THE Social age Presents a large model of change in fundamental principles, which will require a holistic adaptation scheme to the individual and societal level. In my more recent work, I positioned social age as a part of a triumvirate of characteristics exercising evolutionary pressure, the other two being the post-pandemic context and the rise of the rise AI Generative.
Today, I am #Workingoutloud to explore the intersection of these three things, but also to broaden the objective, however, to consider these vast models of adaptation: what will persist, what will be new, what will fail?
Social age mainly describes an advanced sociology, a new Social contextbased on technology, but without limiting or by it. In my wider work, I describe the key elements, such as our radical connectivity, the rise of the community, the ecosystems of various and individualized technology, social currencies and the crowd of other characteristics, including fundamental changes in the nature of knowledge and the fragmentation of identity.
The post-pandemic context is simpler (although always strangely dramatic) in that it illustrates a fragmentation of structures inherited from power and place. This should have been a key learning moment for our organizations, and the company more broadly, freeing us from the dogma of the Office and the commission of Werissome, rather codified in argument on power and the agency, and a frank monitoring and control tool. The mystery here is not the complexity of the way we returned to desk‘, and the notions of'future of work“ It has been preventing it with it, but rather the pure incapacity for adult organizations to really understand this, to resort rather to a story and to gradually more fallacious threats, and to collapse all the debate on a question of `reason and evil ”, whereas it is, in fact,` `opportunity ” and a gift.
Generative AI undermines the fundamental concepts of creativity, art, truth, confidence, identity, validity, authenticity, etc. He calls into question the unique value of people, because he calls into question our supremacy in terms of thought of superior order and creating sophisticated artifacts.
Forgive me using three short paragraphs to describe three things that can be considered potentially paradigmatic. But I wrote 19 books exploring the first of these three, and a book each on the last two of them, and I think that I have done a little more than drawing the extent of the landscape so far – although on a positive note, I begin to develop horizontal lines between them in the next work of planetary philosophy, as well as the books of leadership and social culture expected next year.
I salute the challenge to these ideas, but also bad as I am, I am probably not completely wrong, and everything that remains is likely to be disruptive or destructive, to our structures and to the known order.
In work on Socially dynamic organization I tried to tackle this from the point of view of organizational design, and I think that this work has increased in value over time, so much so that I plan to update this work also: it is useful for us to explore the widest potential potential manifestations more widely of this change on our organizations and our societies.
Some fragments as follows the ideas that I pursue.
(1) that we should re -entertain organizations as modifiable by design, mainly by dissociating characteristics historically linked to them, like ‘power“And” role “, or” task “and” work “. We no longer need a known model of change, “A” to “B”, but rather a fluid and continuous model.
(2) This may include the concept of disposable organization, or more precisely the limited time: if we are disaggregated ReputationThe inheritance, power and knowledge ‘, among others, of the organization, we can imagine persistent structures (the new guilds) which hold these characteristics, while the “skin” of the organization is more disposable, or even specifically in limited time. It would be a reconnection of the very structures of work.
(3) Aligned with this, our belief, belonging, and even goal and pride structures can be held outside, and perhaps exchanged or invested, in specific opportunities. This model is a more negotiated model of organizations, perhaps more suited to the context of social age.
(4) that our relationship with AI can include the delivery of certain features, such as performance examination, task allocation, negotiations, metrics, even certain decision-making, instead of concentrating our work on development, social context and social good, innovation, taking meaning, perhaps a whole series of things that we generally say that we lack time. Part of this is deeply difficult, but perhaps because it is deeply unknown. The performance review is a good example: the idea of being noted by machines for our performance is terrifying, but if that is more continuous and is linked to the opportunity, it can be liberating. What we have at the moment is at best asynchronous and blunt, and in the worst, deceptive and unsuitable.
(5) I have already written, in a series of articles on #FureofWorkHow we can promote more distributed housing models, distributed and disseminated concepts from the office, with greater shared infrastructure and shared services. All this would be an increase in the elements that we have already tried: the collectivism of our industrial cities and parks today is a legacy of our industrial heritage and our need to have infrastructure. We still need aspects of this, but we can be able to maintain it in more widely advanced structures.
(6) The parallel side of this is that with more disseminated housing and productivity patterns, we reduce the need for massive infrastructure, in favor of more distributed movement models, and in this we can find “the future of work” and the “return to the office”, but instead of a centralized model, we see the devoted collaboration. When we stop needing an office to organize infrastructure, we can reinvent it as a shared and reconfigurable space. When aligned with the evolution of the “jobs” themselves, this can mean an organization which contains an purpose and an intention, a quality and an innovation, but which uses fluid structures of creativity, productivity and effect, with fluid alignments of people over time.
(7) This may include the emergence New guilds Also becoming from contracting entities, we therefore move away from the idea of “work” and “freelance” to also include “collective”, being more normal for the organizations to contract collectives, or to contract results simply, or at the other end of the spectrum, the AI will allow the micro-distribution of work packets and micro -trans to finish them quantified.
These are just a few shadows of what can happen. At the broadest level, this is this holistic adaptation scheme. All this will be true: absolutely not. What do we persist? Very improbable.
We will almost certainly be able to navigate in the post-pandemic context with our inherited organization structures. But we will not be able to sail in social age and generator by the same approach. The two are simply too disruptive, and both undermine the foundations, and in addition, at the very moment when we seek to approach them, we operate on a fractured social contract and in a environment where people have opportunities beyond work.
#Workingoutloud in the social era
At Learnopoly, Finn has championed a mission to deliver unbiased, in-depth reviews of online courses that empower learners to make well-informed decisions. With over a decade of experience in financial services, he has honed his expertise in strategic partnerships and business development, cultivating both a sharp analytical perspective and a collaborative spirit. A lifelong learner, Finn’s commitment to creating a trusted guide for online education was ignited by a frustrating encounter with biased course reviews.