Analogue leadership in a digital world

A European Brave Conversation

A European Brave Conversation

Last week we held our 21st Brave Conversations event at Atelier 29 in Brussels and the first in partnership with the Digital Enlightenment Forum (DEF).

We began on a wet, cold Brussels morning but garnered a group of intelligent, engaged and curious individuals keen to converse with other humans in the room about our digital lives in 21st Century.

Since our last events in 2022 much seems to have shifted within the digital landscape, particularly with the release “in the wild” of ChatGPT and other generative AI and large language models.  It took ChatGPT just five days to gain 1 million users following its release in November 2022 and before long thousands of very noted people had signed the Future of Life Institute Open Letter to Pause Giant AI Experiments.

By the time we got to Brussels even the Smart Humans who had invented the tools themselves (such as people like scientist Geoffrey Hinton) were worried and struggling to keep up and the major tech companies were scrambling to maintain some sort of competitive edge by rushing to integrate the tools in to their mainstream offerings (for example Microsoft’s launch of Co-Pilot).

So what is this all about?  For anyone who has been watching the tech space the events of the past few months were entirely predictable, as was the human excitement / panic / reaction / confusion that followed.  We’ve been here before, although not necessarily with a suite of technologies with the impact to profoundly change human society as these ones.  Ever since the invention of writing people have warned about it’s dire consequences – Socrates of writing; Gessner of the printing press; Carr of Social Media.

In all the hype swirling around at the minute, and particularly that driven by the major tech companies, we need to remember that the success of humanity as a dominant species comes from our ability to to co-operate with each other, to transmit and build on the knowledge of our forebears, and to develop and utilise tools that have become increasingly sophisticated.

Human beings have a unique ability to cooperate in large, well-organized groups and employ a complex morality that relies on reputation and punishment.  (Fraans de Waal

The tools we are currently developing are merely the latest in a very long line which have helped us survive and thrive, and these tools too will become necessary in order to help us meet the challenges we currently face.

But as Roy Amara states

Technology is neither good nor bad, but nor is it neutral.

So what did all these mean for the conversations we had in Brussels on 12th May?

After the years of Covid one of the things we feel is most important with Brave Conversations is to get the humans in the room, and a number of people made a big effort to get to Brussels to be with us in person. This meant that there were human-to-human interactions, unmediated by any technology, and the ability for each person to explore their ideas within the physical confines of a human space.

We had a blend of participants which included the Board of the Digital Enlightenment Forum, academics, some people working in policy with the European Union, Students, and a couple of creatives.  A fabulous blend of minds and perspectives to craft interesting insights and a nuanced approach to how everyone was feeling about the current technology onslaught.  Some of the comments below give a flavour of the conversation but perhaps the most important was when one participant told me that she came along because she can’t find anywhere else to have these conversations in a safe space without judgement or a predetermined agenda.

This is what we seek to create in Brave Conversations and which our partnership with the Digital Enlightenment Forum promised to bring.

I would like to thank as always Leanne Fry for her continuing partnership, it was wonderful to work with Thanassis Tiropanis yet again and thanks to him for helping facilitate.  To the Board of DEF thank you for your support of the event and to the inimitable Myriam de Greef an enormous thanks because without Myriam no conversations would have been had!

 

The Age of the Smart Social Machine

The Age of the Smart Social Machine

Title adapted from Shoshana Zuboff’s ground-breaking 1988 book

Last week I attended a Group Relations Conference in India.  These events are always intense (this one even more so!) but they provide a unique opportunity to consider oneself with a human social system.

One of the things that occurred to me as we were exploring the role of the unconscious as it was playing out in the here and now (all psychobabble terms but in fact hugely important) was that there are multiple unconsciouses which operate as we live our dual analogue-digital lives. Carl Jung described what he called the collective unconscious which complements and influences all of our conscious thinking and actions as we participate within the human system.  I believe that there is now in addition a digital unconscious which is emerging in the digital realm as the result of our digital interactions within the Social Machine and an even more powerful machine unconscious which is evolving in the artificial intelligences we are building.  I drew the image below to try to illustrate my conjecture to the group – needless to say most didn’t understand.

In What Technology Wants co-founder of Wired Magazine and co-Chair of the Long Now Foundation Kevin Kelly talks about The Technium:  A Living System of Technology which encompasses the entire system around technology – culture, art, social institutions, through to “the extended human”.  In his latest blog post Kelly states that

For a while I’ve been intensely exploring generative AI systems, creating both text and visual images almost daily, and I am increasingly struck by their similarity to dreams. The AIs seem to produce dream images and dream stories and dream answers. The technical term is “hallucinations” but I think they are close to dreams. I’ve come to suspect that this similarity between dreams and generative AI is not superficial, poetic, or coincidental. My unexpected hunch is that we’ll discover that the mechanism that generates dreams in our own heads will be the same (or very similar) to the ones that current neural net AI’s use to generate text and images.

 

The foundational mode of the intelligence is therefore dreaming.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not necessarily agreeing with Kevin Kelly here nor am I buying in to the hype about machines hallucinating.  What I am pointing out is that the machines are analyzing human data using human crafted algorithms and therefore there is something of our unconscious that is embedded in their emanations which is now being made explicit and visible.  We can only refer to concepts and ideas in human terms (hence we anthroporphosize) and to describe what the machines are doing is almost like taking us in to our own unconscious (this is where the concept of Azimov’s Psychohistory comes in to play).

One way of accessing the collective human unconscious is through Social Dreaming, the practice of sharing, associating to and working with dreams in a matrix in order to identify social trends and social dynamics. As our machines are coming together and bringing our data with them it may well be that what we are seeing is a manifestation of the collective human unconscious expressed through the output of the machines – which may seem like hallucinations – but how can we know given the opaque nature of how they operate?  And, if they have begun to go down that path then they are already moving beyond our realm of understanding.

The real challenge will come when they become able to acknowledge and recognise this unconscious as something different from a probabalistic algorithm, or are embodied, as the work of people like Rodney Brooks and so much of our Science Fiction (Humans, Blade Runner, Ex Machina) has shown us,

So what does this mean for us as humans?

Up until the recent advances brought about by the large language models such as ChatGPT talking with the average person about the advancing machine intelligence was like describing an elephant.  Every person sees things that directly relate only to them just like the story of the Blind Man and the Elephant.

This relates as much to technologists as to everyone else as I’ve witnessed countless times. The most obvious to me was when

I heard a very notable “father” of the digital world speak at a conference and when asked what he would recommend about how to address the rise of pornography on the Web he responded  “well just don’t look at it!” 

Many of the people I’ve met who have built the machinery of the digital world are extremely naïve, building the tools because they can, not asking whether they should. When Geoffrey Hinton resigned from Google last week he commented

I console myself with the normal excuse: If I hadn’t done it, somebody else would have,

As with all kids in the candy shop scenarios if you give a scientist a problem and lots of funding they will develop new tools and techniques regardless of the potential consequences. Hinton and others like him saw only part of the Elephant without considering it as a whole animal let alone part of a herd.

Which brings in the question of ethics.  Whilst some of the big companies have created Ethics Advisory Boards the reality is that much of the development work in the field of AI is now happening in the open source space where there is no supervision or oversight.  These people still want to move fast and break things and the very nature of Ethics is designed to slow things down by asking difficult and challenging questions.

Governments and regulation are also designed to slow things down because politics and policy operates on human time which is analogue, messy and the very opposite of an efficient machine.  Humans need time to process, and our relationships are based on what people like Anna Machin and Rachel Botsman call Trust Friction – the stickiness and the glue that underpins how human systems operate.

The whole point of human relationships is that they are not efficient, because they take time and brain power to develop and maintain. Trust needs friction.  (Anna Machin)

Human systems are analogue and analogue takes time.  In the analogue world:

  • You can’t fire off a letter you need to write and post it
  • you can do an online transfer you need to go to the bank
  • you can’t immediately alter a design you need to redraw it
  • you can’t just be friends with everyone you need to build trust through shared experiences which takes time.

Machines don’t want friction – it slows them down, makes things break and ruins their power to work ratio – i.e. “productivity”.  The ultimate idea of this is the Paperclip Problem where smart machines instructed to make paper clips will consume all the resources in the universe (including us) to just make paper-clips.

With the advent of ChatGPT and it’s brethren the removal of friction within our human-machine interactions has now gone to the next level and smart AI is now being embedded in to pretty much all of our digital processes – just think of how many conversations your have and hear which involved technology of some sort.

So now I’d like to bring in a new analogy, the frog in the pot of soup as the temperature is gradually turned up.

Our human need to process and understand means that we as humanity have been sitting in the digital soup for at least half a century but in the first half of 2023 suddenly it is feeling a little uncomfortably warm.

As the soup heats up there are some who are going to want to jump out of the soup – there are some who going to boil and there are those who will adapt.

The questions now seem to me to be who each of these will be and what will happen in each case.

Let’s consider some options:

Firstly, those who want to leave.  It may be too late but, as with the Luddites in the Industrial Revolution, there is much wisdom in what they have to say and perhaps an alternate reality has much to offer as it always has throughout the ages.  There is something of this in Hari Seldon’s concept of building a Foundation on the furthest planet in order to separate itself from the chaos of the main system – an opportunity to isolate, slow down, reboot and recreate.

Secondly, those who are trapped. Sadly there is always a high cost to any radical change and many will find the “new world” frightening and overwhelming. Just one example is the rate of teenage girl suicide already.  Along with many others I have spent the past three decades of my life working to understand the transition that is upon us and help people prepare for the change with minimal effect.  Some have heeded the lessons, most have sat and enjoyed the warmer water oblivious to the dangers. I’m not sure anything can help these people any more as I think the rate of change is going to be too fast.

I think both of these groups will struggle and push back through both fear and anger and the manifestation of this could be dangerous.

Finally, there will be those who adapt, survive and thrive.

With all the noise about the technology and how fast it’s progressing or whether it should be paused or stopped the real point is what are the humans going to do about it?  Therefore it is the third group I am most interested in and I believe that it is being led by the younger generation but needs to be supported and mentored by the 21st Elders who have memories of the analogue world and the value of its friction and temporal nature.

Some fear the AI Apocalypse and that non-Western (WEIRD) cultures may gain a technological advantage.  This is problematic on so many levels particularly given that it is the minority-population WEIRD West that has created the culture of growth and the technologies themselves.  Some alternative thinking might be precisely what is needed now and some less privileged cultures may, in fact, be better prepared for what is to come.

The history of automation is that we humans have invented machines to take away the dirty, dangerous and dull jobs … now we are taking away a whole host of others.  These technologies can be used to solve the very challenging problems which confront us in the 21st Century and the sooner we learn to work constructively and creatively with the machines the sooner we will harness the power that is before us for good.

The more I feel people heading in one direction as a herd the more I want to go the other way and explore what is happening there – this is where the adaptive survivors will be.

 

Keep the Humans on the Track!

Keep the Humans on the Track!

I took this photo in Tanzania in 2019 as the vehicles descended on a group of lions.

This morning I read this article which described the aggressive tourism that is increasingly occurring around the world and its impact on wildlife and the environment.

What really resonated was the feeling I’ve had over the last week as I’ve wandered around the walking tracks of the Three Capes in South Eastern Tasmania, expensively curated with kilometers of duck-boarding, hand rails, safety signs and idyllic viewpoints of the need to keep the humans out of the wild and on the tracks.

I last bushwalked in Tasmania forty years ago, in the days where tracks were tracks, huts were huts and the Franklin Dam Blockade was in full swing around Australia as a whole.  I trekked around Tassie with friends, one of whom knew most of the Greenies manning the blockade and who hailed her as we approached on our tourist boat on the river.  As a contrast our other friends were those who were working as engineers in the mines and sternly warned us to be very careful about everything we said, particularly when drinking in the Queenstown pub!  And we had to take the No Dams stickers off our backpacks.

Memories of those days of the freedom to travel and the freedom to protest were brought back when I watched Franklin the movie which I thought gave an excellent overview of the key political issues of the time which saw the birth of the Green movement in Australia and clearly portrayed both the history and how the various players in the game behaved.  The Franklin River was saved, a national consciousness about environmentalism was awoken and Tasmania’s place as a wilderness destination was cemented in our consciousness.

The uniqueness of Tasmania is not just in its natural environment but also in it’s creative scene, the most obvious of which is the Museum of Old and New Art, MONA, where, since 2011, gambling millionaire David Walsh has created his dream museum of quite literally whatever he wants.  I first visited MONA shortly after it opened and this time, a decade on, as I wandered around I had a very strong feeling that I was in something akin to West World, and that every step I took, every swipe i made on the MONA App I made, and every cursive glance I took at a piece of ‘art’ would be captured and analysed by Walsh and his curators to tweak my behaviour and that of others as co-exhibits in the museum. It was a delicious – if slightly unsettling – paradox of who / what was observing who / what for whose enjoyment?

This feeling mirrored the one I had walking along the duck-boarding of the Three Capes despite the fact that at MONA I was in a man-made museum.

I spoke to some friends in Tassie about these experiences realising that this is happening everywhere around the world.  The reality is that in the age of the Anthropocene it is we homo sapiens that have become parasitic in our behaviours greedily consuming not only things but experiences as we seek to entertain ourselves and reconnect somehow with the natural environment.  Therefor, in order to protect that natural environment, which often includes the lands of first nations’ peoples who lived in balance with it for millennia, it is imperative that modern humans be herded, guided and quarantined, allowed to ‘look but don’t touch, but always at a safe distance.  I felt this very keenly as I wandered along the duck-boarding, read all the warning signs and was gently chastened by our guides as I stepped too close to the edge of the cliff.  I felt a long way from Rousseau’s State of Nature regardless of how free I think I am.

Saving me from myself and saving nature from me.

As a corollary to this is the state we’re all in at the moment, certainly in Western societies, where the serendipity seems to be disappearing in our lives.  No longer is it as easy to just rock up to a restaurant and have a meal, or decide to visit a museum or go on an adventure.  Just like the curated wilderness we now need to download the app, pre-book our tables and guarantee with a credit card, and pre-state our food allergies or preferences.  Again we are being herded and shepherded in to a predetermined experience where some of the surprise and adventure is actually removed in order to give us something that we can trust, that we can know we’re being taken care of and can participate safely from a distance.

My 21 year old self would not quite know what to think about all of this (let alone my parents and grandparents!), but it is all predictable and people have been describing this emerging world for a long time … the Club of Rome, The Matrix and E. M. Foster’s The Machine Stops.  We humans are very good at denying the need to change, but also incredibly successful at adapting to it and the next few decades are going to present our species with a greater rate of change than anything in our recorded history.  We will see more pandemics, more extreme weather events, more forced migration, more inequality, more autocrats, different conflicts, and more technological change than our intellectual systems will able to cope with.  We will see more stress, more anxiety and more apathy, combined with many feeling a sense of loss and enormous amounts of grieving.

But we will also seen unprecedented opportunities to truly change the way humanity lives on the planet (hopefully to benefit not just us but other species we share it with) and a profound redefinition of what humanity actually is.

As we at Intersticia begin our second decade there is much to ponder about who we are, what we do, and how we can constructively contribute to the skills and capabilities of 21st Century Stewardship for the sake of those we serve not for ourselves.  We need to ensure that we can stay above the maelstrom and not fall in to the trap of the Red Queen Effect but work to more fully understand the systemic changes from the perspective of the interstice where everything is possible and there is no benefit of falling in to the default of good / bad; right / wrong but realise the advantage of seeing things holistically and systemically and understanding humans as part of the broader Gaia system rather than a parasitic virus that needs to be taken out of it.

2023 is going to be a very interesting year.

(Illustration by Sir John Tenniel from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass, 1871)

Brave Conversations Sharjah 2022

Brave Conversations Sharjah 2022

In November 2021 we finally realised our Future Worlds Challenge with the assistance of the MIT App Inventor Research team and a group of wonderful young people from around the globe.

In September 2022 we had the opportunity to further develop this thanks to the invitation of the Government of Sharjah to integrate both Future Worlds Challenge and Brave Conversations in to the 2022 International Government Communications Forum.  The opportunity was created by Ibrahim El Badawi who has been supporting Leanne Fry and me with Brave Conversations since our first event in 2017 and has helped craft and present numerous Brave Conversations events for an Arabic speaking audience over the past few years.

From the outset both Leanne and I realised that Sharjah was going to be something a bit different.  The events were to be integrated into a major conference within a completely different cultural context and, to be honest, we had no idea who was going to turn up or when!  Uppermost in our minds was the need to be mindful of cultural values and English proficiency, let alone a familiarity with technology beyond just retail use.  And, we had to keep our energy up for four full days with the two events overlapping on the third day.  As a bonus we were thrilled that Professor Dame Wendy Hall agreed to join us in Sharjah to help us anchor our events within the broader context of the conference and also to link it to the very important work that she is doing around digital governance and Artificial Intelligence.

From the moment we arrived in to a very hot and humid Dubai we were greeted with superb Emiratee hospitality thanks to Ohood Al Aboodi and her team of the IGCC.  In addition we had our own private tour guide with Ibrahim driving us around in his red Mustang.  This gave us some valuable insights in to the Emirate particularly with a visit to University City and the very impressive House of Wisdom, one of the most beautiful learning centres in the world.  To give some context Sharjah is the third largest city in the UAE and capital of the Emirate of Sharjah.  It seeks to position itself as the centre for Islamic culture and knowledge within the UAE and the IGCC Forum is an event which focuses on government communication as central to this.

What became clear to us was that the IGCC Forum provided a perfect opportunity to explore some of the themes of Brave Conversations within this Arabic cultural context and specifically to engage with young people through Future Worlds Challenge.  In this we were ably supported by some delightful young Emirate interpreters and facilitatators, but most of al the MIT App Inventor team of Claire Tan, Maura Kelleher and Nghi Nguyen who quite literally worked their tails off with us reorganising the programme and having to innovate on the fly when it came to teaching the code.

We arrived to the venue on Monday 26th September for Day One not really knowing what to expect.  Gradually the room filled and over the four days we were joined by students from the local university, groups of school children aged between 15 to 17, a contingent from the UAE Military, and a number of Directors of Government Communications from the Government of Sharjah.  Apart from the fact that we were never quite sure when people would arrive or how many of them there would be, everyone was fully engaged and enthusiastically threw themselves in to both the coding tasks, the Challenge and the conversations.

Both Brave Conversations and Future Worlds Challenge are designed to get participants to use their imagination and creative thinking and one way we seek to stimulate this is to highlight the importance of Science Fiction.  When the Chinese wanted to find out why the West was so far ahead with their development of technology they discovered it was that the West has a deep history of Science Fiction.  When we posed this question to our Arabic audience it was curious that there was so little Arabic work of this genre despite some encouraging early shoots (Larissa Sanour’s work in particular).  This is one thing we encouraged our young audience to explore more particularly as it opens the mind to possibilities, the core of which is at the heart of Future Worlds Challenge.

The Challenge built on the work we had done in 2021 and asked one simple question – How do you build a Future World ten years hence (i.e. 2032) that you would actually want to live in that can sustain human life on this planet?

There are three aspects to the world that you propose based on:

  1. How do we think?  What do we need to change about our values and expectations?
  2. How do we live?  How do we live sustainably within the planetary ecosystem?
  3. What technologies can support this?  Technology needs to serve not lead.

We divided the participants into seven groups of mixed ages and genders and each one chose to focus on one aspect of designing a better Future World. Each was given time to work on their presentations and then give a five minute presentation with five minutes of questions.

How did we judge these Future Worlds?  We asked three judges – volunteers Prashathi Reddy and our facilitator Hussein plus Claire Tan, to consider the worlds based on these criteria:

  • Does your world make sense?
  • Is it realistic?
  • How would Conversational AI support your World?
  • Do you believe in it?

Following on from this first round three ‘winners’ were chosen who then presented to the IGCC Judges Panel at the end of the day and this lead to a final ‘winning team’ announced at the Closing Ceremony Dinner of the Forum.

The teams were:

  1. Ahlam – Your Sleeping Matters
  2. Bioare – Sustainability for Life
  3. Fast Move – Accessibility for Blind People
  4. FWPW – Future Without Plastic Waste
  5. HRPI – Healthcare, Renewable, Printing and Inequality
  6. MOCAP – Project Charity Becomes Human
  7. Sooma – Zakat Calculator

To be honest there was no winning team.

Despite the nerves and hours of waiting around each and every person who was with us worked hard, contributed ideas and energy and helped make the event a success, and it is a huge complement to them that we were able to push the boundaries of Future Worlds Challenge and develop the programme into something that is now fully formed and a complement to Brave Conversations, which at Sharjah, was merely the supporting act!

The most precious thing for us was in being able to give these young people insights in to the dual analogue-digital worlds that are emerging and in this we were truly blessed to have the inimitable Dame Wendy Hall.  Wendy, as always, gave selflessly to our groups and they gained insights from her more intimate session with us that she then further expanded in the main conference.

There is so much talk at the minute about the Metaverse and Wendy explored some of the challenges of these metaverses (which is much more correct).  She very cleverly explained the issues of privacy by focusing on digital clothes shopping and what we will be exposing as we shop online. Wendy always has this gift for bringing crucial messages home – within a largely male audience it was the women who were the most wide-eyed and concerned.

This was really brought home during our final session of Brave Conversations when I looked at one of the main stands in the exhibition hall where one company was encouraging people to ‘get scanned and create your digital twin’.  How much did people think about this before they eagerly participated and what questions should they have been asking?

As is happening in so many aspects of our lives we have absolutely no protection from companies such as this who are encouraging us to give our data with no respect for privacy or accountability back to us.  This is exactly the same as companies such as Ancestry.com taking peoples’ DNA which strikes me as not just fraudulent but downright exploitative.

As Mark Zuckerberg is finding out there is a risk to rushing in to these new frontiers and gradually governments are beginning to wake up to their naivety of the past two decades and finally grapple with these issues.  Too slowly of course, but they are beginning.  This is the message that I would have like to see at Sharjah and hopefully some of the attendees listened.

As all societies keenly embrace the world of digital and see it is as the key to the future it is events such as these where we can bring savvy young people together with the not so savvy elders to really question the future world that are crucial to having some semblance of control and we are hugely grateful to the Government of Sharjah for providing one such opportunity.

Our thanks to Ibrahim El Badawi for creating this opportunity, and especially to Ohood Al Aboodi for all the hard work she did in getting us to Sharjah and making us feel so welcome.

Media:

 

Approaching a Human Event Horizon

Approaching a Human Event Horizon

Peace is not unity in similarity but unity in diversity, in the comparison and conciliation of differences.  (Mikhail Gorbachev)

Today the last leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, died.

When I lived in London in the 1980s it was Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher who were reshaping the Western World and the European continent.  Today it is Gorbachev’s successor Vladimir Putin who, through waging the first European conflict since WWII between Ukraine and Russia, is seeking to return to the glory days of Empire whilst dividing Europe as a continent once more.

In the 1990s I recall my nephew asking me why all the baddies in spy movies were Russian – he couldn’t understand this East-West dynamic.  The world did seem to be a safer, calmer, saner and more united place until 9/11 in 2001.

As I watched the early days of the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war unfold I kept on thinking about human history and how we seem to take two steps forward, then one step back.  As Stephen Pinker argues the world (for humans) does seem to be getting better.  There are more of us; fewer of us (percentage wise) live in poverty; more of us are educated; we are living longer better lives, and we have a command of technological solutions to do things that our ancestors would only dream of in the realm of magicians.

Of course the planet and other species might disagree, but perhaps we are being too quick to judge.

I watched a critique of the Russian versus US Army recruiting advertisements with the commentator ridiculing the US use of a young, female, gay graduate from (see this and this).  We also know that Putin felt that the time was right to strike due to the perceived weakness of the West as it became increasingly focused on issues such as gay-rights and transgender identity.

Time has revealed several things:

  1. You don’t need to be a butch, buff Rambo to successful operate a high tech weapon and be a very effective fighter
  2. Putin underestimated the West in it’s use of smart technologies, social media and propaganda tools, and it’s determination to stand up for its values
  3. History does rhyme and move in cycles, but it does not repeat.

The more I have been thinking about this the more it strikes me that, just like Spiral Dynamics, humans may be evolving beyond the historical stereotypes and constraints that have so long dominated our thinking.  We have always had strong men driven by greed, power and their own sense of personal destiny.  We have always had armies and mercenaries prepared to fight for whomever pays the highest price.  We have always had familial, tribal, and then nationalistic identities which have filtered any sense of empathetic thinking in terms of ‘others’.

If we study our history we have also had Empires and Societies which have failed through their own self-focus – think of the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.  If we look through the prism of artistic expression we see societies go through stages of development from early formation (archaic) to consolidation (classical) to a period of decline (Hellenistic).  Whilst this may be very simplistic perhaps it also offers something to interrogate when it comes to looking historically at why societies collapsed and then thinking about what is happening with the West now.

The stock standard reasons that historians and economists give for Societal Collapse focus on economic decline, rise of competition, resource depletion, inequality, political corruption (see Andrews and Diamond as well as this list).  But, perhaps there is something else going on at the minute that is beyond the bounds of human history, something that is over the event horizon that we are just beginning to intuit.

Perhaps what we are seeing is not a sign of weakness.  Perhaps, in fact it is a sign of true strength and a major evolution in our thinking.

An event horizon is a boundary beyond which an observer cannot see or comprehend.

If I go back to the rant I watched about military recruitment the thought that continually kept occurring to me is that in times of stress and conflict it our base behaviours linked to our limbic and reptilian brains flooded with testosterone which drives us to pick up a gun and shoot someone or something.  This has been our default and is evident in our entertainment (think gladiators to Marvel movies) and our definition of ‘heroes’.

However, the real heroes are those who don’t hit out, do not give in to those impulses, but who stop and allow our higher brains to determine our actions.  This, for me, is the real power of turning the other cheek.

Instead of lashing out at and condemning that which we don’t understand the real challenge is to comprehend what it must be like to have been born in a body that feels alien and disconnected, to live a life which feels like a lie, to be physically or intellectually misaligned with many of the demands of everyday life, and to feel either trapped or disempowered by the society within which we live.

Many people feel like this all their lives but in the 21st Century our Western societies, driven by the Christian values upon which our societies are built I believe that we in the West are slowly taking on the challenges that are inherent within the diverse nature of humanity and seeking to embrace the fringes of our selves.

Perhaps this is what has happened throughout history and previous societies may have also got to this point but were unable to advance their thinking and being precisely because the invading hordes were at the gate and they had to divert their mental attention away from this really complex thinking towards the base requirements of survival.  Perhaps now, after one of the longest periods of historical peace, and unprecedented technological development, we have enough momentum to finally be able to release the shackles of our past and move towards building a world for all of the human family.

Understanding the collapse of societies and Empires is a complex issue and no one really has the definitive answer.  But perhaps instead of collapse there is a human drive towards something beyond anything we can truly comprehend and understand.  Smart technologies are undermining the advantages of physical strength within human competition.  We are working to defeat ageing and decay; we are working to unravel the mystery of the creation of life and begin to think about a human existence beyond sex and gender.  So perhaps also we are beginning to be able to imagine a world beyond that which human history has bequeathed us.  If we don’t then the emerging intelligences we are creating certainly will, although underpinned by the values we build in to them.

I believe, unlike Putin, that the West is not descending in to decadence, decay and depravity but is, in fact, slowly evolving to become both more empathetic towards those who don’t fit within the “norm” (whatever that is) and to appreciate that all humans have something to contribute towards the world we are all building.  This is the real work of building human societies and takes both bravery and courage.

It is a slow and fragile process which may be derailed at any minute.  Whilst things are improving we can often feel distressed that the speed is too slow, that there are too many forces working against us, and that we are powerless to effect any change.

The Ukraine War is just one example of this.  Putin expected the war to be over quickly due to his underestimation of the 21st human values inherent in Ukraine and the West but collectively people have risen up to defend their rights to live freely and at peace.  Putin may succeed in his goals and he is playing the long game but so is everyone else.

My instinct is telling me that we as 21st Century humans are in a place that humanity has never been before.  For better or worse we are more globally connected; we have split second information and news cycles; we have an unprecedented insight and understanding of the physical, chemical and biological worlds; and, ever since we sent humans in to space, we have a view of ourselves living on one planet which we can now actually see.  We are also beginning to think beyond the binary nature of male/female; us/them and see things holistically … but only just beginning.

As Carl Sagan demonstrates in Pale Blue Dot 

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.  (Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space)

For Intersticia and the work we do to help develop 21st Century Stewards I can think of no better guideline nor philosophy.

Regardless of how we approach this horizon or what we find when get there the preciousness of humanity is what phil-anthropos is all about and drives how we serve those within our community and from there the human family itself.

Of course we may not get there this time. We may self-destruct and go backwards as many previous societies have done due to our own fears and self-destructive instincts.  But eventually I believe that we will.

 

Dynamics @ Board Level 2020

Dynamics @ Board Level 2020

The Covid Corridor has provided me with the opportunity to take stock, slow down and focus on some key learning areas that I believe are critical to help inform what the post-Covid world might look like.  I will write about this in a later post, but one of the more formal educational programmes I did in 2020 was the Tavistock Institute Dynamics @ Board Level Certificate.

What follows is the assignment I submitted to complete this course.

Introduction

We are responsible because we can respond to challenges to our reasons.  We act for reasons that we consciously represent to ourselves.  And this is what gives us the power and the obligation to think ahead, to anticipate, to see the consequences of our action.  It is because we can share our wisdom that we have a special responsibility (Daniel Dennett 2021).

We are essentially marching naked into this digital century without the Charters or Rights, the legal frameworks, the regulatory paradigms, the institutional forms and the kind of leadership that we need to make the digital future compatible with democracy.  (Shoshana Zuboff 2021)

On 11th March, 2020 Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organisation, declared Covid-19 a Pandemic.

Over the past 12 months not only has this Pandemic touched every continent and nation but it has ushered in a step change in the way that humans individually and collectively have adopted, utilised and integrated digital information technologies into their everyday lives.

As we entered this interstice I determined that one of the most useful and productive things that I could do was to experience as many online Group Relations events as possible in order to learn from the breadth of experiences of how people were beginning to embrace a 21st Century digitally mediated existence.

This existence, which from the outset reminded me of E. M. Foster’s The Machine Stops (Foster 1909), began decades, if not centuries, ago.

A revolution doesn’t happen when a society adopts new tools, it happens when a society adopts new behaviours. (Shirky 2008)

The new behaviours we learn as we interact and engage with each other as groups, teams and systems mediated through digital communication technologies will both shape and inform how humanity embraces and faces the challenges of the 21st Century and the post-Covid world.

This paper seeks to consider my experience as a member of the Tavistock Institute’s 2020 Board Dynamics cohort, the first to be held fully online, and operating between continents, time-zones, cultures and mindsets during the most intense period of the Covid 19 Pandemic.  As for us all this was just one group within the greater global system and, as such, the value is in extrapolating the learnings from this experience to more fully examine it and how it informed other interactions and engagements.

The Shift to Digital

When I first applied to participate in the Board Dynamics course the expectation was that it would be conducted as a hybrid with the first two modules held online, and the second two face to face.  Those who more fully understand the nature of Pandemics would have realised from the outset the naïveté of such an expectation, but around the world the hope for a return to ‘some sort of normality’ by the Northern Hemisphere Summer was an important coping mechanism.

My interest in the course stemmed from both a curiosity about the direct application of Group Relations processes and academic research to the functioning of Boards as mechanisms of Governance, together with a desire to explore how this would operate in an online medium.

The Affordances of Digital Technologies

We have become digital on the last few years as well as physical beings. There is nothing in physical experience that can fully equip us with what that really means (Doc Seals).

Life online is very different to life IRL (in real life).  I have spent the past thirty years exploring this difference seeking to more fully understand how we humans interact with each other, and how the technologies interact with us.  The core of my work may be termed Web Science – the Theory and Practice of Social Machines (SOCIAM), which is an interdisciplinary approach to understanding how we are changing the Web, and the Web is changing us.

The World Wide Web was invented by physics researcher Tim Berners-Lee (see CERN) to try to solve the problem of information sharing between scientists, universities and institutes around the World.  It was envisaged as an academic project, but, as so often happens,

we tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run (Roy Amara).

All technologies and artefacts have what are called affordances, a word originally invented by psychologist J. J. Gibson to describe the actionable properties between the world and an actor (Gibson 1977).  Donald J. Norman (Norman 1988, Norman 2018) expands upon this to state that affordances

  • provide strong clues to the operations of things
  • signal the perceived and actual properties of the thing
  • are properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used
  • when affordances are taken advantage of, the user knows what to do just by looking: no picture, label, or instruction needed

I first became aware of the importance of affordances as they relate to digital media when I read the work of Shoshana Zuboff (Zuboff 1988, Zuboff and Maxmin 2001).  At the time I was working in the graphic arts, the first major industries to be disrupted by digitisation and digitalisation due to the development of desktop publishing and digital printing, undertaking research into the emerging Web and its impact on the workplace.

Zuboff’s work in this space is seminal and the table below clearly articulates some of the different characteristics of information in physical (analogue) and virtual (digital) form.

Table 1 – The Characteristics of Digital Technologies (adapted from Zuboff and Maxmin, 2002)

The more people started using the Web the more it developed an ecosystem of its own driven by the twin aspects of (1) negligible transaction costs (Coase 1937, Malone et al 1987) which enabled the freemium model of electronic commerce (see Zuboff 2019) and (2) the network effect (Castells 2000).  By December 2019 just on 50% of the global population were connected to the Internet;  by December 2020, largely due to the Covid Pandemic, this had increased to 62.4%.

I have heard it said that giving people an internet connection is like giving them a car to drive, without any instructions on the road rules or basic mechanics.  That is pretty much the situation we currently face in terms of people’s understanding of the digital landscape largely due to the rapid digitisation of information and digitalisation of business processes and organisational systems and the paucity of digital literacy and digital fluency.

Digital literacy describes being how to use digital tools; Digital Fluency describes being able to understand why they should be used (Hopkins 2019).

We have evolved to operate in the physical / analogue environment and our senses enable us to interpret and function there and we have developed these through trusting these senses and the data we receive through them.

When it comes to the virtual / digital worlds we are only just beginning but as we increasingly interact online we are venturing into new environments where we cannot necessarily predict or trust the outcomes.

Figure 1:  Rowland-Campbell – Literacy Model of Information Technologies

Technology, Transparency and Trust

When trust was not in the room, good things did not happen. Everything else is details.  (US Secretary of State George Shultz quoted in Bhalla et al, 2021)

Trust is essential to human relationships and at the core these are usually messy, inefficient and take time and brain power to develop and maintain (Machin 2019).  Maintaining key relationships is at the core of our learning (Fonagy 2015) and a key element of this is what Rachel Botsman calls trust friction.

Here emerges one of the most important digital affordances.  The designs built into most of our digital technologies, driven by the values and imperatives of the designers, are to remove friction, to make our lives easier and to more seamlessly integrate these technologies calmly into our lives (Weiser 1986 – 1989).  One of the reasons why digital devices have become so ubiquitous is precisely due to this affordance built into the user-interface design.

Many young people don’t realise that everything you see on the computer screen is a construct that was invented by someone.  (Ted Nelson)

This is a perfect example of Schein’s model of organisational culture (Schein 1994) where the values and assumptions of the technologists manifest in the artifacts.

Figure 2:  Schein’s model of Organisational Culture, (Schein 1992)

Through the Looking Glass

“Well, now that we have seen each other,” said the unicorn, “if you’ll believe in me, I’ll believe in you.”

The Knight looked surprised at the question. ‘What does it matter where my body happens to be?” he said. “My mind goes on working all the same.’  (Lewis Carroll, Alice Through the Looking Glass, 1871)

When it comes to how we experience these new digitally mediated screen interactions we need to continuously remind ourselves that we are engaging in a space between presence and absence, being somewhere that is both on and off where our bodies and minds can often be disconnected.

Interacting online and interacting IRL differ in a number of important ways:

  1. Notions of Time – the online world synchronises time, we are all in the same temporal space even though we may be living in different geographies with different time zones, and therefore different body clocks. Our notions of time seem to have changed during this period of the pandemic – in some ways speeding up, in others slowing down – and different for each and every person.
  2. Notions of Space – in group settings we are no longer in the same physical environment, but inhabiting different physical spaces (for us) which present to others through the same sized screen window. One result of this is what we are now calling Zoom Fatigue (Bailensen 2020).   The information we currently receive through online channels is heavily dependent on aural and visual information but the somatic, which connects us to our physical presence, can feel disconnected until we experience the aches and pains of too little movement and the tiredness in our eyes (Microsoft is working on an interesting solution to this).

Figure 3:  Rowland-Campbell – Information Channels as we interact online

  1. Management of Boundaries – in the physical world we have the opportunity and time to change our mental states as we transition through physical space and time, to clear our thoughts from previous encounters and prepare and focus on what it is to come. In the virtual world unless we consciously create this interstice between one meeting and another the transition is through a few clicks of a button taking a matter of seconds.  In the digital space we are either on or off, it is very difficult to be anywhere in between which means that how we show up, how we are present (or absent), how we view ourselves, and how we leave can be very abrupt.  In addition the boundaries are porous and it is difficult to seal out the outside world which continually intrudes.

There is one other element which sits between presence and absence (Scharmer 2007), that of transparency.

  1. The digital world gives us the ability to easily record, edit, broadcast and replay our online interactions. This leads to far greater levels of potential transparency but can also create a persistent unease in the knowledge that we are continuously on show, on the camera and the stage.  Goffman’s Front Stage and Back Stage can merge giving little respite in between (Goffman 1959, Sternheimer 2020).

Imagined affordances emerge between users’ perceptions, attitudes and expectations; between materiality and functionality of technologies; between the intentions and perceptions of designers (Nagy & Neff 2015).

All of these affordances have been designed into the systems we use which become a part of our experience and how we experience others.

Group Dynamics Online

Our societies are increasingly structured around the bipolar opposition of the Net and the Self (Castells 2000).

Eric Miller states that Freud’s great insight was to shift the focus from the individual to the interaction between patient and analyst, the notions of Transference and Countertransference which Bion then shifted to that of the group and the processes of socialisation.  (Miller 1998).

What we think of ourselves is born in what we were thought about, we scrutinise the minds of others and we try to find ourselves within, to guess at our own feelings and thoughts (Fonagy 2015).

So how do we see each other as we show up on the screen?  How do we feel in these spaces and how does this impact our emotional responses?

The work of Solms (Solms 2021), Damasio and others suggests that our emotions stem from our feelings.

Our choices are grounded in a value system.  Feelings provide the value system which enables choice in unpredicted, novel situations (Solms 2021).

Given the lack of somatic information, which is often the primary source for our feelings, how is this impacting our engagements in the virtual space?  One way to consider this is how we react to the physical presence of others versus how we sense them online through their windows; another is how the back-channels (i.e., the chat function) can be used for side conversations, which is similar to passing notes in the back row.  Both of these elicit feelings and therefore emotions.  Finally, when there may be uncomfortable feelings in the virtual space instead of having to sit with them in a physical space where the ability to leave takes some time, in the virtual space once every participant has the option to turn off their camera and sit behind it, or completely leave the room.

There are entities where the behaviour of the whole cannot be derived from its individual elements nor from the way these elements fit together; rather the opposite is true: the properties of any of the parts are determined by the intrinsic structural laws of the whole. (Wertheimer 1924)

Every element of this impacts the virtuous cycle of respect, trust and candour (Sonnenfeld 2002) which is at the heart of how governance and corporate responsibility needs to operate.

The Modern Board

The concept of a corporate board

is a reflection of widespread political practices and ideas in Western Europe in the late Middle Ages which reflect both social norms and cultural values as they pertained to business governance, political and cultural ideas, together with assumptions about wealth-maximizing efficiencies (Gevurtz 2004).

For those of us who live in Western cultures these ideas constitute what is normal, but it is necessary to put these ideas in context.

The work of Henrich (Henrich 2010, Henrich 2020) shows that the Western mindset has emerged from the geo-political history of Western Europe (see also Marshall 2016 and Goldin 2020).

Henrich classifies Western people as being

hyper-individualistic and hyper-mobile, whereas just about everyone else in the world was, and still is, enmeshed in family and more likely to stay put (Henrich 2020). 

We Westerners are WEIRD – Western, Educated, Individualistic, Rich and Democratic (see also Stasavage 2020).   Henrich argues that this is one of the reasons that Capitalism emerged in the West driven by the rise of the individual (see Morris 1972, Nashef 2018, Curtis 2002 BBC).

The Discovery of the Individual is an eccentricity among cultures (Morris 1972).

This WEIRD mindset has created a positive environment for humans to flourish (Harari 2015, Pinker 2018, Roser 2021) but is also based on the assumption that humans need to be controlled, for our own good (Bregman 2020).

The limits and boundaries of Agency Theory (Simon 1957) are determined by its model of man.  (Davis et al 1997, Keay 2017)

If we consider governance, particularly as it is beginning to manifest online, from a more naturalistic and biological perspective (Bandura 2017) then the concept of the Social Machine as a symbiotic human-machine ecosystem becomes much more useful (Neff 2021).  This leads to a broader perspective where it is assumed that humans are driven by larger collectivist, pro-organisational goals (Argyris 1973, McGregor 1980, Maslow 1970) which is precisely what the online environment was designed to achieve from the outset (Levine et al 1999, Kelly 2010).

Changing Global Mindsets

The link between communication and character is complex, but unbreakable.  We cannot transform all our media of communication and expect to remain unchanged as people.  A revolution in the media must mean a revolution in the psyche (Toffler 1980).

Former InfoSys Founder, CEO and Chairman Kris Gopalakrishnan (Gopalakrishnan 2021) believes that the 21st Century will change as a result of the impact of information technologies.

  1. Information technologies have given individuals an unprecedented power and new kinds of freedom for their voices to be heard and to think differently about their lives;
  2. The most significant impact will be in Asia which has over 50% of the world’s population;
  3. There will be a global shift to more Eastern values based on harmony, peace, and a more multi-cultural heterogenous perspective.

As we continue to reach out globally we are creating societies online and

each society chooses which thoughts and feelings shall be permitted to arrive and which must be kept hidden (Eric Fromm as quoted by Susan Long, March 2021).

An Antipodean Perspective

Our people have been entrusted by the Creator Spirit with the care of the land and the associated ceremonies.  In most parts of Australia, they are unable to care for their land and ensure its continued fruitfulness because it has been taken over by the immigrants.  The spiritual line of succession, from the time of creation through countless generations, has now been broken.  And deep inside, our people live with guilt and hopelessness (Archie et al 2007).

Technology challenges us to assert our human values which means that first of all we have to know what they are (Turkle 2011).

I was born and grew up in a sunburnt country riven by guilt and sadness.  This duality underpins everything about Australia (and many other colonialised cultures) and as we move in to the 21st Century our greatest global challenge is to move away from the dominance of the WEIRD, and largely industrialised, thinking and embrace the power of more organic Dreamtime mindsets (such as those which harness Social Dreaming, Lawrence 2000) in order to better govern our social systems.

This is especially important as we become more embedded in the Technosphere which has become all too obvious as we all move our lives online.  As I have reflected on my own online experiences in groups there is one word that repeatedly comes to mind, and that is the word stewardship.

Stewardship refers to a human behaviour which is ordered such that pro-organizational, collectivist behaviours have a higher utility than individualistic, self-serving behaviours (Davis 1997).

Stewardship addresses the illusion of being able to manage and control up front (Long 2021) by being more inclusive, taking a longer-term view and understanding the symbiosis of humans and the systems, both natural and technological, that we inhabit.

My own work is based on the philosophy of Servant Leadership (Greenleaf 2002, Spears 1998) combined with a practical application through the principles of Sustainability where we seek to create an integrated value creation space, where growth and performance for the current generation pays equal and simultaneous consideration to all the elements of sustainability and to future generations(Avery 2006, Avery & Bergsteiner 2010, Rowland-Campbell 2021)

As I sat in the various modules and groups of the Tavistock Board Dynamics course I felt very keenly the Tyranny of Distance (Blainey 1966) and the mythic structure of Bion’s Groups (Bion 1961, Shambaugh 1985) as they ebbed and flowed through each module.

I felt alienated by the dominance of WEIRD values, not only in the predominantly European makeup of the Group, but in the very design and interface of the technologies themselves.

We each played our part in this, but the success of these events was largely due to the stewardship of our consultants, who did not lead but sought to serve each of us by providing the space to reflect and learn.

Conclusion

Corporations and Industrial Capitalism have driven the development of humanity over the past few hundred years and the associated governance and management systems which have underpinned them must be seen as a part its success.  But we are now questioning what success looks like?  As our environmental systems react to what is now being talked of as the crime of Ecocide it is imperative that we evolve how we manage and govern ourselves harnessing the smart machines we have invented but more importantly drawing on all of the smart people.

We are now on the threshold of a global opportunity, one that can take advantage of being in the unfrozen state between the old world and the new (Lewin 1947) that is to come.  As such

We have the opportunity now to not just do what we did yesterday.  We have permission to change things. Everything is now up for grabs.  (Former Xerox CEO Ursula Burns 2021)

A part of that change is to adopt a more natural and Eastern philosophy towards our corporate systems as part of a global ecosystem embedded in the natural world and inclusive of all humanity because the challenges we face affect us all.

This is the Stewardship Challenge for the 21st Century which should be the main guiding premise.

References

Articles and Books

Archie, Nola J. et al, (2007).  Rainbow Spirit Theology 2007, Second Edition, ATF Press, South Australia

Argyris, C. (1973).  Organisational Man:  Rational and self-actualising.  Public Administration Review, 33 (July/August).

Avery, G. (2006).  Leadership for Sustainable Futures: Achieving Success in a Competitive World.  Edward Elgar Publishing.

Avery, G. and Bergsteiner, H. (2010).  Honeybees & locusts: the business case for sustainable leadership.  Allen & Unwin, Australia.

Bailensen, Jeremy N. (2020) Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatiguehttps://tmb.apaopen.org/pub/nonverbal-overload/release/1 viewed 26th March, 2021 and How to combat Zoom Fatigue, https://hbr.org/2020/04/how-to-combat-zoom-fatigue, viewed 20th March, 2021

Bandura, A. (2006).  Toward a psychology of human agency.  Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1.  Also https://albertbandura.com/albert-bandura-agency.html

Bhalla, A; Chakravorti, B; Chaturvedi, R. S. (2021) How Digital Trust Varies Around the World, Harvard Business Review, February 25, 2021. https://hbr.org/2021/02/how-digital-trust-varies-around-the-world viewed 28th February, 2021

Bion, W. (1961).  Experiences in Groups: and Other Papers.  Tavistock.

Blainey, G. (1966).  The Tyranny of Distance: How Distance Shaped Australia’s History.  Sun Books, Melbourne.

Botsman, R. (2017).  Who Can You Trust?: How Technology is Rewriting the Rules of Human Relationships.  Public Affairs.

Bregman, R. (2020).  Humankind: A Hopeful History.  Little Brown and Company.

Castells, M.  (2000). The Rise of The Network Society:  The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture.  John Wiley & Sons.

CERN webpage https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web viewed 10th March, 2021.

Coase, Ronald (1937).  The Nature of the Firm.  Economica.  Blackwell Publishing

Crawford, Kate (2021) in an interview with Timothy Revell, New Scientist, 24 March, 2021, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24933271-000-kate-crawford-interview-how-ai-is-exploiting-people-and-the-planet/ viewed 25th March, 2021.

Cummings, S; Bridman, T; Brown, Kenneth G – Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management, Human Relations 2016, Vol. 69(1) 33–60.

Damasio, A. See https://www.antoniodamasio.com/

Davis, J. H.; Shoorman, F. D.; Donaldson, L. (1997) Towards a Stewardship Theory of Management.  Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 1.

Davis, J. (2020).  How Artefacts Afford, MIT Press, Boston.

Foster, E. M.  (1909).  The Machine Stops, initial publication in the Oxford and Cambridge Review, November 1909. Viewable online http://www.visbox.com/prajlich/forster.html

Gevurtz, Franklin A, (2004) The European Origins and the Spread of the Corporate Board of Directors, Stetson Law Review, Vol XXXIII

Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gibson, J. J. (1979).  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Boston, Houghton Muffin accessible online at https://monoskop.org/images/c/c6/Gibson_James_J_1977_1979_The_Theory_of_Affordances.pdf

Goffman, Ervin (1959).  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.  Anchor Books, New York.

Goldin, I. (2020).  Terra Incognita: 100 Maps to Survive the Next 100 Years.  Random House UK.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness (25th anniversary ed.). New York: Paulist Press.

Harari, Y. N. (2015).  Sapiens:  A Brief History of Humankind.  Penguin Books.

Henrich, Joseph (2010).  The weirdest people in the world?  Behavioural and Brain Sciences, https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/WeirdPeople.pdf viewed 28th March, 2021.

Henrich, Joseph (2020), The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Hofstede, G. (1991).  Cultures and organisations:  Software of the Mind.  London.  McGraw-Hill.

Hopkins, J. (2019).  Digital Fluency and Digital Literacy, http://blog.core-ed.org/blog/2018/07/digital-fluency-literacy-or-technology-whats-the-difference.html viewed July, 2019.  See also Accenture https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insights/consulting/honing-digital-edge viewed 20th February, 2021.

Karterud, Sigmund (1989). Bion’s Basic Assumption Groups.  Human Relations, Vol 42, No 4, 1989

Keay, A. (2017). Stewardship Theory: Is Board Accountability Necessary?  International Journal of Law and Management, 59 (6)

Kelly, K. (2010).  What Technology Wants.  Penguin Putnam, New York.

Kets de Vries, Manfred (1978) Folie A Deux: acting Out Your Superior’s Fantasies.  Human Relations, Vol. 31, Number 10.

Lawrence, W.G. (2000).  Social Dreaming Illuminating Social Change.  Organisational Social Dynamics, 1(1).

Lawrence, Gordon, 2003) – Social Dreaming as sustained thinking, Human Relations, Volume 56 (5).

Levine, R., Locke, C., Searls, D., Weinberger, D., McKee, J.  (2009).  The Cluetrain Manifesto.  Little Brown, New York.  First published online in 1999 https://cluetrain.com/.

Lewin, K. (1947).  Frontiers of Group Dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science, social equilibria, and social change.  Human Relations. 1.

Machin, A. (2019) Technology Is Threatening Our Species’ Survival, Medium.  https://onezero.medium.com/technology-is-threatening-our-species-survival-786c50609ade viewed July 2019.

Malone, T. W., Yates, J, Benjamin, R. I. (1987).  Electronic Markets and Electronic Hierarchies, Communications of the ACM, June, Vol. 30, No. 6.

Marshall, T. (2016).  Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Explain Everything About the World, Scribner Publishing.

Maslow, A. H. (1970).  Motivation and Personality.  New York.  Harper & Row.

McGregor, D. (1966).  Leadership and Motivation.  Cambridge, MA.  MIT Press.

McKinsey & Company (2020).  https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/how-covid-19-has-pushed-companies-over-the-technology-tipping-point-and-transformed-business-forever viewed 15th March, 2021

Miller, E. (1998).  A Note on the Protomental System and “Groupishness”:  Bion’s Basic Assumptions Revisited.  Human Relations, Vol 51, No 12.

Morris, C (1972).  The Discovery of the Individual 1050-1300.  University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Nagy, P and Neff, G (2015).  Imagined Affordance: Reconstructing a Keyword for Communication Theory, Social Media and Society, July – December.

Nashef, T (2018). A Brief Primer on Individualism in Western Intellectual History, https://areomagazine.com/2018/07/27/a-brief-primer-on-individualism-in-western-intellectual-history/ viewed 23rd January, 2020.

Neff, Gina (2018).  Agency in the digital age: Using symbiotic agency to explain human-technology interaction, https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.39/i76.8c6.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2018_Neff-and-Nagy_Networked-Self_final.pdf viewed 25th March, 2021,  A Networked Self:  Human Augmentics, Artificial Intelligence, Sentience, Zizi Papacharissi, ed. Routledge.

Norman, Donald (1988).  The Psychology of Everyday Things, Basic Books, New York, 1988.

Norma, Donald (2018).  Affordances and Design, https://jnd.org/affordances_and_design/, accessed 12th March, 2021

Pinker, S (2018).  Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, Viking Press.

Scharmer, O. (2007).  Theory U: Leading from the Future as it Emerges, Society for Organisational Learning.

Schein, E. H. (1992).  Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco

Schein, E. H. (2013). Humble Inquiry: The Gentle Art of Asking Instead of Telling.  Berrett-Koehler Publishers

Searls, D. (2020).  Quoted during Panel at the 2020 Web Science Conference online, www.websci20.org

SOCIAM, https://www.sociam.org/ viewed 20th March, 2021

  1. W. (1985). The Mythic Structure of Bion’s Groups, Human Relations, Vol 38, No 10, 1985

Rice, A. K.  (1969). Individual, Group and Intergroup Processes.  Human Relations, Vol 22, No. 6

Roser, M. (2021).  Our World In Data, https://ourworldindata.org/ viewed 20th March, 2021

Rowland-Campbell, A. (2021).  Stewards for the 21st Century.  https://intersticia.org/stewards-for-the-21st-century/ written 17th March, 2021

Shirky, Clay (2008).  Here comes Everybody.  Penguin Books.

Simon, H. (1957).  Models of Man.  Wiley Publishers, New York.

Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2002). What Makes Great Boards Great.  Harvard Business Review.  September.

Spears, L. C., ed (1998). Insights on Leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership. New York: Wiley.

Stasavage, David (2020), The Decline and Rise of Democracy: A Global History from Antiquity to Today (The Princeton Economic History of the Western World Book 96), Princeton Publishing.

Sternheimer, K (2012) Rethinking Goffman’s Front Stage/Back Stage.  Everyday Sociology, https://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2012/05/rethinking-goffmans-front-stageback-stage.html, viewed 25th March, 2021

Sternheimer, K (2020). When Back Stage becomes Front Stage: Goffman’s Dramaturgy in the Age of Teleconferencing.  https://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2020/05/when-back-stage-becomes-front-stage-goffmans-dramaturgy-in-the-age-of-teleconferencing.html, viewed 25th March, 2021

Trombley, S. (2014).  A Short History of Western Thought.  Atlantic Books UK.

Turkle, S. (2011).  Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other.  Basic Books, New York.  See http://sherryturkle.mit.edu/selected-publications

Weiser, M.  (1986 – 1989).  Calm Technologies and Ubiquitous Computinghttps://calmtech.com/papers.html, viewed 10th March, 2021.

Westheimer, G. (1999).  Gestalt theory reconfigured: Max Wertheimer’s anticipation of recent developments in visual neuroscience.  Perception. 28 (1)

World Health Organisation (2020). Declaration of 2020 Covid 19 Pandemic, https://time.com/5791661/who-coronavirus-pandemic-declaration/ viewed 15th March, 2021

Zuboff, S. (1988).  In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power,  Basic Books.

Zuboff, S. & Maxmin, J.  (2000) The Support Economy: Why Corporations Are Failing Individuals and the Next Episode of Capitalism.  Penguin Books.

Zuboff, S. (2019).  The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, Profile Books, London.

Zuboff, S. (2021).  Interviewed in The Social Dilemma, Netflix, (2000) https://www.netflix.com/au/title/81254224

Podcast, Video Interviews and Television Media

Bregman, R. & Harari, Y. N. (2021).  Two Million Years in Two Hours.   https://your-undivided-attention.simplecast.com/episodes/two-million-years-in-two-hours-a-conversation-with-yuval-noah-harari-iTBZlnHn, 15th January, 2021

Botsman, R. (2017). How Technology tests our Trust, Harvard Business Review interview https://hbr.org/podcast/2017/12/how-technology-tests-our-trust viewed 15th March, 2021

Burns, U. (2021).  Interview with the Economist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh7fxYc4U74&t=4s viewed 26th March, 2021

Curtis, Adam, BBC Television, (2002).  The Century of the Self, originally broadcast on 29th April 2002.  Full documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s.  See also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis viewed 20th March, 2020

Dennett, D. (2021). The Great Free Will Debatehttps://bigthink.com/videos/the-great-free-will-debate, viewed 20th March, 2021

Fonagy, P. (2015).  What is Mentalisation?  Interview.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHw2QumRPrQ, viewed 10th March, 2021.

Gopalakrishnan, K. (2021).  Interview with the Author. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGENc3VYWro, held via Zoom as part of Brave Conversations Bangalore 2021, February 2021.

Long, Susan (2021), Unconscious – The Evolution of an Idea, https://www.nioda.org.au/the-unconscious-the-evolution-of-an-idea/, Zoom event held live 24th March, 2021

Pinker, Steven (2018).  How the world is getting better, not worse.  Interview with Paul Solman  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvEiiYfVXnk, PBS NewsHour

Solms, Mark (2021).  The Source of Consciousness.  The Royal Institution.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmuYrnOVmfk viewed 7th March, 2021.

June 2024
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

-->