A few days ago, Johh F Moore, from Government in the Lab, asked me this question: “HOW CAN WE DRIVE CHANGE?“.
(That's a big question, John!)
Interestingly, at the same time, I was having a discussion at Edgeryders with the French experimental philosopher Michel Fillippi. He answered more or less the same thing I told John, but he used different words, he used philosopher’s words.
My answer to John --- an intuition --- was to highlight people (for instance, Edgeryders participants), and have them emerge as leaders.
Michel Fillippi's answer is to have the most numerous leaders emerge, and he explained why.
Here is what Michel Filippi told me, via the following Edgeryders status, http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int/statuses/552):
(My translation) “We should seek for various possibilities, different leaderships. Why? The first reason behind (this method) is because it’s systemic. Every leader is to create a world, a system (as defined in the General Systems Theory). A system grows and becomes more unstable. Any system involves a becoming. Several competing systems allow individuals to engage in various futures and this prevents a system to seek its maximum state, therefore, prevents it to reach a maximum instability. Individuals must be taught not to seek unique solutions, not to aim to a state of perfection. We should also know that all creation, any system design, generates violence because a state of energy is being released, or the convening of power to make it work. Nothing is done in calmness, quietness. Therefore, (efforts should focus on) having the most numerous leaders emerge, while preventing one leader in particular from becoming dominant. (When in a process) of structuring, (it is preferable) to avoid convergence and develop even opposed themes. I think – as I have faith in philosophy -, that the debate on "Which people? Which kills, abilities, and so on?" "How the Real in which humans exist?", "What worlds are better?" What does everybody hate?" "What is a civilization?","What does 'being civilized' mean? ","For what, for whom, for what world are we willing to suffer, to die ", these are classics philosophical questions, but they are worth to be re-asked, and be explored again.“
Michel Fillippi continues:
“Yesterday, I visited an exhibition about Buckminster Fuller. There, I read a sentence in which I recognized myself, and I also recognized in it one of these blockages that you mentioned, Lyne, regarding the model. As the model is not externalized, it is not yet perceived as (being in the process) of building, therefore, the (implementing of) change is difficult. We must come to understand that our opinions, beliefs, desires, and perhaps even wishes that we consider to be the most real - a truth that comes from the core of being, the substance of our bodies, our essence itself -, are only constructions that we have absorbed without criticism, without us knowing it could become otherwise.
As for convergence, is a problem in innovation design. A trend of engineers and administrators is to converge as quickly as possible. It is a cognitive model that has been "swallowed" as truth, and indisputable as a procedure based on algorithms, mathematical. However, (it is better) at all costs, to converge as late as possible. Specifically, a design method such as C-K designed at by The School of Mines of Paris (Hatchuel), fight against convergence by using the mathematical notion of "forcing".”
In a few days, on January 9th, Edgeryders will launch its third campaign 'We the people'. One of the four missions of this campaign will focus on open government and open data. A discussion on leadership models and open government models will certainly be helpful to many of us. You are invited to participate to the Edgeryders new campaign, and in the meantime, you can also give a hand to John F Moore, by continuing the discussion on "How to drive change". http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int/shine-some-light/mission_case/how-can-we-drive-change
Is the wrong kind of data killing the Democratic Party?
Il y a 1 semaine