Every fortnight I curate some of the observations and insights that were shared on social media. I call these Friday’s Finds.
“Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.” —W.E. Demming via @DaimenHardie
@projectania: “Don’t just think hierarchy. Think networks of influence. Be prepared to switch from predictability and compliance to disruption and goal-driven surges and back again, depending on the need or context.”
The Jobs that AI will Create – MIT Sloan Review
Trainers: “human workers to teach AI systems how they should perform”
Explainers: “bridge the gap between technologists and business leaders”
Q. In your book, you list many examples of neo-generalists: artists, businessmen, athletes, etc. who have refused to adhere to a singular mode of thinking.
A. They are comfortable living with not knowing and with ambiguity. They are self-directed learners, driven by an insatiable appetite to know more and explore new ideas. Just as cultures are not static, neither are our identities. Neo-generalists embrace this state of constant becoming. It is by living in more than one world that they know how to connect people and ideas, and shift perspective. Constantly, they examine and critique how they think, act and live. It is such habits that make shape their legacy and make them natural leaders. —Kenneth Mikkelsen
Bonnitta Roy: I do a workshop on developing trust networks, and it is always a surprise to discover how little we agree on what trust is, and how it operates in our lives. You can try a simple exercise for yourself. Put a dot in the middle of a paper. The dot represents you. Draw a series of concentric circles around the dot. Think of the people you trust most, and put them in the inner circle. You will sense a boundary or threshold where a few people you trust most qualify for this inner trust sanctum, while others feel they belong in the circle further out. When you feel into this notion of a trust network, other people you know from personal or work life will not make it into the inner circles at all. They will belong further out, until the relationships fall into the categories of “casual acquaintance.” You might even have some people black-listed as “not trustworthy at all!”
Now to answer your question. I wouldn’t say that trust is a pre-requisite for self-organization. I would say that we self-organize our trust network, through continuous participation in complex processes of human relating. Trust is the felt-sense of the pattern that emerges—the implicit pattern of with whom we extend a great deal of trust, and with whom we reserve our trust, to various degrees.
Now imagine an organization as overlapping fields of the trust networks emanating out from all the participants. Certain individuals occupy highly significant nodes of this trust network, and as such, are crucial accelerators of trust across the network. If you really want to visualize how your organization works, you would start identifying all these trust networks.
Emmanuelle Barbara: « Le droit du travail ne peut plus être fondé sur le lien de subordination »
Aujourd’hui, le contrat de travail est défini comme une activité professionnelle exercée dans un lien de subordination en contrepartie d’une rémunération. Dans le contrat de travail redéfini, on garderait deux de ces trois caractéristiques (l’activité professionnelle, en contrepartie de rémunération) et on substituerait au lien de subordination un lien de coopération. Ce lien de coopération se définirait comme une obligation imposée à l’employeur de fournir au salarié une expérience “apprenante” susceptible d’être valorisée par la suite. L’acquisition de compétences et d’expériences se place alors au cœur du contrat de travail.