Few days ago I wrote on Facebook that I am currently reviewing books at the source of my formal knowledge on change, marketing, coaching, and the relationship between organizations and their environment (both in the private and public sector).
This article is about change- and continuity, along with resistance to change.
Defining information technology today
In the second article in the series, I will discuss change in the field that touches the life of everyone of us: Information technology (computer and Internet- but also other active and passive telecommunication media).
When I say “everybody” I am not forgetting the Low Income Countries (LICs), or the non- connected (over 30% in the EU): in one way or another, e.g. also via radio or TV, everybody is touched by information technology.
And, since over the last 20 years gradually each information channel migrated to the digital platform, it is quite easy to see how, eventually, it will be the form and shape at the receiving end (TV, radio, text messages, voice, etc) that will be seen as differentiating the different channels.
The evolution on the transmission of information has been also mirrored by a parallel evolution in its storage: where you information resides started being irrelevant.
This is the first short article of a 7-article series on change, that I will post along the month of September.
The purpose is quite simple: share, through case studies and examples, an approach that I used in my prior activities joining technology and change, and focusing on the change itself.
It is quite funny how we got used to charts, statistics, and discussions about different perspectives.
But, despite all our computers, technologies, and so on… we keep getting the usual white/black alternatives, or “dichotomies”.
This short articles is about something that I kept doing often to convert complexity into something we are all used to: getting a 0 to 10, or 0 to 5, or F to A.
The concept is simple: our brain is inherently multi-dimensional.
We are able to see, perceive, think in shades- and to switch from visual to verbal if and when needed.
But when we move from what is personal to what is abstract (our work, in most cases, or news), we seemingly accept at face value boundaries that do not exist- false dichotomies.
If you are lost- do not worry: the rest of this article will make sense: including the “Devil’s advocate” section (i.e. how to prepare for objections).
This short article is about the unintended consequences of desirable changes.
Anyway- the aim is not the specific case study (normative changes introduce for anti money laundering purposes), but reminding to adopt a systemic, comprehensive view while preparing the blueprint for changes.
I had the chance to observe organizations and communities since quite an early age, and something was really fascinating.
When organizations expand, often it is assumed that the “culture” of the original entity will spread to all its parts- as if the center were the heart, and the parts (branches, subsidiaries, etc) were limbs of the same body.
An anthropocentric view of organizational development.
In this article, a small framework to observe, analyze, and ensure that your organization complies with the same professional and ethical standards throughout.
If you read once in a while this chaotic website of mine, you know that I wrote here and there about change management.
I would like to share here some experience from my activities, and why I believe that adopting a common framework might be sub-optimal, but a smart allocation of resources.
To summarize:
If you read my CV or wander around here on my blog, you will probably notice that I worked across many industries.
And not only bottom-line oriented: also non-profit and cultural.
This post is about the difference about changing rules and changing minds, and some potential uses in the political, business, personal environment.
Highlights:
who controls the controller?
first extreme: the consensus-building inserted in a rule-oriented environment
Second extreme: the rule-orientation inserted in consensus-building environment
Weaknesses in training, weaknesses in results
do your new rules consider the organizational cultural environment?
You want your model to work in reality, and therefore you have to assume that others have their own models.
It is a game. Like playing chess. Or the usual “prisoner’s dilemma”.
From models, we will move to the interaction between models- and between different decision paths within a model.
A down-to-earth introduction to the game theory.
This post is part of a series, first published in May 2009.
Everyday politics :)
Thursday, July 30th, 2009Aristotle said that, by nature, we are all political animals.
When I wrote in the title “everyday politics” I was not thinking about “professional” politics.
I was simply stating: with the new technologies, that disrupt the usual communication organizations and control, everybody can do a political action. Everyday.
Read below to see how to begin now. Without a budget. Just a brain and a keyboard, and some experience to share.
Tags: animal, anthropology, aristotle, change, cultural, election, political, politics, theory, voting
Posted in commentary, publications | No Comments »