VInnovation as Crossroads

The idea of advancement in technology can be seen in relatively simple terms. If the next generation of computer is faster, more powerful, and more reliable, the technology has advanced. If not, if some aspects have improved but others have suffered, then we should be able to say which aspects have improved and which have not. (This may lead into the development of a new/specialized/differentiated product or a revisioning process aimed at improving the next generation of personal computer.)

With social institutions, though, there is a mix of adaptability and overall improvement. Our founding fathers did not have to structure-in ways to address al-Qaeda. The Bush administration did have to adapt to al-Qaeda. The debate on whether they adapted well points out the difference between change and improvement or progress. In the same way, mushrooms may have as much evolution behind them as we do, but we have progressed beyond mushrooms' abilities towards agency. Mushrooms are well-adapted to where they are adapted to, but they have limited options compared to ours.

Democracy as a liberal form of government changes the political equation. More than a structure, democracy is an ideal concerning interactions--the social dynamic, the process, the fluid. (It is functionally very difficult to distinguish between a republic and a democracy with large populations at this point in history.) Just as this ideal dynamic signals a shift in the relationship between a government and its citizens, management theory has changed in a way that signals similar differences in the relationship between management and workers. Management theory used to mean that someone at the top of the power pyramid would give orders which would trickle down. Then it began to take on more feedback from the bottom up. (If you've earned admiral status but can't fix the nuclear engine to your aircraft carrier, you must take in feedback from specialists/mechanics much lower down the chain of command.) Now, to some extent, there is a flattening of hierarchical relationships and a movement towards an emphasis on speed and functional fit of responsiveness to changing market forces and consumer expectations.

Just as the democratic ideal is that the government express the will of the people, much of recent management theory is about meeting the demands of the market and workforce. This is adaptation rather than improvement. To make this point, consider planned obsolescence. The idea is simple: if I can sell you fifty lightbulbs over the course of ten years rather than selling you two (each of which might actually last), I might be able to increase my profit margins by selling a product that is made to wear out. Easy. But, if we consider the ecological effects of planned obsolescence, we may decide that increased profit margins provide competitive advantage (increased adaptability to this situation right now) but an overall drop-off in functional quality. In other words, while I might be beating out competing firms, I am selling environmental resources at a ridiculous loss to the future of my own firm...maybe the whole industry. Sometimes adapting really well to market forces (different from consumer demand) can go too far; same is true with workers' demands and unionization.

100 years ago when the world population was closer to 1.6 billion (6.7 billion today), waste was not as important to consider because we had fewer waste-producers per square mile than we do now. At the end of WWII, we tried to (with our allies) out-produce and out-consume the USSR. Maybe a Pyrrhic victory, but a victory nonetheless. Okay, maybe I'd side with Stalin if I could keep him out of America and he'd help me beat Hitler, but once we've beaten Hitler...well, ask Ike. While the history may be sensible enough, continuing to invest in the maintenance of social institutions--including customs--we've been handed down may not be good enough.

Saying so does nothing to diminish my sense of appreciation for the men and women in our armed services who, during WWII, were deployed for year after year. It's a way of saying, "Thank you," and now what can WE (my generation) do? A Keynesian focus on consumer demand along with industrial production and technological improvements in the defense industry made America's market the largest (and therefore most desirable and powerful) in the world. Now, it is time to question the ecological and social effects of defense industry spending and a focus on consumption of goods and services. We can consider this re-evaluation as a point of adaptation and also consider whether refocusing in a variety of different ways may actually be progressive (involving improvements) as opposed to being just adaptive. Planned obsolescence was adaptive for a while. And, just as our country adapted to a focus on markets and consumption between the 1900s and 1960s, we have begun a shift towards sustainability while keeping a focus on technological advancements.

Cultures take time to change even if the lifespan of a generation of personal computers is decreasing. If it took us thirty years to change from a Depression-to-post-Depression focus to one in which we were the dominant country in the world, it is not surprising--nor should it be a matter of fanatical criticism--that it has taken us from the 1960s until now to focus on renewable energy. Just as we were able to decrease the amount of pollution from our steel industry between (what?) 1900 and 1970, we will be able to do the same with energy production now that social opinion and market forces are behind that sort of change.