difference between these two pictures? In the “right” one, at Point A the team first builds a shared view of:

• the single context of the company;
• how departments connect and communicate to each other;
• what roles people play inside departments.

Only then does everyone start to shape Point B — and design the context they want to end up in.

Planning the future: small company vs. big company

The approach differs depending on how many resources you have.

Take Elon Musk’s Neuralink: a chip implanted in the head that lets you control a computer with your thoughts. It has been tested on paralyzed people — and it works. It’s possible that in 10, 20, or 30 years many of us will use such chips. Musk is shaping the context we may all live in.

A key step: define Point A metrics through a company funnel

An important part of the session is to define your current metrics at Point A. The easiest way is a shared company funnel, where each conversion is owned by a specific department. Even if the company has no historical data, you can still assume a funnel to make the goal measurable.

Seeing the company as a funnel helps you consistently generate projects that improve conversion at each level. This is a very simplified version — in reality, the funnel is much bigger.

When the funnel is ready, you can focus on three things:

1. Create a list of projects that can significantly improve conversion between stages and key metrics. These are not just operational tasks — they are new initiatives. For example: a new client acquisition approach, a new market segment, a new process.

Projects are designed for specific funnel stages. Moving stage by stage, we:

• make sure we covered all key parts of the business, which helps us generate more ideas;
• discuss ideas tied to a specific stage, not in general terms;
• we’ll rank the projects and focus on the ones most likely to benefit the company.

2. Check if the projects are good enough to reach the strategic goal. Maybe you need a fundamental shift and must rethink how the system works.

Example: when I built an office rental service, we started with an ad-based model. At some point, we realized it couldn’t scale results fast enough. We created a new approach that didn’t exist in the market: we began closing brokerage deals remotely. The company increased revenue 5x in two years.

3. Define success metrics. Founders might name top-level numbers — revenue, market share, etc. Then the team builds the funnel from the bottom up and clarifies how each department will move toward the goal.

Only after the ideal outcome is defined can we move on to a real plan and concrete steps. It answers one question: “What exactly do we need to do to get to point B?”

How Shchedrovitsky’s approach turns strategy into results

The approach fits into four steps.

Step 0. Build a map for a new project

If you already found your market, go to the next step. But if you’re planning a big, long project (3–5 years), first map it and answer key questions:

• What future does the organization want to live in, and how do you see it?
• Can the organization design that future?
• How does the organization act, and what is its role?
• How does the organization deliver value — what problem does it solve?

Step 1. Think of your project as a funnel

Map the business as a funnel, align on one North Star Metric so everyone shares a clear view of what matters most.

Step 2. Each department prepares in advance

Each department:

• describes the context, object, and role of key people in deparment;
• fills in Point A data for its part of the funnel;
• prepares a plan with obvious solutions to save time during group discussion.

Step 3. Run a shared meeting

First you set the overall frame for the session. Then each department presents its Point A and Point B.

Then the team describes the projects at a high level so everyone understands their purpose and value in the same way. At this stage, we don’t go into details, so we don’t spend too much time discussing one idea. During other teams’ presentations, people add important facts and clarifications, and if you already have a working business model, this kind of discussion usually takes about 95% of the whole strategy session. If you’re just starting out, you’ll spend more time defining point B.

In the end, you get a table of potential projects for each department.

Six principles and a quick glossary

Before we go into each principle, let’s align on terms.

Imagine a factory line. Today it is assembled as-is — that’s Point A. In a year, it should run faster and more stable — that’s Point B. Each machine has an input, output, and a handover point. If you mix up operations, the line stops. If you set the handover and order correctly, speed and quality grow.

Teams work the same way: we take work from neighbors, do our part, hand it over — and we can see where effect is lost on the path from Point A to Point B. Sometimes you just need better handover discipline. Sometimes you need to rebuild part of the “line” so the move to Point B can really start.

Principle 1. The future isn’t something that happens — it’s made from the position you choose to take

Core idea. You don’t need to guess the future — you can build it. To do that, you take and hold a position to “pull” the market into the reality you want (think Nike and sports culture, or Amazon and one-day delivery). The team chooses Point B and acts instead of chasing trends. This matters even more in the AI era, where new norms are still being set — and the future belongs to those who set them.

Business questions it answers

• What position do we hold so the desired future becomes real?
• What external conditions can we use to our advantage?
• What opportunities and projects must we create to “bring” the future closer?
• What should we refuse to avoid chasing hype?

How it works in the session

• Fix Point A and construct Point B.
• Map key elements of the future reality: the company’s core purpose, the rules of the game, critical assumptions.
• Turn the position into strategic “yes/no” choices and a set of key projects.
• Align departments into one movement toward Point B.

Impact

• The team stops chasing trends and starts setting new rules in its niche.
• Functions align into one trajectory, reducing waste.
• Focused action speeds up results.

Principle 2. Reflection is a position “above” action

Core idea. Stepping above operations lets you see the activity map, the gaps between Point A actions and Point B goals — and then build a focused plan.

Business questions

• Are we doing the wrong things right now? What is truly priority?
• Which processes and projects are “weeds” that must be removed?
• Which market signals matter — and what should we ignore to stay on course?

How it works

• Set the time horizon: how far ahead you plan.
• Look at the company across organization, people, and context. Fix Points A and B across these layers.
• Identify gaps and form projects needed to close them.

Impact

• Better prioritization, less operational noise.
• Less wasted time and money; the Point B vector stays clear.
• Plans become concrete and doable.

Principle 3. You can manage only what is already moving

Core idea. Any project is based on self-movement. Management is trajectory correction — you can’t manage something static. In the session, we look at how departments and leaders actually move: where initiatives go, what motives drive them, and where movement needs adjustment.

Management is only possible when something is moving—only then can we correct its direction.

Business questions

• Where is the self-movement of each department and key person directed?
• Which projects steer that movement — and do they lead to company goals?
• What must be tuned or replaced so movement goes the right way?

How it works

• Analyze current and desired positions, review ongoing initiatives, plan new ones.
• Build projects that set the right direction frame.
• Agree what self-movement matches Point B, and what must change.

Impact

• You find inertia and “dead zones” faster and focus efforts where there is real traction.
• Teams become more proactive and autonomous.
• If a department’s trajectory conflicts with Point B, it becomes clear where adjustments are needed.

Principle 4. Schematization moves the situation to the board — so reality becomes clear.

Core idea. A shared picture is born on a scheme. A scheme forces you to be precise and fix the essence without long speeches. That reduces misinterpretation and speeds up alignment.

Business questions

• What is the company’s core position — and what reality are we building on purpose?
  – Where is it a task (solvable inside the current structure) vs. a problem (needs structural change)?
• If we can describe Point B, why aren’t we there yet?
• Which dependencies between functions are critical? What must be rebuilt from scratch?
• How do we measure success, and what are the decision boundaries and rules?

How it works

• Put the situation on the board: objects, connections, forces, shared terms.
• Add rules, constraints, critical assumptions; mark disputed areas.

Impact

• One shared meaning and “rules of the game,” fewer conflicts.
• Faster decisions, cheaper coordination.
• Clearer prioritization: resources go to key elements, not noise.
• Less rework: the scheme becomes a reference for process and communication design.
• More stability in turbulence: the scheme is an anchor for adjustments.

Principle 5. View the situation in layers — context, organization, person

Core idea. A situation has multiple layers. To manage it, you must see context, the organization’s structure, and real people with their self-movement — and connect these layers to one goal.

Business questions

• Which contextual limits and opportunities define the playing field?
• How are processes, roles, and resources built — and do they match Point B?
• Where do gaps between layers appear?
• Which changes in one layer will create the biggest effect in others?

How it works

• For each department, create a 3-column table: Points A and B for context, organization, person.
• Identify gaps and causes; mark contradictions and hidden assumptions.
• Form projects that stitch layers together (rules, processes, roles, incentives). Decide what must be rebuilt from scratch.
• Set local KPIs/OKR per layer and cross-layer metrics (funnel conversions).

Impact

• Better cross-functional initiatives, because teams understand each other through joint discussion.
• Stronger ownership of goals: people see their impact on the whole.
• Faster root-cause discovery (not just symptoms).
• Management becomes systemic, not firefighting.

Principle 6. Company activity exists on four levels: operations, projects, programs, ideas

Core idea. Any activity stands on the level of ideas. Ideas define what we do, why, and why it matters. Major results and key changes are not achieved at the operational level. So in a strategy session, we work at least at the project level — ideally at the program level.

Business questions

• At what level are we solving the problem now — and why are we stuck there?
• What must move from operations to project or program level to create a breakthrough?
• Where do we lack ideas or a conceptual frame for meaningful decisions?
• How do we measure progress and effect at each level — alone and together?
• Which decisions fail because levels are mixed up, and how do we fix it?

How it works

• Introduce shared terminology for levels and label all initiatives.
• Review the portfolio: mark the current and target level for each initiative.
• Identify program tracks for 6–18 months with owners and shared metrics.

Impact

• Operations stop eating strategy; focus stays on what matters.
• Nonlinear shifts appear through program effects and capability building.
• A shared mission and strategic narrative form.
• Resource planning improves across time horizons and decision levels.
• The organization learns faster: good solutions become standardized and scaled.

How the strategy session runs

Before the session: departments prepare materials

Each department creates a presentation where it:

• describes its activity;
• explains its part of the funnel;
• shows which projects were done and how they changed the funnel.

For companies launching a new project with a long planning horizon, the main goal at this stage is to agree what will be done at all. Only then does it make sense to discuss preparation in detail.

During the session: two offline days

Early start. One big wall for schemes and flipcharts. A screen for presentations. We work in blocks with short pauses to process.

Day 1: build a shared picture. Each department shows Point A, Point B, and its plan. Other teams add their understanding and propose projects.

Day 2: continue presentations and project discussion. At the end, we summarize: everyone can share impressions and highlight projects they believe are strategically critical.

After the session: build an open backlog and align plans

Each department builds an open backlog and prioritizes projects. Then there is a setup meeting: each team presents its plan for the next quarter and the projects it will deliver.

After the quarter ends, you run another meeting to review the results:

• check how the department’s funnel metrics changed;
• see blockers and delivery speed for each department;
• if new projects appeared during the quarter, assign priorities and, if needed, take them into work;
• each department builds the next quarter plan.

What you will have after the session

• A single movement map: how it is now → how it should be.
• A target scheme of how the company should be structured.
• One prioritized list of tasks with owners and metrics.

How I can help your team

For the past several years, I’ve been systematically studying the work of Russell Ackoff and Georgy Shchedrovitsky. I earned an MBA and studied at Stanford and Berkeley. I’ve been applying this foundation in practice for the last seven years, facilitating strategic sessions for both B2B and B2C projects. A typical group ranges from five to forty participants.

If the approach described in the article resonates with you, you can run a strategy session on your own—this page includes everything you need. If you’d like support, I’m ready to guide you step by step.

When a product grows, the team almost always ends up with different versions of reality. Marketing sees one audience, product sees another, support sees a third. Then we argue about segments based on intuition, the loudest voice wins the roadmap, and research stays in a folder and changes little.

In this case study, I show how I built one shared picture using LTV data, ABCD segmentation, and deep JTBD interviews. Then I turned the results into clear segments, customer language, and practical decisions for the product and communication. I also explain how I used AI live translation so I could talk to customers in their native language(Spanish), even when I do not speak it.

I do not share the company name and the exact numbers on purpose. In the screenshots, the data is fictional, but it still shows the right meaning.

Goal of the Research

Here is what I needed to do:

• Stop inventing audience segments, and build them from real facts and real user voices.
• Agree on the focus: who we serve best, and what value we deliver better than competitors.
• Understand which customers actually keep the economics working.
• Create artifacts that help other departments act and align with the needs of a particular segment.

At the start, we agreed that you can grow business metrics and beat competitors through the right segmentation.

My Pre-Interview Setup

For research like this, I build the process from scratch: first I align terms and expectations → then I collect facts → after that I write testable conclusions and turn them into concrete decisions with clear priorities. This removes subjectivity and makes it easier to pass the result between teams.

The project had four steps:

1. Aligning views inside the company.
2. Quantitative segmentation by LTV and ABCD segmentation.
3. Deep interviews in JTBD logic.
4. Writing clear customer jobs.

Step 1. Running an Internal Team Workshop Alignment

At the start, I ran a workshop where I set the JTBD frame:

People choose a product as a tool to solve a specific task. It is important to see the context, triggers, success criteria, trade-offs, and alternatives — not a list of desired features.

Then the team described its current view of segments: who they see as key, what they promise them, where the product magic is, and which jobs it covers. We compared the maps, captured the differences, and agreed: from here we test hypotheses with data and interviews, not with personal beliefs.

Step 2. Economics: LTV and ABCD segmentation

To make sure interviews did not turn into talks with random people, I started with the customer base. Using seven months of data, I split users by LTV ranges and calculated group size, average number of purchases, revenue, average LTV.

The analysis showed that customers with LTV 200–500 bring 56% of revenue. The goal of the research was to understand why they choose the product and what tasks / jobs they use it for, so we can learn how to attract and retain this group.

I applied the ABCD framework to the collected data.

This is where the first “cold shower” happened, and it made the discussion clear right away: a clearly defined share of LTV customers brought most of the revenue. That gave the research an honest focus. We wanted to understand:

• who these people are;
• why they choose us;
• how to scale this success without drowning in endless service for low-value customers.

Step 3. In-Depth Customer Interviews to Identify Segment Patterns

The goal of the interviews was to understand why the client chose our product:

• what happened before the purchase;
• what became the trigger;
• what options they compared;
• where they hesitated;
• when the feeling appeared: “aha, this works”;
• how the customer defines success.

In each session, I captured the profile, trigger, aha moment, problems, customer jobs, and signals of disappointment. At the same time, I collected live quotes: the phrases people use to describe their goal and progress. Later, this language works great in marketing, onboarding, and product messaging.

I ran the interviews in Google Meet, and I recorded and transcribed them with Loom. Some conversations were in Spanish: I used a new Google AI service that does live, two-way translation in real time from Spanish to English and back.

Timing made one thing clear fast: 90 minutes gives better quality than 60. People have time to move past general phrases and get to the real reasons and trade-offs.

I planned to do 25 interviews. But by the 20th, I saw that the key motives and conflicts were repeating — so I stopped earlier.

In total, I did 23 interviews: 16 in German and 7 in Spanish. I captured thoughts and conclusions from each session on an online board — in the end, it became a full knowledge base.

Step 4. Defining Three Key Segments and Their Qualification Criteria

After the interviews, I built the segmentation so it works in real life. Not abstract portraits, but criteria that help the team confidently assign a customer to a group and understand how to work with them. I looked at:

• goals and motivation;
• risk attitude;
• experience;
• discipline;
• routines and rituals;
• learning and decision-making styles.

This is how three segments appeared, with different motives. Each has its own entry triggers, its own aha moment, and its own criteria for what is valuable.

Inside the segments, I saw repeating patterns: how people describe the goal, how they measure results, and which limits they see as critical.I put them into a separate block so other departments could better understand what our clients think about and how they make decisions.

Another artifact was a matrix of selection criteria and reasons why some customers choose competitors. It connected the customer voice with the market picture and helped us define clear points of comparison across segments.

How I made the results accessible to the whole company

One typical research risk is that knowledge stays with the researcher and dies when the context changes. To avoid that, I built an internal AI agent based on the project materials: transcripts, tagging, insights, and also external sources. Teams could ask questions and get answers grounded in real interviews and quotes, including in different languages.

This sharply increased the visibility of the knowledge portfolio: product, marketing, and support started to speak the same language and return to the source data faster when decisions were disputed.

In September, three of my classmates from Skolkovo – M., K. and R. and I went on a trip through six cities in China: Guangzhou → Shenzhen → Xiamen → Shanghai → Hangzhou → Beijing. The whole trip was thoughtfully organized by M. She was the first Chinese student to graduate from the Skolkovo MBA program in fall 2019, and earlier this spring she moved back home after spending five years working in Russia.

It’s worth mentioning that back in December, we had an off-site Skolkovo module in Hong Kong at HKUST – the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Their business school is ranked #1 in the world for EMBA programs by the Financial Times. As part of the program, we had lectures on China’s economic development to help us better understand the local business landscape, visited several Hong Kong-based companies and spent one day in Shenzhen. Hong Kong really made an impression of a modern city full of massive skyscrapers, lines outside Gucci stores and Teslas used as taxis. That day trip to Shenzhen in December was way too short to get any real sense of mainland China.

In my mind, that quick trip didn’t really change my impression of mainland China as I still pictured it as one giant factory that supplies the whole world. At the time, I saw Hong Kong and Shenzhen as exceptions to the rule. Turns out, I couldn’t have been more wrong.

This new trip completely blew me away, I had no idea what was really going on in China. Before my first visit to the US, I had some expectations and a mental image of the country. But with China, it was all pretty vague, mostly formal descriptions and growth charts from HKUST.

What surprised me

1.Each city we visited had its own clear goal or strategy and was seriously working toward it. In some places, that led to clusters of companies that supported each other. For example, Shenzhen is a big tech hub. A bunch of hardware companies are based in the same area. If one company is building a new device, they can just cross the street to talk to parts suppliers. That makes everything faster and more efficient.

2. The cities are growing at an incredible pace. That means constant construction, new road and major updates to city infrastructure. For example, Beijing had 13.5 million people in 2000 and by 2015 it had grown to 21.7 million. And it’s not just about size, they’re also putting real effort into the urban environment. In some residential neighborhoods you’ll see trash bins made to look like wood. Or Shanghai – there’s a stunning waterfront with beautiful landscaping and thoughtful little details, like tiny crow sculptures built into the railings along the river.

The waterfront in Shanghai

3. GDP growth has been around 7% in recent years, while mortgage rates are at 4%. Inflation in 2018 was just 2.1%. Numbers like that push people to buy property, which has driven up the price per square meter, even in second-tier cities to around $15 500. There’s also a special program for Chinese citizens: every month, 12% of your salary automatically goes into a fund that can only be used to buy real estate and your employer adds up to another 12% on top of that. As a result, many people own apartments they don’t live in, they rent them out instead, which keeps rental prices low. For example, a two-story apartment in Xiamen with a large master bedroom, a kids’ room, two bathrooms and a huge kitchen-living area with a bay view can go for just 50,000 rubles a month. That said, M. mentioned she thinks the real estate market is a bubble.

4. The government plays a major role in business and interestingly, it often feels like a positive one. For example, entire cities or regions will publicly lay out their development strategies, so it’s clear what they’re aiming for and what kind of projects they want to attract. That gives people a sense of direction where to apply, how to get involved and what the bigger picture is. On top of that, the government creates large-scale strategic programs, builds processes around them and allocates real funding. One example: a region might set a goal to bring in up to a million entrepreneurs, scientists, and top-tier professionals either from abroad or among Chinese citizens living overseas by 2025, with dedicated funding to support that goal.

5. Electric cars are everywhere in big cities, I got the impression that every fifth car was electric. You can spot them by their green license plates, while gas-powered ones have blue plates. Officially, the stats say it’s more like one in ten, but still they’re hard to miss. There are also tons of scooters on the streets and they’re all battery-powered. You walk around and there’s no smell of gasoline, it’s kind of amazing.

6. There are so many services built into WeChat. It’s technically a messenger, but really it’s a whole ecosystem. Even Airbnb isn’t just a separate app, it also works as a mini-app inside WeChat. We needed SIM cards, so M. sent a request and 15 minutes later a guy showed up on a bike and delivered them. Someone cracked their phone screen, we ordered a repair through WeChat and an hour later a technician found us at a tech expo, fixed the screen in 15 minutes and that was it. At a regular (not fast food!) restaurant, we scanned a QR code at the table, picked our dishes, paid through the app and the waiter brought everything over. M. said we were also using Meituan a lot, it’s kind of like an upgraded TripAdvisor for ordering services. One more thing, there’s almost no outdoor ads on the streets, but there’s tons of ads inside WeChat.

Mobile service for SIM card delivery and screen repair

7. We mostly traveled between cities by train. The high-speed trains we took reached up to 250 km/h and some can go as fast as 400 km/h. The rail network is huge and the stations are massive. The trains look a lot like the Sapsan back in Russia, but with some nice touches. Each seat has a built-in power outlet and there’s a windowsill wide enough to hold a cup of coffee. All the seats face the direction of travel and when the train is about to head back the other way, a staff member simply turns all the rows around to face forward again.

8. There’s a huge focus on children’s education. There are tons of clubs and programs for kids and teens to keep learning outside of school. In one mall, we saw a space of about 500 square meters turned into an education center, the whole area was divided into small cubicles, each with a table and two chairs. Kids come there after school for one-on-one tutoring, moving from cubicle to cubicle depending on the subject. One reason behind this is that many Chinese families feel the growing pressure of competition and that’s pushing them to invest heavily in education.

9. Tea culture is huge. It’s hard to find a Chinese person without a thermos of tea in hand. Tea shops are super popular, they look a lot like Starbucks, but instead of coffee, they serve tea in all kinds of flavors with different toppings. In Hangzhou, we went to one of these places and tried to order at the counter, only to be told the wait time was an hour and a half! And the shop didn’t even look that busy. Turns out, most people were ordering their tea through WeChat.

The interior of a “tea Starbucks”

Other things I noticed

• In China, they actually use a lean-style approach to policy: new ideas or programs are first tested in one province and if it works, they scale it up across the whole country;
• Way fewer people smoke on the streets compared to Russia. But you might still run into someone smoking in a public restroom;
• We were moving from south to north, but for me the heat and humidity were tough. I ended up relying on taxis and constantly hunting for air conditioning. In Xiamen, for example, the humidity was 74%. Nighttime was way more comfortable;
• Without speaking Chinese, things get tricky. When M. wasn’t around, we had to rely on phone translators to talk to waiters;
• A lot of places have special sinks and toilets for kids. And when landed in Guangzhou, you could even take a shower right in the public restroom at the airport;
• Tons of fruit everywhere. At a regular corner store you can buy a fresh coconut and the cashier will poke holes in it and stick in a straw for you;
• To boost local economies, cities or provinces offer special incentives, like waiving taxes for new businesses for the first three years;
• Each city we visited had its own food culture and special dishes;
• In high-rise buildings, elevators are grouped by floor range, so each one serves only a set of floors, which helps avoid traffic jams inside the building;
• In the south, houses often have cone-shaped roofs because of the rain. In the north, roofs are flat;
• In Hangzhou, where Alibaba’s headquarters are, there’s a whole business ecosystem built around serving the e-commerce industry;
• There’s barely any visual ads on the streets. M. said that most of the ads are inside WeChat. And the cities look nicer without all that visual noise;
• Each city has a massive number of shared bikes you can rent through apps like Meituan, Alipay, or Didi;
• Parking gates work automatically, cameras read your license plate and there’s no paper tickets or attendants involved.
  明燕多謝。

A napkin that turns into a coffee carrier, seafood snacks in a regular supermarket and ads in the subway.

Conclusion: The main feeling I had after coming back was anger and frustration for Russia. As of 2019, the country’s strategy was all about “stability.” There’s no such thing as profit, only a fee for taking risks. But what’s the price we pay for stability? 缺乏增长

Meanwhile, China is a rising superpower. I had a sense that it was on the rise, but I had no idea just how massive that rise really was.

I attended Vladimir Gerasichev’s “Context” training. I first heard about it from Yuri Belonoshchenko and Vladimir Voloshin, they mentioned it during their talks at Skolkovo. The training offers a clear, solid take on what results, responsibility, choice, and feedback really mean.

Format

The training runs for three days straight from 10 AM to 8 PM. The first two days were led by Mikhail Moskotin, who was energetic, intense and funny. Maybe he had this mindset to lead “better” than the creator of the training. Whatever it was, it worked. Mikhail was really inspiring. The third day was with Vladimir Gerasichev and it had a much calmer vibe.

Mikhail put the goal of the training into words like this: learn to accept other points of view and clearly show the other person that you understand them. He suggests approaching the material with a learning mindset, asking yourself, “What if this is true?” Here’s some truth:

Interpretation

The training suggests dividing the whole world into what’s “important” and what’s “not important.” Important things are those that actually show up in real life. Unimportant things are those that don’t produce real-world results. Example: if we agreed to meet at 10:00 and I showed up on time, that means the meeting was important to me. If I really want abs but keep eating fries late at night, abs aren’t important to me – fries are. You can easily check what’s important or not by looking at your real-life results.

Everything you have today comes directly from the viewpoints you hold. Everything you don’t have is also because of your viewpoints. The idea behind “Context” is that you can always choose another viewpoint and change how you see a situation.

You always win the game you’re playing. So, if your interpretation of the world is that everyone around you are idiots, you might move to another country. But all those idiots will move with you.

No one has direct access to a “non-interpreted event.” I interpret an event through my own experience. And if I choose to view the event from a certain angle, chances are I’m getting some kind of benefit from seeing things that way.

Wishing something has nothing to do with action or results. I might say I want to learn to ride a motorcycle or earn a million dollars, but if it’s not actually happening, it means I don’t really care, it’s just not important enough.

If I don’t like my current job or I’m unhappy about my relationship with my parents, it means I get something out of that viewpoint. Even if I change the scenery and switch jobs, I’ll probably still feel unhappy. Enthusiasm and interest are something I can choose. If I’m excited to work in IT, I can also choose to feel excited about digging potatoes. I’m responsible for choosing how I feel about what I do.

What I “want” doesn’t actually connect with what I do. Action and desire aren’t tied together. I can choose to do something if it’s important enough to me. There’s a simple way to check this:
you want ≠ you don’t do
you want ≠ you do
you don’t want ≠ you don’t do
you don’t want ≠ you do
This whole idea of “I just don’t want it badly enough” is nothing. It simply means it’s not important enough to me.

Responsibility

There are two positions I can take in life: victim or author. A victim is someone who believes that external forces or other people control their outcomes. Victims blame their results on competitors, emotions, childhood, traffic, weather, circumstances, horoscopes, solar storms or even illness. An author believes everything depends on them, that they’re stronger than their circumstances. And it’s completely my choice which role to take.

Victims feel comfortable with other victims because they reinforce each other’s excuses. They’re uncomfortable being around authors, it’s just too challenging.

When I do something, I’m the author. When I’m stuck thinking, I’m a victim.

Real conversations only happen when both sides take responsibility. Otherwise, conversations turn into explaining why something didn’t happen instead of achieving results. A great example: if I have results, I just show them – no explanation needed. But if I don’t have results, I start gathering analytics and detailed explanations. If the result isn’t there, clearly it wasn’t important to me.

Saying “the goal itself doesn’t inspire me” shifts responsibility onto the goal. Or when someone says “I’m looking for my life’s purpose”, it’s like waiting around for luck. They’re hoping someday they’ll fully express themselves when they finally find the perfect thing. Or the excuse: “leaders are born, not made.” All these examples illustrate a victim’s mindset, it’s comfortable because there’s no risk involved, no real action required and it allows people to complain about circumstances controlling their lives.

What if there’s no such thing as the “right” or “wrong” goal, but instead, I just make excuses for not reaching it?

In every moment, I’m fully expressing myself, just like a sparkler burning brightly. I can’t express myself better now than a second ago. If I’m still looking for my life’s calling, searching is clearly important to me, not actually doing it. Every choice has a benefit and a cost. For example, the benefit of “searching for my life’s calling” is avoiding mistakes, staying comfortable and never having to take responsibility. The price is wasting time, not moving toward goals and failing to push my team forward. When going after a new goal, I could enjoy the thrill, but the thrill comes at the price of risk.

People work with me based on whether I keep my word. First, if I am ready to take responsibility. Second, if I deliver on my promises. Do I typically act as an author or a victim? When do I start blaming external factors for my failures? I’m smart enough to always find excuses, but if I approach like this, results clearly aren’t important to me. I know this because in reality, I don’t have them.

Choice

When a person keeps searching for something they’ll enjoy doing, they’re acting like a tourist in life, saying, “Show me what you’ve got and I’ll pick something I like.” There’s a great video of Mikhail Moskotin explaining this concept in detail.

In reality, it’s impossible to know if you’ll truly like a future goal or not, because you haven’t been there yet (unless it’s a goal you’ve already achieved before). What if you think about a goal without relying on your past experience? Face the future directly instead of backing into it.

If you visualize this, choosing based on past experience just makes your existing frame thicker. Instead, you could expand your frame.

Without a goal, you have no control. It’s like shooting an arrow randomly and then running over afterward to draw a target around wherever it lands, saying, “Yep, that’s exactly what I was aiming for!” Convenient, no responsibility required. With this approach, you might say “why not?”, but you’re just moving chaotically. Right or wrong isn’t motivating, having a clear goal is.

When you’re feeling down or discouraged, ask yourself “What’s my goal?” This shifts your mindset away from feeling sorry for yourself and toward focusing on your future and present.

A healthy path: I want→ I declare it’s important → I actually do it / I get results. An unhealthy one: I want→ I declare it’s important → I don’t do, I waste all my energy convincing people and myself how much I truly want it, even though reality proves otherwise. How do I know it’s not important? Just look at reality. The scary part is how easily I can convince myself to live comfortably in scenario number two.

Feedback

Feedback is neutral information about how I’m showing up, designed to help me achieve my goal. Some behaviors help me reach the goal, I should keep doing those. Other behaviors need adjusting if I want to reach the goal faster.

When receiving feedback, I usually sort it into two boxes: “good” and “bad.” For everything that lands in the “bad” box, I often create elaborate excuses explaining why I didn’t do it differently. By doing this, I’m the one labeling feedback as good or bad. I end up chasing approval rather than focusing on the real goal I wanted feedback on.

If I get offended by someone’s feedback, I gain a hidden benefit, I don’t have to change anything. I get to be right and the person giving feedback “just doesn’t get it,” despite my efforts. This is a convenient way to avoid responsibility and still look good.

Conclusion: Move forward.

The final module of the MBA program takes place in Kamchatka. It’s where brainwork meets physical adventure. Some of the highlights: half a day riding snowmobiles across endless snowy landscapes, a helicopter flight with a volcanologist guiding you into a breathing crater, a boat trip to see massive sea lions, a dip in the icy waters of Avacha Bay, freeriding, camping in the snow and three days of deep reflective practice based on Georgy Shchedrovitsky’s methodology.

Announcement of the Kamchatka module

A lot of MBA programs in Europe and the US include off-campus team-building modules like hiking or white-water rafting. And there’s a reason for that. The Kamchatka module is where real friendships lock in. You get to see who people really are, because the usual habits and roles just don’t work out here. What kind of stuff helps with that? Pitching tents in the snow or digging out and reinforcing a giant 6x6 meter firepit with your classmates. When there’s no script to follow, no roles to hide behind, that’s when people show up as they are. And honestly, it’s when you meet yourself too.

The first details and prep instructions for the upcoming Kamchatka module were shared back in May 2018 and the trip itself took place in April 2019. It was introduced by Andrey Volkov, who was originally supposed to lead the expedition. Unfortunately, he couldn’t make it. Volkov is the founding dean of the Skolkovo Moscow School of Management and one of its key visionaries. He’s now leading large-scale projects, including one aiming to get five Russian universities into the global top 100 rankings. Participants were encouraged to start preparing early, learn to ski if they didn’t already and build up regular aerobic workouts 3-4 times a week.

We were also asked to write an essay to reflect on where we were in life, imagine the future we wanted and map out a plan for how to get from here to there. Once our essays were done, we shared them in small groups and had open discussions. That process really helped build even more trust among classmates. To help us get into the right mindset, Andrey Shapenko shared a template INSEAD ,which gave us a clear structure to follow and made it easier to dive in.

Day 1

I flew to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky from Saint Petersburg with a layover in Moscow. All my classmates joined in at Sheremetyevo and we all took the same flight from there. My flight left St. Pete at 1:15 PM and we landed in Petropavlovsk at 10:05 AM. The whole trip took about 9 hours and 45 minutes, with a 9-hour time difference.

When we landed, two Ural trucks were waiting for us as regular cars can’t make it to the base, “Snow Valley” where all the action happens. The trucks were converted into buses with huge low-pressure tires that can handle deep ruts and rough trails. The ride to the base took about two hours through the wilderness. We got there around 1:30 PM, got settled into our cabins, had lunch and kicked things off with a briefing.

The briefing was set up as a series of stations:

• Getting the right gear: this wasn’t your regular ski setup, we were getting outfitted for freeride. The skis are wider, especially at the tips and come with special bindings that let your heels lift when you’re hiking uphill. If you were on a snowboard, you got a splitboard, it comes apart into skis for climbing with bindings that have a pop-up heel piece for steep ascents. We also got climbing skins, sticky strips you put on the bottom of your skis so you can walk uphill without sliding back. Telescopic poles, foldable ski poles that collapse down small, easy to carry. A probe, a long, collapsible rod used to search for someone under the snow. A beacon, a small device you wear that sends and receives signals in case of an avalanche. A foldable shovel. Crampons, metal spikes you strap onto your ski boots for climbing steep, icy slopes. An ice axe, although we all ended up leaving those at the base, we didn’t need them with the conditions we had.

• Clothing station. The instructor explained how to dress for hiking and mountain conditions so you stay comfortable. And anyone who ignored the advice and didn’t get Gore Tex gear (a breathable, windproof, waterproof fabric) ended up seriously regretting it.

• Tent setup. We learned how to dig out a spot and pitch a tent in the snow so it would be stable and comfortable to sleep in and wouldn’t get blown away overnight. The ideal setup meant digging out a square about 3x3 meters and about a meter deep.
• Snowmobile training. You could pick a snowmobile based on your skill level from heavy and steady to light and high-powered. While we were riding through the forest, the instructors watched how everyone handled their machine. Based on that, they grouped us into teams and pairs for the upcoming rides.

• What to do in case of an avalanche. They walked us through the two main types. First, there’s a point-release avalanche, it starts small from one spot and picks up power as it moves. That usually happens when a fresh layer of snow doesn’t stick well to an icy layer underneath or when a thin layer of water forms between snow layers with different densities. The second type is a slab avalanche, that’s when a whole sheet of snow sitting on an icy base breaks off and slides down all at once. If someone gets buried, you’ve got about 15 minutes to get them out. After that, chances of survival drop fast, oxygen runs out quickly and the packed snow is heavy and hard to breathe in. The best thing you can do is curl up in the fetal position, it helps create a bit more breathing room. They also told us about a rare case where someone survived after 45 minutes. He had on a big down jacket and he bit into it to get some extra air, it was just enough to stay alive until help showed up. There are also special avalanche backpacks, if a slide starts, you pull a handle and a big airbag inflates, kind of like a life preserver. It helps keep you closer to the surface and less likely to get buried deep.

• Ski/snowboard skill check. There’s a small slope with a lift right at the base and that’s where everyone showed what they could do. The conditions weren’t great, more ice than snow that day. Based on how people handled it, they split us into two groups: one for the tougher, more athletic route up to the tent camp and one for the easier, more relaxed version of the hike.

For those who showed enough skill and wanted to take the sportier route, a series of early morning training climbs was planned to test freeride abilities out in real conditions. I got into the sport group.

A 25-hour day wrapped up with dinner and a quick briefing on what was coming next.

P.S. This winter, I finally realized I can’t stand snowboarding. Before the 2018–2019 season, I’d hit the slopes maybe once or twice a year and only to hang out with friends. But once Kamchatka was announced, I ended up going about 15 times that season. We even made a special trip to Sochi for some extra practice at the end of March 2019. Turns out my body wasn’t too happy about it either. In Sochi, I wiped out on the slope so badly they had to call an ambulance that evening. And a couple of weeks before the trip, I developed a heel spur from all the extra running and had to scale back my workouts just to keep going.

Day 2

Up at 6 AM, quick snack, skins on the skis and we set off in a small group along a forest trail heading up «Mount Goryachaya». The hike took about two hours. Physically it wasn’t too hard, especially if you’re into running or anything like that. Around 350 meters of vertical gain over about 5 km.

Then Roman Bryk, the leader of the sport group, rides down the main slope and watches as the rookie freeriders take on the steepest part. Everyone’s got their own style: some confidently bomb down on their boards, others gently belly-flop their way down, lazily swinging their skis, trying to catch some air for balance. I had two edge catches and a couple of falls and then, finally, I was at the bottom. The rest of the descent felt more like drifting through a spring flood in slow motion, just kind of gliding between trees without much control. Proud as hell (!), I made it back to the base second to last, fully aware that with my current technique, I wasn’t having much fun. By the time I got there, everyone else was already gathered for breakfast.

The guides take a hands-off approach, no tips, no advice, unless something on your gear actually breaks. You signed up for this, so it’s on you to keep up with the pace. It really makes you feel your own responsibility out there. You quickly get a better sense of your limits and of yourself. It’s a great example of what “just enough” support looks like for adults in a team or group setting. If you can’t keep up with the group, don’t go. And if you do go, don’t count on luck or someone else getting you to the finish line you’re the one responsible.

They split us into two groups. Our group jumped on snowmobiles and took off at 11:00 AM, riding across open snowy plains and occasionally climbing up and down mountain trails. When the wind picked up and the snow started blowing, if you didn’t have your buff pulled up, it felt like tiny shards of ice hitting your face. At one point, I spotted a snow-white hare sprinting ahead of us totally outpacing the group. By 1:00 PM, we made it to a canyon where we had some off-route free riding. The best part is dropping down from the ridge at full speed for a few moments, you can’t see more than a couple of meters ahead and it feels like you’re flying straight down. Almost like falling. Total adrenaline rush.

At 2:00 PM we reached the spot where the two groups met back up, the others returned from their part of the trip by helicopter. We set up a table and had lunch, soup in giant thermoses that had been brought over from the camp.

We flew up to the crater of Mutnovsky volcano in two helicopter runs. Up there, you’re surrounded by boiling pools of sulfuric acid nearly 400 degrees and thick yellow clouds of steam that smell like rotten eggs. One breath and it hits you, you can’t breathe, it just shuts everything down. Over some of the boiling spots, crusty caps form on the surface, but it’s impossible to tell where the solid ground ends and the acid pool begins. You have to be really careful where you step.

Our group took a helicopter to a nameless bay in Avacha, while the other group headed back to the base by snowmobile. At the bay, a few of us guys decided to take a dip. Later, we took a boat out to see the Steller sea lions. One male weighing up to a ton usually leads a group of around 50 females, each about 350 kg. We flew back to the base, had dinner at 9 PM and called it a day. Well, sort of we headed over as a little crew to one of the cabins for a tea ceremony and stayed up chatting until midnight.

Mindset work / Days 3-5

Starting on day 3, we shifted our focus to thinking techniques. Everyone had the option to join one of four groups: Corporations, Intelligence, Psychosomatics or Entrepreneurship. The day before, we were asked to choose our group, but they didn’t tell us which moderator would lead which one. That was intentional, so we’d pick based on what actually interested us, not who was running it. The groups ended up pretty evenly split. There were four moderators: Konstantin Dikovsky, Pavel Mrdulyash, Artyom Denisov and Egor Maslov. The group presentations were moderated by Sergey Gradirovsky. The discussions were made even richer with help from Maksim Feldman and Milena Milich. Alena Myakisheva and Anastasia Tkachuk helped with all the logistics. I chose the Entrepreneurship group. The rest of what I’ll share is based on our group’s work and what we dug into together.

Each of the next three days followed the same rhythm:
6:00-9:00 AM – freeride training for those aiming to stay in the sport group
8:00–9:00 AM – breakfast
9:00–10:30 AM – intro session with core concepts to set the foundation for group work

10:30 AM–2:00 PM – focused group work with moderators. Each group had its own space, some met in cabin kitchens or living rooms, others in the restaurant area. Our group worked in the hotel lobby. The whole base was turned over to us for the module, so we had total freedom and didn’t get in each other’s way.

2:00–3:00 PM – lunch
3:00–7:00 PM – group presentations. Each team picked a speaker, prepped a presentation using giant sticky sheets, and shared their work with everyone.

After each presentation, we moved into a “questions for understanding” section, basically a dialogue. The presenter had to clarify and defend their points, while the rest of us asked questions. The moderators brought their experience into it too, they would unpack each group’s conclusions in reverse, pointing out gaps in logic or shaky assumptions that the whole argument was built on. The discussion was led by Sergey Gradirovsky. He had a great way of keeping things focused, if the back-and-forth started turning into a debate, he’d cut it off with a clear “noted” and we’d move on. I’ve definitely borrowed that one for myself. One important rule at this stage: no opinions allowed, only questions.

Next came the “judgment” stage. This is where listeners could finally share what they thought about the presentation and give feedback. The presenting group wasn’t allowed to respond or jump into discussion, just listen. The best approach was to take a piece of paper and write down each comment point by point.

7:00-8:00 PM – dinner.

9:00 PM-... – reflection on the day’s presentations. Each group gathered in whatever way worked best for them, some met where the main discussions had taken place, others headed to the pool. By the way, the base doesn’t have a hot water problem, quite the opposite. There’s plenty of it flowing straight from the natural hot springs on site. The tricky part is the cold water. Sometimes, while taking a shower, you realize it’s basically boiling because the cold water in the tanks has run out. The pool was something else, it’s outdoors, filled with naturally hot spring water. You sit there, snow falling around you and every now and then you catch a hare darting past along the edge of the pool.

I have to admit, by the middle of the second day, I (like a few of my classmates) still had no idea what we were really dealing with. And when yet another presentation got unraveled and the group’s defense was torn down, we started voicing our confusion out loud, turning it into a pretty heated dialogue, all eyes on Pavel Mrdulyash for answers. It wasn’t until the third day that we started to grasp the value and logic behind the method. Even then we still had questions.

I’ve got a couple of guesses as to why there was so much confusion during those first couple of days. First – Pavel Mrdulyash deliberately didn’t “lower the bar.” He kept the discussion at his level and expected the rest of us to reach up to it, rather than meeting us where we were. Second – we didn’t sync up on our levels of understanding from the start. On day one, there was no common ground. In hindsight, it might actually be worth making some reading mandatory for future groups, like starting with something by Pyotr Shchedrovitsky. These thoughts came out of a conversation with Denis K., Hey!-)

Our “Entrepreneurship” group was moderated by Artyom Denisov, an MBA-6 grad, we were MBA-8. His style was calm and steady, gently steering the discussion and helping us out of dead ends without pushing too hard. He facilitated things with a light touch. The good part is that Artyom never slipped into the “expert” role, which was great. The not-so-good part was that maybe the group could’ve used a bit more shaking up now and then.

Each of the three days, our group worked on the same topic. But with every round, we refined the definitions, our position and the core problem. By the third day, we finally started to see how the whole process fit within the methodology.

Methodology and concepts

To explain the method, I’ll describe the conceptual framework as it landed in my own head. Georgy Shchedrovitsky in his talks, and later the moderators during the intro sessions, made a bold, provocative claim: most people don’t actually think, and even if they do manage to think something through once, there’s no guarantee they can do it again. One key formula that shaped everything that followed: Experience = Action × Reflection.

The key concept in this methodology is reflection. In Shchedrovitsky’s view, reflection is the ability to really see the full picture, not just looking back at what happened, but also looking a little bit ahead. Planning and design come from that forward-looking kind of reflection. It’s when you stop asking, “What did I do?” and start thinking, “Okay, what if I do this, then what?” That kind of mental play, thinking a few steps ahead, eventually turns into planning, designing and building out real strategies.

Descriptions of two positions M1 and M2, the reflective position

The whole situation is described starting from the current position (M1) and then the desired future state, the target model (M2) is projected. Each situation is described using the format: context, object, person. The person, in a way, rises above the situation and constructs the next desired state while in a reflective position.

1. Context
This is where you describe the situation the object is in. You identify the key factors that define and influence that situation. The goal is to create a shared understanding, a common semantic field for everyone involved in the discussion.

Example: a volatile, export-driven, developing economy; a banking system going through a crisis; a strong presence of technical universities.

2. Object
This is the role or position the person currently occupies, the space or system they’re embedded in.

Example: an entrepreneur who owns several businesses across different industries with a managing partner in each one handling the day-to-day operations.

3. Person
The individual within this context is the subject. This includes values, goals, education, hobbies, feelings, all the key traits that help place the person or group within a shared conceptual framework.

Example: 30 years old, has a strong team, international education, personal resources, connections to investors who are ready to back a new venture, speaks multiple languages and is into triathlon.

Visualization

I was surprised how much easier it is for a group to understand a situation when you visualize it. With words, people can mean different things even if they say the same thing, but visuals are usually a lot more clear.

That made me realize something: visualization is a really important skill for an entrepreneur. The better you are at it, the faster you can connect and align with other people. In complex situations, pictures often explain things better than words. Visuals help you show what really matters, focus on the big stuff and leave out the extra details.

An example of our team’s visualization

Conceptual framework

To make sure everyone understood the visualization the same way, we had to talk through the key concepts first. That way, we all had a shared understanding. Over the three days, we kept coming back to the word entrepreneur, because how we defined it changed how we saw the whole situation. By day three, we landed on something like this: an entrepreneur is someone with limited resources, who creates value through action and takes on personal risk to do it.

Problem

According to the methodology, finding the real problem happens across three levels. While working on the topic of entrepreneurship, we followed this path:

At the first level of problem-finding, you usually get statements like: lack of self-belief, no motivation, no opportunities.

The second level, causes/tasks, is where we get to things we actually know how to work with. At this stage, we’re framing problems as tasks that can be addressed. Examples: weak business education, no international contacts, poor legal infrastructure.

At the third level, we finally enter the real problem space. Here’s how we defined the key issues: the elite doesn’t see value in entrepreneurship; there are strong societal biases against the profession; entrepreneurs often have limited horizons, meaning they tend to think only within the scope of Russia, or even just their own city, when starting a project.

The core problem we landed on was this: a closed mindset keeps entrepreneurs in Russia from building unicorns.

Active Position / Action Plan / Path / Project

When defining a problem, it’s important to understand what active position the person is taking. How are they going to act from that position? If someone states a problem but doesn’t take any active position, it’s just an opinion, empty talk.

A problem is a situation that can’t be solved without rethinking how the system works in the M1 position. In other words, there are fundamental parts of the current setup M1 that have to change, otherwise, reaching M2 just isn’t possible. For example: if you’re a traditional bank that doesn’t use the internet to attract or serve customers, but you still want to grow like it’s the early 2000s – that’s not going to happen unless you completely change how you operate. Or put another way: a problem is a kind of manageable disaster, one you can work with, but only if you’re ready to change the whole structure. A disaster is something you can’t solve, like a war.

According to Shchedrovitsky, a problem is when two people are arguing, both are in the same situation and each is expressing a view that contradicts the other, and yet both are right.

When someone gives advice or shares an opinion, it’s important to ask: what active position are they planning to take in this situation? If the answer is “none,” then whatever was said is just a judgment, basically empty words. An active position means the person is ready to take action, to influence the situation somehow. Otherwise, they’re just staying in a passive, victim-like or purely supportive role. Sometimes, you can help someone shift from just sharing an opinion to actually taking a position by simply asking: “And what are you going to do about it?”

Once you understand the M1 and M2 positions and see the problem through the lens of an active position, the next step is to create a work plan that helps move from one position to the other. Basically, this becomes a project – an idea paired with a plan to make it real. That’s how you go from an initial thought all the way to a concrete solution.

Personal conclusion from the intellectual part

I was deeply impressed by the deep dive into the methodology. One insight that seems obvious but hit me personally: you don’t know how you’ll feel in position M2 while you’re still in M1.

I’ve been doing psychoanalysis for four years now, both individually and in group settings. The practice mainly tries to help you answer the question, “What do you want?” It looks at a person through the lens of childhood struggles and desires, shaped goals and unmet needs for love early in life. From there, psychoanalysis generally splits into two schools: Freud’s view, that we’re driven by instinctual urges (an inner pull), and Viktor Frankl’s, that we’re drawn toward meaning and values (an outer pull)

If Freud’s approach is about awareness in the present, basically M1, then Frankl’s is more about M2, looking ahead toward meaning and goals. What Shchedrovitsky does is bring the two together. He doesn’t treat them as opposing ideas, instead, he connects them through project thinking and taking an active position. To me, that’s brilliant. Freud’s psychoanalysis (M1) becomes about exploring and organizing your inner world, understanding yourself and your place in the moment. Frankl’s approach (M2) is about direction, aligning that organized structure toward purpose. And Shchedrovitsky’s piece, the active position, is what ties it all together. It’s the driving force that helps the two approaches work side by side.

Lately, the thing that’s been on my mind most is the idea of manifestation or showing up fully. In my world, manifestation means when a person’s inner, hidden state fully comes to life through the project they’re working on. Like a negative turning into a photo, it fulfills its purpose. In the same way, a person manifests through their work, bringing their inner self into reality. If Csikszentmihalyi, in Flow , describes what that state feels like, then Shchedrovitsky answers the question, “How do you actually get there?” – through the process of reflection. Without manifestation, there’s no real life.

The process of reflection:

1. A person “rises above” the state they’re currently in.
2. They describe their current state M1 by looking at the context, the object and the person. Mindfulness can really help here, it makes it easier to see where you actually are. It’s also worth getting input from others, we’re usually not great at seeing ourselves clearly. Like with bad breath, you can’t smell your own.
3. Now you design M2. If there wasn’t enough awareness in the previous step, it can feel like you’re staring at an endless sea of options and it’s hard to choose or even name any of them, because everything seems possible. Awareness helps you spot and shape a few clear options. And if you dig into your values and sense of meaning, like Frankl suggests, that space of possibilities starts to narrow down even more.
4. Next, you build a work plan. You take an active position toward the tasks you need to complete in order to reach M2.

This process is repeated again and again and that, according to Shchedrovitsky, is what thinking really is. There’s no guarantee that M2 will bring joy. There’s always a risk from your current position (M1), it’s impossible to truly know how you’ll feel in the new one (M2). That’s why without taking an active position, real thinking can’t happen. But in the process of moving forward in showing up, in manifesting yourself, that’s where the joy is. That’s what life is.

Overnight in the snow at base camp / Day 6

We had breakfast, then headed to the base of the Vilyuchinsky Volcano. After a quick gear check, we started the climb up to the volcano’s shoulder, about 900 meters of elevation gain. The group naturally spread out with everyone going at their own pace based on fitness. The instructors stayed up front with the faster folks and also covered the back. If you’re a runner, the climb feels more fun, it’s less about downhill skiing and more like cross-country movement as you go uphill.

Some parts of the climb were really steep, you had to edge your skis into the slope at an angle to stay stable. On the steepest sections, we used a zigzag or traverse technique. That way, the vertical gain per step is smaller, making the climb easier and reducing the risk of sliding back. While moving across one of the traverses, I remembered something Yury Belonoshchenko once said about the power of small steps  – that you don’t stop when you’re tired, you just shorten your stride. You end up covering more ground over time than if you stop to catch your breath and then start again. The same principle applies in business too.

There’s a nice feeling that kicks in once you’ve committed, when you’ve got point A and point B, you stop asking yourself “Do I really need to do this?” and just focus on the action. It’s the same with the activity-thinking approach: there’s a time for planning and a time for doing. Don’t mix it all into one moment.

I felt the shift the moment I saw the flag and the finish line. That final stretch suddenly felt way easier. It’s a great example of why it helps to mark progress with clear wins and measurable milestones along the way. Seeing how far you’ve come makes the rest of the journey feel lighter.

Each tent had 2–3 people, and digging it out together was actually kind of fun. You team up and just get to work, it really brings everyone together. There’s a feeling of connection when four of you are digging like crazy, setting up one tent, then moving on to the next. The snow, by the way, was 4.5 meters deep. What made it cool was that the situation was stressful, but there were no ready-made behaviors to fall back on. You start to see people for who they are and learn more about yourself too. What I noticed about me: I like digging the space for the tent, but I totally lose interest when it’s time to actually set it up. I just want to move on to something else. It takes effort to stay with it and finish the job.

We got the tents set up and I went off to start the fire, no big deal, done that before. I grab a metal sheet and lay it on the snow. Then the instructor chimes in: you’ve gotta place logs under the corners so it doesn’t sink once it heats up. Okay, makes sense – done. Then comes the kicker: we need to dig out a 6-by-6 meter fire pit, about a meter deep. And ideally, it should have a step around the edge so you can sit on it like a bench. Well, ****.

You start digging and classmates just naturally join in, even Pavel Mrdulyash. No one asked, it’s just clear there’s work to be done and everyone feels it. One thing I noticed: the people who jump in are usually the ones you’ve been talking with the most. With the conversations and shared effort, it feels less like work and more like a moment of connection, like we’re all showing up together. Some people took a break and crashed in their tents. Others kept setting up the rest, making sure the sport group, who’d be arriving later, right around dusk could just drop their gear and join us for dinner.

We got the fire going, opened the soup thermoses, had dinner and gathered around the fire. One of the instructors brought a guitar and luckily, a few people knew how to play. A small group of us stepped away from the fire for a bit, shared toasts, said some kind words and yelled our cheers into the night while hugging each other. By day 6, the whole trip had really brought people closer. And it also made it clear who had stayed on the outside and didn’t try to connect.

When you go to sleep, you crawl into your sleeping bag with the inner liners from your ski boots. If you leave them in the boots overnight, everything will freeze solid and you won’t be able to get them back on in the morning. If you start getting cold in your sleeping bag, take off some clothes. You’ll actually stay warmer since the extra layers won’t steal your body heat. At night, only my face felt cold. Wake-up was at 7:00 AM, followed by breakfast, then we headed back to the base. There we had a reflection session on the whole module and a celebratory dinner. The next day – departure.

Another great moment came from my classmate from China, Minyan. She had injured her back before Day 6, and when she started the climb to base camp, she already knew she wouldn’t be able to finish the whole route, but she went anyway. Even if you know you won’t make it all the way, you can still go and find out where your limit really is. Every bit of progress along the way is a win.

Conclusion: I’d rate the module a 9.9 out of 10. What was great: top-notch organization; the balance and format of blending intellectual work with physical challenge; and how close we became as classmates, both parts of the module really helped with that. What wasn’t great: unfortunately, Andrey Evgenyevich, the leader of both the intellectual and sport parts of the program for the previous two MBA groups couldn’t join us this time.