A630.2.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

Matthew Taylor's video on the idea of 21st Century Enlightenment is certainly one of the more substantive videos I've watched over the course of the MSLD program, and certainly one that's taken quite a bit of thought to chew over. Admittedly, I still have a 100% grasp on what makes 21st Century Enlightenment what it is, but it may well warrant further thinking and an examination of the last major Enlightenment.

As best as I can gather from Taylor's talk, what makes the idea, and hence the title, of 21st Century Enlightenment is taking the principals of the Great Enlightenment of delving into what shaped modern peoples values, norms, and principals, and reassessing what we have now based on the circumstances of an increasingly diverse and globalized 21st Century. It's been quite some time since our last Enlightenment, and I think Taylor is getting at the idea of our society as a whole taking some time to look around and reassess our direction as a society. He says in relation to this that "to live differently, you have to think differently," by which I think he means we have to see to see the word and ourselves in a new perspective, and exercise critical thinking processes.

Taylor made an interesting point in stating that people need to try and "...resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange." It brings to mind the argumentative fallacy of appealing to tradition, or perhaps even confirmation bias. To paraphrase what I thought he was taking from Robert Kegan, people would do well to be conscious of this tendency to accept the familiar and reject the unfamiliar. Within my office, I can see traditional communication types in cases rejecting the sense of urgency with their work as the idea of communications being critical for the military is still fairly new. In contrast, our clients don't always understand that we can't make absolute guarantees for fixing things by a certain time, or track with the idea that there are some things beyond our control either physically or administratively. In the span of greater society, take any national level debate on controversial issues such as gun control or foreign policy, and you're nearly guaranteed to see this concept at work. For the gun issue, there might be those unwilling to entertain any limitations on their magazines or otherwise, and there might be those that refuse to see a gun as anything but a great danger to society.

Taylor went on to discuss the idea of eschewing the elements of pop culture that degrade people, and encouraging the development of empathetic citizens. I think to some measure, this has already started. Pop culture fairly regularly makes fun of pop culture, and the rapid increase in global connectivity via the spread of web access services and the rise of social networks enables people the world over to be connect to the experiences of others across the globe. I think people are already taking major steps to putting themselves into other people's shoes. However, I still think that for the most part, society tends to hit a major logjam anytime there's a divisive argument, with many not putting into practice the idea of maintaining healthy disagreement, and with people often falling into the old habit of resisting ideas contrary to what they know. Any major shift towards this idea would likely require a massive paradigm shift across all of society.

I couldn't draw out an exact answer on the prompt about atomizing people from collaborative environments, but I can certainly understand how removing people from that can be detrimental. When individuals are broken off from a collaborative group, they lose the benefit of additional perspectives and the "force multiplier" effect of having additional minds considering an issue. If this becomes the case for organizational change efforts, it's likely that an organization might simply stagnate under the single perspective being worked with at the top, or that they will simply fail to innovate and possible become a non-competitor. There are some instances where sole individuals can be of more effect than a collaborative group, but more often than not collaboration brings rapid idea development and great power.

If nothing else, the notion that people are thinking about change at the societal level is somewhat heartening. My organization is currently undergoing multiple shifts in how they view the world and their role, and it seems a much more manageable task than all of society. Additionally, Taylor brought to bear a number of interesting points to bear in mind as I go through the working day, especially in his highlight of the "tendency of familiarity," and by sounding a call for conscientious thought.

A630.1.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

I'm hard pressed to think of any given situation in my office that had all of the video's elements present, but I can certainly get some thoughts going on how these different organizational agents come into play in a healthy organization.

The crowd is something I would consider both in a ways inevitable yet very necessary. Although the attitude of the crowd can be extremely fickle, because it is representative of the greater organizational population (and thus the primary source of manpower to drive most of anything), it is an agent that needs to be won over by the would be promoter of change. Without at the very least taking the crowd into consideration, or winning their all important buy-in for the envisioned change, making the change happen becomes very difficult if not impossible. The crowd is in a sense a constant of the organizational environment, but it must be won over and channeled.

The pessimist might be easily dismissed as an unnecessary drag upon the organization, but I argue they might serve their own purpose. If allowed to disseminate their view with nothing to compare it with, the pessimist's view may eventually become the view of the crowd, rendering the environment unwelcome to change. However, the pessimist shouldn't be completely silenced, for they may well see some major issues with the change or at least can act as a measure of what to prepare for with regards to the worst possible crowd reaction.

Along the same lines is the pragmatist. Although they'll at least look at the change or the obstacle, they're still (at least by the video's assertion) likely to maintain the status quo. But again, while they shouldn't be allowed to have complete run of the place they should also be given some heed as they may well have some reasonably level headed concerns that need to be considered or resolved before pressing forward with change.

Covering the other end of the dichotomy are the power players and the visionaries.The visionaries play an especially important role in that while they may not necessarily execute the change themselves or carry it across the finish line, they're the ones that can identify the way things are now and how they could be. They can look over the hill and see where they want the organization to go, perhaps even see the path to get there. The visionaries are the ones that will likely formulate the objective for any change or large scale effort for their organization.

But the visionary alone cannot reach out to the entire crowd, let alone the pragmatists and pessimists. This is where the power players fulfill their role. Arguably, for organizational health it might be one of the most important links as they'll go between the visionaries and everyone else. They don't carry the initial vision or stand among the crowd, but they have the power to carry the message and rally the masses through the influences they wield. One might even say they can act as a backbone for the organization.