I did my thesis comparing how big a change was made in social terms during two periods of time in the Quaker religious community. During one period, the change was driven by a bottom up model, in the second, one group called for change and everyone else, said "ok, we will try." The second attempt didn't work. One of the reasons for that is that the people who needed to make the most change weren't involved in the process, another was that the first attempt took decades, while they gave up after less than two decades for the second. Lesson: Change takes time - lots of time - and bottom up while involving those who need to make the most changes are crucial.
> you need to inject far more dollars and structure to the problem
Interestingly enough, one thing that always bothers me is that money comes at the "expense" of injecting some structure into an org/project. And that's one niche thing that might not happen with e.g. a DAO kickstarted by token sales.
Similarly, people often try to incentivize the injection of a structure with money or the promise of money (join this college system and in 6 years from now Google will hire you for so-and-so amount).
Maybe there's cases where the two are damaging to each other if shoved together in the same system.
You added the Corporations as the 4th C. I am curious on this point. Isn't the corporations life cycle is limited to 3 generations of perhaps a little one more? The changing business dynamics and the comfort of being self-absorbed in their sphere of influence in an evolving world point towards the survival of the fittest. Unless the tiger changes its stripes and become a leopard or a zebra, will it be able to thrive among the competition coming from unknown places?
Since change is the constant and the Church too adopts itself albeit invisibly but for sure. Can it be said Communities instead? In this globalised and networked environment, will the old communities thrive if they failed to adapt? would be happy to seek your views
Great post! Are you familiar with teal organizations / Frederic Laloux's writing? If not, you should check out the book. Laloux posits a more "evolved" form of organization (teal) - and the evolution of organizations throughout human history. Although he doesn't bring up DAOs, DAOs share many of the same principles as teal organizations.
I did my thesis comparing how big a change was made in social terms during two periods of time in the Quaker religious community. During one period, the change was driven by a bottom up model, in the second, one group called for change and everyone else, said "ok, we will try." The second attempt didn't work. One of the reasons for that is that the people who needed to make the most change weren't involved in the process, another was that the first attempt took decades, while they gave up after less than two decades for the second. Lesson: Change takes time - lots of time - and bottom up while involving those who need to make the most changes are crucial.
> you need to inject far more dollars and structure to the problem
Interestingly enough, one thing that always bothers me is that money comes at the "expense" of injecting some structure into an org/project. And that's one niche thing that might not happen with e.g. a DAO kickstarted by token sales.
Similarly, people often try to incentivize the injection of a structure with money or the promise of money (join this college system and in 6 years from now Google will hire you for so-and-so amount).
Maybe there's cases where the two are damaging to each other if shoved together in the same system.
You added the Corporations as the 4th C. I am curious on this point. Isn't the corporations life cycle is limited to 3 generations of perhaps a little one more? The changing business dynamics and the comfort of being self-absorbed in their sphere of influence in an evolving world point towards the survival of the fittest. Unless the tiger changes its stripes and become a leopard or a zebra, will it be able to thrive among the competition coming from unknown places?
Since change is the constant and the Church too adopts itself albeit invisibly but for sure. Can it be said Communities instead? In this globalised and networked environment, will the old communities thrive if they failed to adapt? would be happy to seek your views
Great post! Are you familiar with teal organizations / Frederic Laloux's writing? If not, you should check out the book. Laloux posits a more "evolved" form of organization (teal) - and the evolution of organizations throughout human history. Although he doesn't bring up DAOs, DAOs share many of the same principles as teal organizations.