Unfortunately, this doesn’t take into account much of neuroscience theory about humans. If you look at the natural order of things in terms of say, social structure in gorillas or in the wolf population and other mammals (lions, giraffes etc etc) generally, one sees that there is always a hierarchical structure. There is always a leader, generals, lieutenants and there’s always a group of females that oversee the children, etc. this is basic stuff. It’s how organizations work in order to keep everyone safe that’s how humans have organized as well and will continue to organize. We work against it now politically and Its causing much strife in the workplace but the order is still there. Women predominately run customer service and HR (who are still treated like the children of the organization-the problems ...generally but not always) and men are the CEOs and CFOs . There will always be a need for military because there are bad people who want status and to take over the supplies - money and food now whether or not organizations need to be structured this way to make money or to feed the population is a different story, but there will always be hierarchies and I think that’s one thing this article misses. Humans are basically motivated by status money food sex and addiction. There is no extrinsic motivator. As much as you want there to be. There isn’t. Sorry. Its why capitalism flourishes.
You miss the point. It isn't that hierarchies are going away. It is that the structural hierarchies of centralized institutions of governance and finance are failing. They will be replaced by a hierarchy of networks of relationships.
Interesting. I appreciate the response. So the notion that local is more likely versus larger industrial - I did get that. But the issue is access to capital. We are seeing it now. No access to Liquidity makes it impossible to create the network and grow it and people are too impatient and want profit. So bottom line it will create the larger organization again. Look at every little created business that has been successful. It ultimately becomes larger and gos on public. Ring camera. Black Rifle Coffee. Etc. I hope it happens I do. But the pandemic took out all the little network guys and gals in my city. They couldn’t survive. They can’t weather a storm. Help me understand.
I can’t speak to what happens in your city. What did those networks look like? What was their purpose? I’ve crossed paths with networks that have a very limited reason to exist. They focus on running their businesses, not leading them. Because of this they fail to learn how to see change coming before it hits. During the pandemic a lot of business closed not from lack of money, but from government lockdown orders, forcing small businesses to close. My experience is that lack of capital is a usually an excuse for failure, not a reason. You are also suggesting that the way things have been are the way they will continue to be. I don’t believe that to be true. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, all my consulting clients quit. None of them quit because of a lack of money. They quit because the macro context was unstable. They pulled back on spending to wait things out. They thought the world would return back to normal. It didn’t. Why did they think that? We are facing the same situation today, but much worse. I advise people to create networks to discover perspectives that enable them to learn to adapt to changing circumstances . I wrote a series on this last year - https://edbrenegar.substack.com/p/the-network-of-relationship-series.
Very timely. Conventional organisations are fraying at the edges, and those edges are a very long trek from the centre. What you write here is clear. It’s what we do with it that matters now.
Who is a "local" neighbour, Ed? (I I mag be Jesus asking!) Your highlighted Kenyan Network of Impact includes you, made a "local" neighbour by Skype, plus commitment to cross the distance boundary, relating as though it were not a significant barrier, no? Could you speak a little to this (false?) dichotomy?
I'm defining local as any place where we are directly engaged with people with whom we can collaborate on projects and development that benefits their local communities. By this, I mean that our global networks of relationships can function as a local network. This is opposite to the idea that being globally focused is a way to create impact that makes a difference that matter. Most of those global connections never cross the boundary to being direct relationships of engagement with the work and projects that we do. For example, my friend Tony Wachira, in Nairobi, (The Eddy Network Podcast - https://edbrenegar.substack.com/p/tony-wachira-kenyan-leadership-coach) has involved with me numerous times with his clients. Through my network here in the US, I met Tony whose mother is a good friend of a friend of a good friend of mine. Tony has invited me to do webinars with various groups. Through him I met my publisher, Mumbi. So, I interested in what is happening with Tony, his family and his work because we have mutually benefited one another. Many of my other network relationship go beyond work to situation that are personal and family oriented. In other words, I see local first of all as a relationship, and it is a physical location.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t take into account much of neuroscience theory about humans. If you look at the natural order of things in terms of say, social structure in gorillas or in the wolf population and other mammals (lions, giraffes etc etc) generally, one sees that there is always a hierarchical structure. There is always a leader, generals, lieutenants and there’s always a group of females that oversee the children, etc. this is basic stuff. It’s how organizations work in order to keep everyone safe that’s how humans have organized as well and will continue to organize. We work against it now politically and Its causing much strife in the workplace but the order is still there. Women predominately run customer service and HR (who are still treated like the children of the organization-the problems ...generally but not always) and men are the CEOs and CFOs . There will always be a need for military because there are bad people who want status and to take over the supplies - money and food now whether or not organizations need to be structured this way to make money or to feed the population is a different story, but there will always be hierarchies and I think that’s one thing this article misses. Humans are basically motivated by status money food sex and addiction. There is no extrinsic motivator. As much as you want there to be. There isn’t. Sorry. Its why capitalism flourishes.
You miss the point. It isn't that hierarchies are going away. It is that the structural hierarchies of centralized institutions of governance and finance are failing. They will be replaced by a hierarchy of networks of relationships.
Interesting. I appreciate the response. So the notion that local is more likely versus larger industrial - I did get that. But the issue is access to capital. We are seeing it now. No access to Liquidity makes it impossible to create the network and grow it and people are too impatient and want profit. So bottom line it will create the larger organization again. Look at every little created business that has been successful. It ultimately becomes larger and gos on public. Ring camera. Black Rifle Coffee. Etc. I hope it happens I do. But the pandemic took out all the little network guys and gals in my city. They couldn’t survive. They can’t weather a storm. Help me understand.
I can’t speak to what happens in your city. What did those networks look like? What was their purpose? I’ve crossed paths with networks that have a very limited reason to exist. They focus on running their businesses, not leading them. Because of this they fail to learn how to see change coming before it hits. During the pandemic a lot of business closed not from lack of money, but from government lockdown orders, forcing small businesses to close. My experience is that lack of capital is a usually an excuse for failure, not a reason. You are also suggesting that the way things have been are the way they will continue to be. I don’t believe that to be true. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, all my consulting clients quit. None of them quit because of a lack of money. They quit because the macro context was unstable. They pulled back on spending to wait things out. They thought the world would return back to normal. It didn’t. Why did they think that? We are facing the same situation today, but much worse. I advise people to create networks to discover perspectives that enable them to learn to adapt to changing circumstances . I wrote a series on this last year - https://edbrenegar.substack.com/p/the-network-of-relationship-series.
Very timely. Conventional organisations are fraying at the edges, and those edges are a very long trek from the centre. What you write here is clear. It’s what we do with it that matters now.
It aligns well with your post today. https://open.substack.com/pub/richardmerrick/p/reflections-12th-march?r=b9jmp&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Who is a "local" neighbour, Ed? (I I mag be Jesus asking!) Your highlighted Kenyan Network of Impact includes you, made a "local" neighbour by Skype, plus commitment to cross the distance boundary, relating as though it were not a significant barrier, no? Could you speak a little to this (false?) dichotomy?
(>>> "I imagine Jesus asking...") typo
I'm defining local as any place where we are directly engaged with people with whom we can collaborate on projects and development that benefits their local communities. By this, I mean that our global networks of relationships can function as a local network. This is opposite to the idea that being globally focused is a way to create impact that makes a difference that matter. Most of those global connections never cross the boundary to being direct relationships of engagement with the work and projects that we do. For example, my friend Tony Wachira, in Nairobi, (The Eddy Network Podcast - https://edbrenegar.substack.com/p/tony-wachira-kenyan-leadership-coach) has involved with me numerous times with his clients. Through my network here in the US, I met Tony whose mother is a good friend of a friend of a good friend of mine. Tony has invited me to do webinars with various groups. Through him I met my publisher, Mumbi. So, I interested in what is happening with Tony, his family and his work because we have mutually benefited one another. Many of my other network relationship go beyond work to situation that are personal and family oriented. In other words, I see local first of all as a relationship, and it is a physical location.
Yes. I really appreciate this elucidation. This is what I've believed for a long time and you've articulated it expertly here, Ed. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm honored by your appreciation.