Authentic Community vs. Compromised Community
Any group/community/party/organization/company that does not allow for questions and free speech/thinking is giving up a level of authenticity. I would say an authentic group/community/party/organization/company will allow for questions and ideas, whether dissonant or not. Not allowing this gives way to a compromise, and thereby handicapping the group/community/party/organization/company and I think ultimately leading to its demise. Suppression usually is a two way street, harming both the suppressor and those suppressed.
My thinking here is along the lines of what happens under communist or very oppressive countries. It harms both the country and the people. This is the two way suppression/oppression street. Generally these oppressive countries have eventually been overthrown by the people they have been oppressing.
If you think about it, almost every group/movement/party/company/organization in some way grows out of another. Often the dissonant voices questioning the status quo are leaders of the new movements.
What would happen if the existing group/community/party/organization/company opened up to and engaged the questions, ideas and potential change? I wonder if the affect would be greater had the original group/community/party/organization/company had embraced the authenticity rather than forcing a exodus?
I am thinking about corporations that become so large and burdened down with process and regulations that they cease to allow people to innovate, and thus become compromised because they
cannot be limber enough to change and challenge themselves.
Regardless of your viewpoint on the issue, I think this is in a large part of what has happened to lead to the Brexit vote. People feeling suppressed and compromised due to the scale and accompanying overhead and regulations of the EU organization. (I am fully aware that there are many many good arguments for the UK staying in the EU, I am merely pointing out the cause of the decision)
In the business world, Walmart was slow to embrace the shift to online shopping (i.e.: Amazon) and are experiencing fallout from it. There are countless examples of this in business, political and even social spheres. Blackberry, Borders books, many print media outlets, CD/Record stores, video rental stores, Yahoo, Polaroid, Motorola, on and on.
It's not all bad news though. For a long time, Microsoft really missed the boat on web-related technologies. It was at a critical time where if they had invested more in web technologies, they easily could have been Google right now. However, Microsoft has invested in some web technologies and now is a leader in several web related technologies that they have targeted. (Office 365, Azure). The good news is, if an organization recognizes this early enough, adjustments can be made that will bring success.
Authenticity is tied to longevity. It is extremely challenging to remain authentic as you scale up. Sometimes you have to grow smaller to grow larger.
My thinking here is along the lines of what happens under communist or very oppressive countries. It harms both the country and the people. This is the two way suppression/oppression street. Generally these oppressive countries have eventually been overthrown by the people they have been oppressing.
If you think about it, almost every group/movement/party/company/organization in some way grows out of another. Often the dissonant voices questioning the status quo are leaders of the new movements.
What would happen if the existing group/community/party/organization/company opened up to and engaged the questions, ideas and potential change? I wonder if the affect would be greater had the original group/community/party/organization/company had embraced the authenticity rather than forcing a exodus?
I am thinking about corporations that become so large and burdened down with process and regulations that they cease to allow people to innovate, and thus become compromised because they
cannot be limber enough to change and challenge themselves.
Regardless of your viewpoint on the issue, I think this is in a large part of what has happened to lead to the Brexit vote. People feeling suppressed and compromised due to the scale and accompanying overhead and regulations of the EU organization. (I am fully aware that there are many many good arguments for the UK staying in the EU, I am merely pointing out the cause of the decision)
In the business world, Walmart was slow to embrace the shift to online shopping (i.e.: Amazon) and are experiencing fallout from it. There are countless examples of this in business, political and even social spheres. Blackberry, Borders books, many print media outlets, CD/Record stores, video rental stores, Yahoo, Polaroid, Motorola, on and on.
It's not all bad news though. For a long time, Microsoft really missed the boat on web-related technologies. It was at a critical time where if they had invested more in web technologies, they easily could have been Google right now. However, Microsoft has invested in some web technologies and now is a leader in several web related technologies that they have targeted. (Office 365, Azure). The good news is, if an organization recognizes this early enough, adjustments can be made that will bring success.
Authenticity is tied to longevity. It is extremely challenging to remain authentic as you scale up. Sometimes you have to grow smaller to grow larger.
Excellent thought. I agree with you. Dialogue, open minded, ego less, being authentic; yet keeping your authenticity ever evolving, seems too be a winning combo...
ReplyDelete