Why do you think the talk
is titled 21st Century Enlightenment?
It is an extremely fast
moving talk about the return to the core principles like enlightenment,
autonomy, universalism and humanism as well as other ideas that appear to have
been lost in today’s technological society.
The video is so quick
moving that taking notes would only serve to miss the next chapter. The only
true methods of capturing the message(s) are to review the video several times,
attempting to key in on several differing topics at each viewing.
What does Matthew
Taylor mean when he says, "to live differently, you have to think
differently"?
The term enlightenment
in my opinion can tend to be used in a manner denoting deity or transformation
to a higher power of being… somewhat snobbish. While I have no particular
aversion toward learning and utilizing ones tools acquired through
enlightenment to benefit an individual or individuals. I believe what Matthew
Taylor is referring to in this instance is, individuals are (or should be) free
to make their own choices (including mistakes, which are simply ideas that did
not work) and to learn by those mistakes. Much like our own Declaration of Independence,
this solidifies our God given rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
happiness. And our Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights that together
frees us from tyranny and overbearing religious and governmental intrusions,
which is if one is willing to fight to keep them.
At one point in the
video (4:10), Taylor argues that we need "to resist our tendencies to make
right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is
only strange". What is he talking about? Can you think of an example
within your company or your life that supports this point?
What Taylor is
discussing is the age-old dilemma of resistance to change, or the challenges of
change. As discussed in chapter two of the text Experiential Approach to
Organization Development, Brown discusses that change is the name of the game
in today’s management. This is due to the expansion of technology and a global
environment that organizations wishing to not only survive but thrive are
destine toward adapting to change and creating methods from which their
approaches to change will solidify their place in the free market system. Those
that do not are destining toward repeated failure including individuals and
organizations that refuse to negotiate and manage a positive transformational
development including individual and team effectiveness. The UAW comes to mind
as one of those organizations.
As a governmental
organization, my agency is charged with responsible use of the taxpayer
investment and utilization of tax dollars in a wise and prudent manner. Does
that always occur, no, are there ways to better manage resources, yes. Those
are the reasons individuals such as I are brought in as new blood that can
review and recommend proactive changes, and to streamline operations and create
more efficient methods of accomplishing the mission, in spite of the resistance
and politics that inhibit those changes. From the eyes of the long timers, it
is easier to discredit the messenger and the message than to extent the effort
in trimming the waste. The problem is… folks like me tend to move out of an
organization to higher responsibilities while those that are left behind
gravitate back to the old ways. At least until the funding is cut on an
inefficient mission and the doors are closed.
Taylor argues that
our society should eschew elements of pop culture that degrade people and that
we should spend more time looking into what develops empathetic citizens. Would
this be possible?
They are not only
possible, but currently in practice by factions of society that hold a high
moral responsibility toward its fellow man. As the classic example, I am of
course referring to the United States Military, where the individual is part of
something larger than life itself and an organization whose order of the day is
constant respect in an environment of teamwork, excellence and service before
self. As discussed in chapter two of the text Experiential Approach to
Organization Development, Brown discusses that individual effectiveness in an
organization where each member is equipped with a unique set of values, beliefs
and motivators that are complimentary, increasing organizational effectiveness
through a culture that can achieve organizational goals all the while
satisfying the individual member’s needs.
The organizational values
and beliefs that compliment individuals own values and beliefs are what
transcend beyond the invisible boundaries of the organization, into society and
serve as positive role models and examples of the empathetic citizen.
At the end of the
video, Taylor talks about atomizing people from collaborative environments and
the destructive effect on their growth. What is the implication of these
comments for organizational change efforts?
As much as I have
been part of teaming environments during my 24 years of military service, and
now almost 10 in the federal workforce. I find collaboration to be an effective
means to bring the brightest minds together to institute workable solutions to
unmanageable problems. I have also found collaborative efforts to be a means to
integrating various levels of disciplines and experience levels to formulate
solutions and recommendations. I have also found collaboration to be at times
an ineffective tool that is over-utilized by those who are simply in it for the
ride and credit, and none of the sweat, arguments and contentious discussions
that can occur during collaboration efforts.
That said,
collaboration is truly the only effective method of bring together all
stakeholders, industry experts, management and decision makers in today’s
global market and economy. It is still the individual fortitude, expertise and
willingness to get the job accomplished that makes collaboration an effective
organizational tool.
As stated in chapter
two of the text Experiential Approach to Organization Development, Brown
(2011,) discusses those changing market structures, competitive conditions that
are rapidly changing, brings upon organizational change efforts. Organizations
in today’s global economy are forced to downsize, reengineer, flatten the
overall organizational structure(s) and initiate technologies that are commiserating
with global and a highly competitive market.
The organization as a
system is somewhat Borg like, as a reference from the series Star Trek.
However, the systems approach is not without merit in it has an in-place
internal check and balance system that is designed to accomplish an objective
through an established arrangement of elements that share an interrelationship
among the individual elements of an open or closed system. The basic
ingredients of information, energy, and materials are vital to the overall
objectives and are more important than the objectives of the system.
To sum it up… all the
parts must be in concert with one another, if anything is lacking or missing,
the system will prevail but in the end there may be an unintended consequence.
It is during periods of unintended consequences that the individual with the
knowledge, experience, and willingness to step out of the norm, and do what is
necessary for the organization to succeed is what Taylor talked about atomizing
people away from collaborative efforts and the destructive effect on individual
growth. In essence, he is concerned that collaborative efforts are raising a
society of mindless sheep.
What can you take
away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?
Basically the
exercise reaffirms my commitment to the morals that were instilled in me as a
child, scout and military service member. I teach these to our daughter and instill
them in my place of worship, work and home. I believe in being part of a team
and a contributor of a solution to a problem not simply the identifier of one.
I believe we as a
nation are plagued with a rather large herd of mindless sheep… aka Sheepel, who
are unwilling to do what is necessary to advance them, often playing the victim
card when there was no crime, all in the name of taking the easy way out. The
saying “when the going gets tough, the tough get going” is not applied in today
society and the word fair should be used sparingly, as anybody who has had to
“get going” will attest that there is rarely anything in life that is truly
fair.
I agree with what Lewis
(2013,) was stating in his article in Forbes magazine titled: Let's 'Clean Sheet' Our Failed Approach To
Entitlements.
According
to Lewis, A hundred years ago in 1913 to be exact. The world arguably had more
liberal problems than today like: how to deal with the difficulties of the
working class and in a context of overall economic prosperity. Eventually these
translated into a series of government programs, such as state-funded primary
and secondary schooling, the adoption of a five-day, forty-hour workweek,
elimination of child labor, introduction of welfare and unemployment services, senior
income support, workplace safety regulations, environmental regulations, and
eventually some form of universal healthcare. For the most part portions of
these topics are still important, however, the problems of 1913 have been
solved.
For
example: The solutions were appropriate… or at least were portrayed that way
for their time. Social Security
was implemented in 1935; with an over-65 portion of the population was a lot
smaller then than it is now. Most people died before 65. Thus, the program
could be funded with a 1% payroll tax. It’s hard to complain too much about
that. Today the situation (s) are different, we now, have to contend with the problems
those solutions created.
As
a conservative I must concede that we as a committee have not entertained very
good ideas of program planning. My fellow conservatives whole heartedly believe
what Jesus taught “ give a man a fish, he eats for a day… teach a man to fish,
he eats for the rest of his life”. Liberals on the other hand simply do not
wish to see their accomplishments toward utopia slashed and burned at the stake
getting costs down by those pesky capitalists who created an abundance of
wealth in the first place.
Lewis
proposes a better approach. Start with a clean sheet of paper, figuring a
manner to solve the problem while spending less money. I see it in yet another
way… utilize our Constitution, including where those benefits go first and
foremost. Cut spending by cutting fraud and waste, privatization of high-end
entitlement programs like Social Security. I for one would gladly give up all
future claims to the faltering entitlement programs if I could cease paying
into them. I would still create more wealth for my family as a savvy investor
willing to assume risk much like I assume risk in the stock market. This framework we affectionately call reform
would replace our decrepit 20th-century solutions to 19th-century problems with
“21st century capitalism.” After all remembering the government does not and
cannot create wealth; wealth is created via entrantures, risk
takers and visionaries within the private sector.
As a father, leader
and manager, my take away from this exercise is to keep on my present course
although not popular at times, it is an effective direction that has never
betrayed me or left me stranded.
And finally,
remembering the immortal words of Jeff Cooper “To ride, shoot straight and
speak the truth”.
References:
Brown, D. R. (2011). An
experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Lewis, N. (2013, January
10). Let's 'clean sheet' our failed approach to entitlements. Forbes,
DOI: www.Forbes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment