A630.2.4RB_SeabournBeau

I find the thoughts and insights of this weeks video to be thought provoking and at the same time, intriguing. I would suggest a happier medium for viewing the presentation though, the constant graphics were diminishing to my thought process.

Why do you think the talk is titled "21st Century Enlightenment"?

I personally feel as though it is titled "21st Century Enlightenment" because he is trying to present an idea base to us that fits his interpretation of where we should be in this ever changing time we are in. The ideas he presented were more modernized then past thinking and he offered some insights into how we can be more productive as a society moving forward.  

What does Matthew Taylor mean when he says "to live differently, you have to think differently"?

I interpret this to mean that we as a society are and have been living our lives based on ideas and fundamentals that were set long ago. I think he wants us to try and understand that is we want to live a different life, we need to think about how we go about that life in a different way. We need to approach our needs and wants in a different light and we need to go about obtaining happiness in a new way.

At one point in the video, Taylor argues that we need "to resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange". What is he talking about?

I think he means that we need to learn to resist things that are not true to us, that we were taught to know, and look at things in a new light. It sounds like he wants us to be able to gain a new perspective on old ideas or past experiences. How can we change if we cannot challenge what we already know to be true? I think we need to think outside the box as it pertains to things we already know. I think we tend to make things we accept (because we were forced to by society) acceptable to us no matter what. It is like a national pressure to make sure that we follow inline. I think that statement challenges that concept.

Can you think of an example within your company or your life that supports this point?

The first thing that came to mind for me, is the label that air traffic controllers get for being stressed or now "tired'. In the recent past, there has been examples of a few controllers being asleep at work and or exhausted. Nationally, we are known for being in a career field that is "stressful". The issue I have of that is the perception that we are not afforded enough time off for sleep or the assumption that we cannot handle our jobs and thus the "high suicide rate". The media and or public has blown (in my opinion) this data out of proportion. Secondly, there are ways to fix these issues (if we have any) if they needed to be. If people has a better understanding of the work day, pay, and hours, they could better understand our career.

Taylor argues that society should eschew elements of pop culture that degrade people and we should spend more time looking into what develops empathetic citizens. Would this be possible?

 To answer that bluntly, no. If you look at the value today's society has put on the degradation of people, you couldn't argue otherwise. I think of all of the athletes globally that we pay millions and millions and dollars to have on "our" team and then look how we are bias in prosecuting any of them for their wrong doings. I see all of the attention teens who are pregnant at a young age are on tv and how young, wild adults are put on tv every chance they get. I see now, how all of this has got us to where we are today. The public doesn't seem to mind that swearing and using the Lord's name in vein is now allowed on tv or how we have unlimited access to pornographic material online. So is it possible? Nope. I imagine us as a roller coaster. We happen to be on the part where we are gaining the most speed (on the downhill) toward utter destructiveness. 

At the end of the video, Taylor talks about atomizing people from collaborative environments and the destructive effect of their growth. What is the implication of these comments for organizational change efforts?

  

Well I think he means that people, when put into organizational groups, tend to find a common ground for the good of the group. The larger the group gets, the less likely it becomes to meet their needs anymore. I don't feel as though all groups are bad however. I feel as though there are ways in which the purpose and drive of the group will change thus changing their overall mission and potential to solve issues. I personally feel as though it means that an organization needs to monitor the health of any group they form. I look at modern day unions (some not all). I feel as though they were created for the purpose of serving the workers needs. Somehow, that group has moved to more unhealthy needs and demands. That's not always the case but if left un-monitored, who is to say a group can't gain traction and strength?

What can I take away from this exercise and immediately in my career?

I think this video has given me the opportunity to put my thoughts and aspirations under the microscope. Maybe what is driving me to succeed are expectations and wants of others and not my own. i want to be able to think for myself at a management level while trying to keep the organizations needs understood. I want to be able to understand the ethical and moral objectives of the company I work for and make sure that my thoughts and actions go hand in hand with theirs.

Reference

Taylor, M. (2010, August 19). RSA Animate - 21st Century Enlightenment. Retrieved January 23, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=youtu.be

A630.1.4RB_SeabournBeau

The thing that most companies will face in their growth is people that are not willing to put in the effort, time, or energy to see the company succeed. It often times will take the people with a vision and power to motivate those non-believers into getting on board with the future aspirations of that organization. 

My example revolves around my current career field, at a past facility. At some point throughout my first year there, my manager made it clear that our company was changing some of it's policies and that the facility management had the right to initiate those procedures to the best of their abilities and for what they thought would best serve their needs. Basically, they wanted to implement new procedures and see how it worked and they gave our manager some leniency to make it work. This particular implementation was focused around our schedule. The manager there worked 9-5, Monday through Friday while all of the controllers worked a rotating schedule with days off changing and time at work constantly flexing. The manager told us that he didn't see any reason to change anything at our facility, "we were all happy". His perception of the situation was incorrect. To be honest, we hated our schedule and disliked how the manager didn't assist us with our rotation burden. He had no sympathy for us, mostly due to him not ever being in our position.

He gave us the option to find a new schedule that the company would agree to (they initiated this change) and that the manager would agree to. As a group, we actually presented three different, in depth changes that her would be a part of and that we would love to work. Each time we presented them to him, he shot them down and said he didn't want to work them. Instead of working with the team, he worked against us. Not long after, I transferred to the facility I am at now. The remaining (and new) controller actually unionized and fought to have one of those schedules passed. It wasn't until after that happened and the company getting involved, did he actually get on board with the change. To this day (or so I've heard), he still resents everyone there and he is not an easy person to work for or with. It is much like the video we watched this week. Sometimes it takes power and vision to get things done. How can you make that known to people who are not interested in helping the organizations cause?

On a side note, dictionary.com defines pragmatism as a "philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical 

consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value" (dictionary, 2015). I find that that manger focused and stressed to much about the practical consequences of the situation. He could have been more open to the idea initially and not drug out the entire situation for his personal gain. After all of that, he still ended up conceding to the new procedures. Was all of that worth it?

Dictionary.com(2015, January 1). Retrieved January 17, 2015, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pragmatism?s=t

Kohn, S. (2007, November 7). A Tale of Power & Vision. Retrieved January 17, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZVIWZGheXY