Envisioning change calls for the foresight of a prophetic leader who
can foresee change and make strategic planning for transformational and
organizational changes so as to lead the entire team and stakeholders to a
better future. This would entail working
out the modalities of the change, embarking on the process that would
accelerate and bring in the required paradigm shift, which would determine the
success of any individual and organization. Change management to be effective
has to take into consideration the needs of the stakeholders, employability,
industry and global competencies required in today’s job market. In Who
Moved My Cheese, Dr. Spencer Johnson, illustrates very vividly how change
demands innovative and enterprising ways to meet the challenges and
opportunities at a given time. In
today’s world of scientific and technological revolution, one has to keep pace
with changes lest one becomes obsolete and irrelevant. One has to keep in mind the 5 P's of
leadership: Passion, Persistence, People, Process (this includes Planning) and
Profit. A visionary leader will ignite
the big dream with passion and perseverance.
People would always be on the focus and will strategically plan out the
process and create a win-win situation where all the stakeholders will reap the
profit of the envisioned change and paradigm shift.
Envisioning
Change: Prospects and Challenges
Dr. Davis
George
1. Envisioning
Change: Ignite the big dream
"Everybody
has accepted by now that change is unavoidable. But that still implies that change
is like death and taxes - it should be postponed as long as possible and no
change would be vastly preferable. But in a period of upheaval, such as the one
we are living in, change is the norm." - Peter Drucker, Management
Challenges for the 21st Century
(1999).
As
ecological, economic, and social crises deepen, human societies are seeking new
designs for a sustainable and desirable world. Although it is widely recognized
that isolated initiatives will not form an adequate response to our
interconnected plights, current efforts to promote sustainability rarely
pervade all aspects of our lives. Our failure to craft holistic solutions is
due, in part, to the lack of a shared vision of what a sustainable world looks
like.
Envisioning is a process in
which community members collectively identify shared values, describe the
future they seek, and develop a plan to achieve common goals. Envisioning
complements more traditional forms of planning, serving as a tool for
determining community desires and initiating the process of change. It
generally begins by establishing consensus on a community’s goals and desires
through public forums and group discussions. "Even those who fancy themselves the
most progressive will fight against other kinds of progress, for each of us is
convinced that our way is the best way." - Louis L'Amour, The Lonely
Men.
Our civilization’s challenge is to create a positive and
detailed vision of a sustainable and desirable future. This needs to be a
future in which living in harmony with nature enhances everyone’s quality of
life, a future that can captivate and motivate the public, a future that we are
proud to bestow on our grandchildren. Until we create and widely share this
vision, we have no hope of achieving it. How true what Charles
Kettering said, “The world hates change, yet it is the only thing that has
brought progress.”
1.1 Who
Moved My Cheese: The Challenge of Change
Who Moved My Cheese? An Amazing Way to Deal
with Change in Your Work and in Your Life, published in 1998, is a motivational
book by Spencer Johnson written in the style of a parable or business fable. It describes change in one's
work and life, and four typical reactions to said change by two mice and two "little people", during
their hunt for cheese. It is a
fable that teaches an amazing way to deal with change in your personal and
professional life. The Six Important Lessons on
Change we can learn from this book are:
1.
Change happens. They keep moving the
cheese.
2.
Anticipate change. Get ready for the cheese to move.
3.
Monitor change. Smell
the cheese often so you know when it is getting old.
4.
Adapt to change
quickly. The
quicker you let go of old cheese, the sooner you can enjoy new cheese.
5.
Change. Move with the
cheese
6.
Enjoy change. Savor the
adventure and enjoy the taste of new cheese
One of the constant things in
life is Change. Each day brings a new life and a different experience for
us. But our daily routine task, from the time we wake up until the time
we lay down in bed again, creates a cycle that leads us to comfort. Such
comfort creates laxity and negligence in our character that makes us forget
that life is constantly changing. Then when change happens, we stress
out, react, complain and are beaten up. That’s why it is hard for majority to
handle and accept change. Upon experiencing change, our initial reaction is to
resist it. Either because we are afraid to lose the comfort of what we
currently have or the fear of the unknown. Even we don’t admit it, we act like
Hem. When change happens in our lives, we get angry, we blame others, and
we lose hope and resist change.
The only thing constant in life is change, and our source of
pleasures, wants, and needs can and does indeed change. If one learns to change
quickly and enjoy it again and again, one can successfully deal with any change
in one’s life. Comfort lulls us into complacency and keeps us in the comfort
zone. As leaders, we must relentlessly
challenge ourselves not to let ease and security dissuade us from making the
changes necessary to fulfill our vision. How true, "In three years every
product my company makes will be obsolete. The only question is whether we will
make it obsolete or someone else will."
Bill Gates
2. Change Management: Paradigm Shift
Change your thoughts if you wish to change
your circumstances. Since you alone are
responsible for your thoughts, only you can change them. You will want to change them when you realise
that each thought creates according to its own nature. - Paramhansa Yogananda. Everything
changes, nothing remains without change. - Gautama Buddha. "Continuity gives us
roots; change gives us branches, letting us stretch and grow and reach new
heights." said Pauline R. Kezer
Change management is a structured approach to
shifting/transitioning individuals,
teams and organizations
from a current state to a desired future state. It is an organizational process
aimed at empowering employees to accept and embrace changes in their current
business environment.1 In project management, change management refers to
a project management process where changes to a project are formally introduced
and approved.2
As a
multidisciplinary practice that has evolved as a result of scholarly research,
Organizational Change Management should begin with a systematic diagnosis of
the current situation in order to determine both the need for change and the
capability to change. The objectives, content, and process of change should all
be specified as part of a Change Management plan.
Change
Management processes may include creative marketing to enable communication
between change audiences, but also deep social understanding about leadership’s
styles and group dynamics. As a visible track on transformation projects,
Organizational Change Management aligns groups’ expectations, communicates,
integrates teams and manages people training. It makes use of performance
metrics, such as financial results, operational efficiency, leadership
commitment, communication effectiveness, and the perceived need for change to
design appropriate strategies, in order to avoid change failures or solve
troubled change projects.
Successful
change management is more likely to occur if the following are included:
1.
Benefits
management and realization to define measurable stakeholder aims, create a
business case for their achievement (which should be continuously updated), and
monitor assumptions, risks, dependencies, costs, return on investment,
dis-benefits and cultural issues affecting the progress of the associated work.
2.
Effective
Communications that informs various stakeholders of the reasons for the change
(why?), the benefits of successful implementation (what is in it for us, and
you) as well as the details of the change (when? where? who is involved? how
much will it cost? etc).
3.
Devise
an effective education, training and/or skills upgrading scheme for the
organization.
4.
Counter
resistance from the employees of companies and align them to overall strategic
direction of the organization.
5.
Provide
personal counseling (if required) to alleviate any change related fears.
6.
Monitoring
of the implementation and fine-tuning as required.
2.1 Leadership: responsibility
for managing change
The employee does not have a responsibility
to manage change - the employee's responsibility is no other than to do his/her
best, which is different for every person and depends on a wide variety of
factors (health, maturity, stability, experience, personality, motivation,
etc). Responsibility for managing change is with the management and executives
of the organisation - they must manage the change in a way that employees can
cope with it. The manager has a responsibility to facilitate and enable
change, and all that is implied within that statement, especially to understand
the situation from an objective standpoint (to 'step back', and be non-judgmental),
and then to help people understand reasons, aims, and ways of responding
positively according to employees' own situations and capabilities.
Increasingly the manager's role is to interpret, communicate and enable - not
to instruct and impose, which does not yield a positive response.
2.2 Change must involve the
people - change must not be imposed upon the people
Be wary of expressions like
'mindset change', and 'changing people's mindsets' or 'changing attitudes',
because this language often indicates a tendency towards imposed or enforced
change and it implies strongly that the organization believes that its people
currently have the 'wrong' mindset, which is never, ever, the case. If people
are not approaching their tasks or the organization effectively, then the
organization has the wrong mindset, not the people. Change such as new
structures, policies, targets, acquisitions, disposals, re-locations, etc., all
create new systems and environments, which need to be explained to people as early
as possible, so that people's involvement in validating and refining the
changes themselves can be obtained.
Whenever an organization imposes new rulings on people there
will be difficulties. Participation, involvement and open, early, transparent communication
are the important factors. You cannot
impose change - people and teams need to be empowered to find their own
solutions and responses, with facilitation and support from managers, and
tolerance and compassion from the leaders and executives. Management and
leadership style and behaviour are more important than clever processes and
policies. Employees need to be able to trust the organization. The leader must
agree and work with these ideas, or change is likely to be very painful, and
the best people will be lost in the process.
2.3 Change Management Principles
1.
At all times involve and elicit support from people within system
(system = environment, processes, culture, relationships, behaviors, etc.,
whether personal or organizational).
2.
Understand where you/the organisation is at the moment.
3.
Understand where you want to be, when, why, and what the measures
will be for having got there.
4.
Make your goals “SMART” – Specific, Measurable, Ambitious,
Realistic and Time-bound.
5.
Communicate, involve, enable and facilitate involvement from
people, as early and openly and as fully as is possible.
John P Kotter, a Harvard Business
School professor and leading thinker and author on organizational change management
in his highly regarded books, 'Leading
Change' (1995) and its sequel 'The
Heart of Change' (2002) describe a helpful model for understanding and
managing change. Each stage acknowledges a key principle identified by Kotter
relating to people's response and approach to change, in which people see, feel and then change.
Kotter's eight step change model
can be summarized as:
1.
Increase urgency -
inspire people to move, make objectives real and relevant.
2.
Build the guiding team -
get the right people in place with the right emotional commitment, and the
right mix of skills and levels.
3.
Get the vision right -
get the team to establish a simple vision and strategy focus on emotional and
creative aspects necessary to drive service and efficiency.
4.
Communicate for buy-in -
Involve as many people as possible, communicate the essentials, simply, and to
appeal and respond to people's needs. De-clutter communications - make
technology work for you rather than against.
5.
Empower action -
Remove obstacles, enable constructive feedback and lots of support from leaders
- reward and recognise progress and achievements.
6.
Create short-term wins -
Set aims that are easy to achieve - in bite-size chunks. Manageable numbers of
initiatives. Finish current stages before starting new ones.
7.
Don't let up -
Foster and encourage determination and persistence - ongoing change - encourage
ongoing progress reporting - highlight achieved and future milestones.
8.
Make change stick -
Reinforce the value of successful change via recruitment, promotion and new
change leaders. Weave change into culture – Institutional Culture.
3. Leaders make
the envisioned change a reality.
As Ralph Nader
rightly said, “I
start with the premise that the function of leadership is to produce more
leaders, not more followers.” According to John Quincy Adams, “If your actions
inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more, you are a leader.” Leaders
make things happen. A visionary leader stands for enhancing and sustaining
quality, empowering people and ushering in the required paradigm shift to
redefine the vision and mission of the institution and meet the challenges of
the times. Institutions flourish or perish depending largely on the leadership
qualities of the persons at the helm of affairs, 2Sigma effect of change can be
brought about by mentoring and coaching. Words of affirmation and guidance
would make the team explore the latent potentials and produce the required
synergy to sustain capacity building. Transformational leadership through
relationship to achieve the required purpose would be more enduring. Soft
skills when complimented with hard skills can maximize the effectiveness of
leadership. Personal integrity and authenticity would enhance trust and
credibility. "You be the change you want to see in others", said
Mahatma Gandhi. Management of change - of self and others, in a positive and
proactive way would make the leadership effective.
If you
just walk into any bookstore you will find hundreds of leadership books purport
to answer all questions concerning leadership. Broadly, the research, thinking,
and writing about leadership can be divided into two camps. One camp holds that
leadership is all about behavior and that if you want to excel, you should
learn and replicate the key behaviors of good leaders. Many companies pursue
this view by developing competency models and then rigorously assessing and
training their leaders accordingly. The other camp holds that leadership is all
about character, values, and authenticity and companies that adhere to this
view focus on transmitting company values and orienting leaders to the right
way to do things. Stephen Covey advocates principle-centred leadership for
effective and sustainable impact.
Leaders who do
not succeed tend to be people who lack self-awareness. Daniel Goleman has made
this basic truth clear by describing the importance of emotional intelligence
as an important component of effective leadership. Ineffective leaders don’t
understand their own motivations or acknowledge their weaknesses; they don’t
engage in reflection, especially when they fail and are unwilling to assume
accountability. As smart and skilled as these people may be, they don’t really
know themselves, and this lack of self-knowledge derails them, especially when
they face new leadership challenges. High-performing leaders, however, are
aware of their strengths and their
weaknesses; they talk and think about their limitations and failures and try to
learn from them.
3.1 Visionary
Leadership
Vision
is what determines what an organization is going to try to accomplish. Without
a clear vision the organization will be pulled in many different
directions. It is much easier to lead if
you have a clear idea of what you want to achieve and your ideas are good. Even
if you don't have a tremendous amount of skill as a leader, having a clear
vision can help you through your shortcomings. People want to follow someone
with a plan. By having a clear vision of what you want to accomplish, you will
attract followers and people who want to align themselves with your vision.
Individuals realize that one of the cornerstones of success is a clear vision.
For this reason they want to join align themselves with the success strategies.
In fact, a poor leader with a great
vision will achieve more than a great leader with an ill-conceived plan. People
want to follow someone who will lead them to success. If you appear to be able
to do this, people will want to follow you. If you have a track record of
success, people will want to follow you. If you are pushing people toward
shared success, they will tend to stick with you because they are succeeding.
In some cases they may even start mimicking some of your poor leadership habits thinking they are part
of the reason for your success. Many people mistake success for good leadership skills. That is because
people want to follow people with whom they can be successful. Obviously good
leadership skills are very important. It is much better to lead with a solid
vision and skillful leadership expertise.
Visionary
leaders are the builders of a new dawn, working with imagination, insight, and
boldness. They present a challenge that calls forth the best in people and
brings them together around a shared sense of purpose. They work with the power
of intentionality and alignment with a higher purpose. Their eyes are on the
horizon, not just on the near at hand. They are social innovators and change
agents, seeing the big picture and thinking strategically. There is a
profound interconnectedness between the leader and the whole, and true
visionary leaders serve the good of the whole. They recognize that there is
some truth on both sides of most polarized issues in our society today. They
search for solutions that transcend the usual adversarial approaches and
address the causal level of problems. They find a higher synthesis of the best
of both sides of an issue and address the systemic root causes of problems to
create real breakthroughs.
Visionary Leaders become Transformational leaders who are more
charismatic and inspiring in the eyes of their followers. They inspire
commitment, instill a vision and excite people. They are well trusted and their
followers place confidence in them. Transformational leaders give individual consideration.
They pay attention to individual differences in subordinates' needs for growth
and development. They coach, mentor and assign tasks that not only satisfy
immediate needs, but stretch peoples’ capabilities in an effort toward
improvement. They also link the individual's current needs to the
organization’s mission. Transformational
leaders provide intellectual stimulation and motivation. They raise peoples'
awareness of issues and problems. They help people become aware of their own
thoughts, imagination, beliefs and values. It is through intellectual
stimulation that transformational leaders facilitate the generation of new
methods of accomplishing the organizational mission.
3.2 What is it that makes a visionary become a
visionary leader?
A
visionary may dream wonderful visions of the future and articulate them with
great inspiration. A visionary is good with words. But a visionary leader
is good with actions as well as words, and so can bring his/her vision into
being in the world, thus transforming it in some way. Something beyond words is
needed for a vision to take form in today’s world. It requires leadership
and heartfelt commitment. A visionary leader is effective in manifesting his or
her vision because s/he creates specific, achievable goals, initiates action
and enlists the participation of others.
What is the mysterious inner
process within leaders that enables them to work their magic and radiate the
charisma that mobilizes others for a higher purpose? Visionary leadership
is based on a balanced expression of the spiritual, mental, emotional and
physical dimensions. It requires core values, clear vision, empowering
relationships, and innovative action. When one or more of these
dimensions is missing, leadership cannot manifest a vision. The best visionary leaders move
energy to a higher level by offering a clear vision of what is possible. They
inspire people to be better than they already are and help them identify with
what Lincoln
called “the angels of their better nature.” This was the power of
Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. The creative power of lighted,
inspired words can sound a certain inner note that people recognize and respond
to. This, then, creates dramatic social change. Like King, visionary
leaders have the ability to sense the deeper spiritual needs of the followers
and link their current demands to this deeper, often unspoken, need for purpose
and meaning.
Visionary leaders often have the
ability to see higher spiritual forces at work behind the scenes of events, and
they align with the vision of these redemptive forces. Both George
Washington and Winston Churchill spoke about the help they received from a
“guiding hand.” Churchill said, “...we have a guardian because we serve a
great cause, and we shall have that guardian as long as we serve that cause
faithfully.” Mahatma Gandhi called it
“The still voice”.
4. Leadership: Awakening the Sleeping Giant.
Globalization has ushered in an era of
competition and impersonal existence with emphasis exclusively on task and
results. Persons and their uniqueness have become things of the past. Survival
of the fittest has come to stay. Success at any cost seems to have become the
maxim. Competencies and talents often remain buried in this world of cut throat
competition. And yet when institutions and organizations are ready to embark on
a journey of inspiring, motivating, leading and mentoring their protégés and
employees, the result would be incomparable: Big dreams shall be ignited;
sleeping giants shall be awakened.
4.1 The 5 P’s of Leadership: Passion, Persistence, People, Process (this includes Planning)
and Profit.
One has to keep in mind the 5 P's of leadership: Passion, Persistence,
People, Process (this includes Planning) and Profit. A visionary leader will ignite the big dream
with passion and perseverance. People
would always be on the focus and will strategically plan out the process and
create a win-win situation where all the stakeholders will reap the profit of
the envisioned change and paradigm shift.
The leader is Passionate about what he has envisioned. Mahatma Gandhi envisioned the freedom of the
Country and he was passionate about it.
Despite the set backs, divergent views on the means of securing
independence he persisted in his method of non-violence and Satyagraha. He involved people and became a Mass-leader
for all times. He planned out events
like Civil Disobedience Movement, Dandi Salt-March, Swadeshi movement, Charkha
and the rest. He showed the people the
profit of such a movement – Freedom from the British through Non-violent means.
4.2 The
6 E’s of Leadership: Envision, Enable, Empower, Energize,
Execute and Evaluate.
Leadership depends on having a unique vision, making strategic
choices, finding the right tools and people to do the job, and designing and
enabling an organization to get it done.
Leadership is about
understanding people, and about getting people, pointing and acting in the same
direction. The unique role of a leader is then to provide the energy and
commitment to see this job through, and ensuring execution is perfect.
Leadership is about listening, and making a real "connect" with
others. It is a process.
We call this process the 6
E’s of Envision, Enable, Empower, Energize, Execute and Evaluate.
The framework has been developed by studying historical Leaders. The 6 E’s framework applies equally to
Leadership in different cultural backgrounds – important to Leader’s of
today’s’ multicultural Enterprises.
In each of the E's (Envision, Enable. Empower, Energize, Execute
and Evaluate) we are working with two axes. On the one hand, we are
working with Operational
parameters – the strategies, the tools, the measurements. At the other
side, we are dealing with Organizational
and people issues.
Step 1: Envision
Leadership starts with having a vision, then developing a plan to
achieve it. It is based both on data assessment and intuition, hope and fear.
It is a noble challenge. A vision of the future is the key to getting started
as a Leader. Without one, go back to square one.
Envisioning starts with having a clear
view of the external world. It drives the formation of the
mission of the Enterprise ,
and builds clear, mutual goals. In day-to-day work, it is helpful to
distinguish between verbal objectives (the mission), and numerical objectives
(the goals).
A vision that is likely to come true has to take account of the
culture of the Enterprise .
For example, a slow moving bureaucracy is not likely to succeed as a “New
Economy” Enterprise
without significant cultural change. The Leader then has a choice – mold
the vision and strategy to the capabilities and values of the culture – or
change the culture to achieve a different future for the Enterprise . A decision either direction will
have enormous consequences for the change program undertaken.
Step 2: Enable
The Envisioning step forces decisions on choices – strategies, in
other words. Leaders must then decide what methods or
tools will be used to enable the objectives, and to encourage the right kind of action.
There are essentially two kinds of enabling mechanisms – both
built on innovation. The first mechanisms (along what we defined as the
“Operational” axis) include tools, technologies, and business methodologies.
The second set of enabling mechanisms (on the “Organizational” axis) includes
processes and structure. It also means ensuring the Enterprise has the right people and the right
skill sets to get the job done. All these require building on the Enterprise ’s culture and
values. This could mean the deliberate elimination of counterproductive
values or structure - but there will always be a structure and a set of
processes in place.
Step 3: Empower
Given a clear vision, strategy and enabling tool kit, the third
step of the Leadership process is empowering people to achieve the goals. There
is a “deal” between the Leader and his or her followers. The followers and the
Leader have a contract, for success and failure, reward and sanction, on
both sides. Both are given mutual freedom, yet held mutually accountable. Both
are thus empowered3.
Effective empowerment provides the space to get the task
completed, the space to innovate, and
the feedback mechanism to both improve results and to motivate the
organization.
Again, there are two sides to empowerment. On the
“Organizational” axis, the team needs to be given the training to get the job
done. This is self-evident. The empowerment must also bring rewards to
all parties, and sanctions or challenges for improvement.
On the “Operational” axis, both Leaders and Followers need to be
able to measure progress against the goals, in a transparent way, which also
encourages dialog and continuous improvement.
We view this as another expression of the point made earlier that
the mission of the Enterprise
must take into account its values and its culture. A Leader must therefore work
hard to understand how national culture affects the way people react – all
constituencies, but especially employees and customers. That being said,
bending to the local culture without thought to the Enterprise ’s “culture in the making” will
lead to inconsistency and chaos. As ever, the Leader’s job is one of
thoughtful balance. From personal experience, the most practical Leadership
approach across a multi-cultural group is one of facilitation.
Trust via empowerment.
The overall impact of empowerment is to build trust. There are
many ways to do this, all of which are as applicable to networks as in any
other context. A word of warning – trust is not something a group can just
agree to have. It is built over time4.
Step 4: Energize
So, the goal is clear, the plan is in place, and the troops are
both motivated and armed. Still, there is an essential ingredient
missing. The Leadership role demands the skills of energizing the organization
to act. In fact, whilst we hope every
member of a team "Energizes" others, one could argue that this
Energizing step is a very personal one. By
contrast the previous three steps usually involve shared actions by
the entire team. For the members of the
team, probably the maximum energy will result from the combination of winning
(in the marketplace) and achieving a sense of personal success and
satisfaction. The more energy the team
generates, the more energy the Leader has – in a virtuous circle of
reinforcement.
On the other, “Operational” axis, we see that continuous
communication and course corrections are the key activities of the
Leader. This includes “walking the talk”, consistency, continuous
communication with the team, personal persuasiveness and clarity. The
Leader is a kind of motor for the change – the moment he or she flags or shows
a lack of resolve, the team will loose energy, and results will suffer.
One classic energizer involves
expressing the vision and goals in a "story", which
builds understanding and the desire for action in the followers. A great
example of a "story" is John Kennedy’s "put a man on the moon
and return him home safely by the end of the decade". This energized an
entire nation, its military and its industries. He stuck to the script, and
even after his death, the mission was accomplished.
To energize in the correct way one need to have “emotional
maturity” and “emotional intelligence.” That is where Goleman’s work
fits. It is no use just having all of the Leadership theory in your head
– you must have the maturity to be able to use it and energize others. There
has been much written about Emotional Intelligence (developed by Daniel Goleman5, and it is an important
concept. The concept includes self-awareness and impulse control, persistence,
zeal and self-motivation, empathy, and social deftness. All these attributes are
fundamental to excellent, personal Leadership skills. We believe that emotional intelligence fits inside the energizing role of a Leader,
rather than as a separate focus. We are helped to this conclusion by the many
studies that demonstrate that successful Leaders have had a varied and
challenging career. This puts them through their “Leadership training
paces” at each stage, en route to becoming a world class Leader. By contrast,
individuals who have not had the opportunity to build long-term programs, or
who have spent all of their time in focus area, tend not to make the best
Leaders. This breadth of experience, and the challenges associated with
such a career, not only serves to broaden the Leader’s skill base, but also
help his or her emotional development.
Step 5: Execute
Execution applies at every stage of the Leadership process. It takes courage to translate the vision into
reality by implementing the decisions made.
One may have to take hard decisions and ensure that the dream is
translated and becomes a reality. Many a
time good plans and innovative projects are not executed for lack of courage or
due to procrastination.
Step 6: Evaluate
The envisioned change has to be internalized and
institutionalized. For this constant evaluation based on a feed back from the
stakeholders is necessary. A critical activity of the Leader is also to provide
feedback on progress, and to “course correct” as needed. There will be many
mid-course corrections, to reach the goals whilst taking account of new
information, roadblocks, issues and plain mistakes along the way.
5. Conclusion:
“If your actions inspire others to dream
more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” - John Quincy Adams . Leaders make things happen. A visionary leader
stands for enhancing and sustaining quality, empowering people and ushering in
the required paradigm shift to redefine the vision and mission of the
institution and meet the challenges of the times. Institutions flourish or
perish depending largely on the leadership qualities of the persons at the helm
of affairs, six Sigma effect of change can be brought about by transformational
leadership which would make the team explore the latent potentials and produce
the required synergy to sustain the envisioned change.
---------------------------------
References:
1.Hiatt, Jeff. "The definition and history of change management". http://www.change-management.com/tutorial-definition-history.htm. Retrieved 16
August 2010.
2.Filicetti, John (August 20, 2007). "Project
Management Dictionary". PM Hut. http://www.pmhut.com/pmo-and-project-management-dictionary. Retrieved 16th of
November 2009.
3. A
very practical approach to Empowerment is in McLagan, Patricia & Nel, Christo 1995. “The Age of Participation”,
Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco .
4. A
clear and practical handbook on the subject of building trust is Shaw, Robert
Bruce 1997. “Trust in the Balance”, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco .
5. The "LeaderValues" logo is a UK Registered
Trademark and the "4E's.
"Survival
of the fittest" is a phrase which is commonly used in contexts other
than intended by its first two proponents: British polymath
philosopher Herbert Spencer (who coined the term) and Charles
Darwin.
Herbert Spencer first
used the phrase – after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species
– in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels
between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones, writing,
"This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in
mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or
the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1]
Darwin first used
Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for natural
selection in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it as a metaphor
for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common
inference of "in the best physical shape".[4] Hence, it is not a scientific
description.[5]
The phrase
"survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists
as the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural
selection, the term biologists use and prefer. Natural selection
refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a genetic
basis. "Survival of the fittest" is inaccurate for two important
reasons. First, survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction.
Second, fitness has specialized meaning in biology different from how the word
is used in popular culture. In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction.
"Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically
fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any
subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one
generation to the next.[6]
An interpretation of
the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean "only the fittest
organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as "Social
Darwinism") is not consistent with the actual theory of
evolution. Any individual organism which succeeds in reproducing itself is
"fit" and will contribute to survival of its species, not just the
"physically fittest" ones, though some of the population will be
better adapted to the circumstances than others. A more accurate
characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".[7]
"Survival of the
fit enough" is also emphasized by the fact that while direct competition
has been observed between individuals, populations and species, there is little
evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large
groups. For example, between amphibians, reptiles and mammals; rather these
animals have evolved by expanding into empty ecological niches.[8]
Moreover, to
misunderstand or misapply the phrase to simply mean "survival of those who
are better equipped for surviving" is rhetorical tautology.
What Darwin meant was "better adapted for immediate, local
environment" by differential preservation of organisms that are better
adapted to live in changing environments. The concept is not tautological as it contains an independent
criterion of fitness.[4]
History of the phrase
Herbert
Spencer first used the phrase — after reading Charles
Darwin's On the Origin of
Species — in his Principles of Biology of 1864[9] in which he drew parallels between his
economic theories and Darwin's biological, evolutionary ones, writing, “This
survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical
terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the
preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1]
In
the first four editions of On the Origin of Species, Darwin used the
phrase "natural selection".[10] Darwin wrote on page 6 of The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication
published in 1868, "This preservation, during the battle for life, of
varieties which possess any advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct,
I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert Spencer has well expressed the
same idea by the Survival of the Fittest. The term "natural
selection" is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious
choice; but this will be disregarded after a little familiarity".
Darwin agreed with Alfred Russel Wallace that this new phrase —
"survival of the fittest" — avoided the troublesome anthropomorphism
of "selecting", though it "lost the analogy between nature's
selection and the fanciers'". In Chapter 4 of the 5th edition of The
Origin published in 1869,[2] Darwin implies again the synonym:
"Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest".[3] By the word "fittest" Darwin
meant "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the
common modern meaning of "in the best physical shape".[4] In the introduction he gave full
credit to Spencer, writing "I have called this principle, by which each
slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in
order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression
often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more
accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient."[11]
In The
Man Versus The State, Spencer used the phrase in a postscript to justify a
plausible explanation for why his theories would not be adopted by
"societies of militant type". He uses the term in the context of
societies at war, and the form of his reference suggests that he is applying a
general principle.[12]
"Thus
by survival of the fittest, the militant type of society becomes characterized by
profound confidence in the governing power, joined with a loyalty causing
submission to it in all matters whatever".[13]
Herbert
Spencer is credited with starting the concept of Social
Darwinism.
The
phrase "survival of the fittest" has become widely used in popular
literature as a catchphrase for any topic related or analogous to evolution and
natural selection. It has thus been applied to principles of unrestrained competition,
and it has been used extensively by both proponents and opponents of Social
Darwinism. Its shortcomings as a description of Darwinian evolution
have also become more apparent (see below).
Evolutionary
biologists criticize how the term is used by
non-scientists and the connotations that have grown around the term in popular culture. The phrase also does not help
in conveying the complex nature of natural selection, so modern biologists
prefer and almost exclusively use the term natural
selection. Indeed, in modern biology, the term fitness mostly refers to reproductive success, and is not explicit about
the specific ways in which organisms can be "fit" as in "having phenotypic characteristics which enhance
survival and reproduction" (which was the meaning that Spencer had in
mind).
Also,
see the section Conflation of "survival of the fittest" and
morality below.
Is "survival of the fittest" a
tautology?
"Survival
of the fittest" is sometimes claimed to be a tautology.[14] The reasoning is that if one takes
the term "fit" to mean "endowed with phenotypic characteristics
which improve chances of survival and reproduction" (which is roughly how
Spencer understood it), then "survival of the fittest" can simply be
rewritten as "survival of those who are better equipped for
surviving". Furthermore, the expression does become a tautology if
one uses the most widely accepted definition of "fitness" in modern
biology, namely reproductive success itself (rather than any set of characters
conducive to this reproductive success). This reasoning is sometimes used to
claim that Darwin's entire theory of evolution by natural selection is
fundamentally tautological, and therefore devoid of any explanatory power.
However,
the expression "survival of the fittest" (taken on its own and out of
context) gives a very incomplete account of the mechanism of natural selection.
The reason is that it does not mention a key requirement for natural selection,
namely the requirement of heritability. It is true that the phrase
"survival of the fittest", in and by itself, is a tautology if
fitness is defined by survival and reproduction. Natural selection is the
portion of variation in reproductive success, that is caused by heritable characters (see the article on natural
selection).
If
certain heritable characters increase or decrease the chances of survival and
reproduction of their bearers, then it follows mechanically (by definition of
"heritable") that those characters that improve survival and
reproduction will increase in frequency over generations. This is precisely what
is called "evolution by natural
selection." On the other hand, if the characters which lead to
differential reproductive success are not heritable, then no meaningful
evolution will occur, "survival of the fittest" or not: if
improvement in reproductive success is caused by traits that are not heritable,
then there is no reason why these traits should increase in frequency over
generations. In other words, natural selection does not simply state that
"survivors survive" or "reproducers reproduce"; rather, it
states that "survivors survive, reproduce and therefore propagate
any heritable characters which have affected their survival and reproductive
success". This statement is not tautological: it hinges on the testable hypothesis that such fitness-impacting
heritable variations actually exist (a hypothesis that has been amply
confirmed.)
Skeptic
Society founder and Skeptic
magazine publisher Dr. Michael Shermer addresses this argument in his
1997 book, Why People
Believe Weird Things, in which he points out that although
tautologies are sometimes the beginning of science, they are never the end, and
that scientific principles like natural selection are testable and falsifiable by virtue of their predictive power.
Shermer points out, as an example, that population genetics accurately
demonstrate when natural selection will and will not effect change on a
population. Shermer hypothesizes that if hominid fossils were found in the same geological strata
as trilobites, it would be evidence against natural
selection.[15]
Conflation of "Survival of the
fittest" and morality
Critics
of evolution
have argued that "survival of the fittest" provides a justification
for behaviour that undermines moral standards by letting
the strong set standards of justice to the detriment of the weak.[16] However, any use of evolutionary
descriptions to set moral standards would be a naturalistic fallacy (or more specifically the is-ought problem), as prescriptive moral
statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive premises. Describing how
things are does not imply that things ought to be that way. It is also
suggested that "survival of the fittest" implies treating the weak
badly, even though in some cases of good social behaviour — cooperating with
others and treating them well — might improve evolutionary fitness.[17][18] This however does not resolve the
is-ought problem.
It
has also been claimed that "the survival of the fittest" theory in
biology was interpreted by late 19th century capitalists as "an ethical precept that
sanctioned cut-throat economic competition" and led to "social
Darwinism" which allegedly glorified laissez-faire
economics,
war and racism[19]. However these ideas predate and
commonly contradict Darwin's ideas, and indeed their proponents rarely invoked
Darwin in support, while commonly claiming justification from religion and Horatio Alger
mythology. The term "social Darwinism" referring to capitalist
ideologies was introduced as a term of abuse by Richard
Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought published
in 1944.[18][20]
Using
the phrase "survival of the fittest" as a criticism of Darwin's
theory of evolution is an example of the appeal to consequences fallacy: use of the
concept of survival of the fittest as a justification for violence in human
society has no effect on the truth of 'the theory of evolution by natural
selection' in the natural biological world.
"Survival of the fittest" and
anarchism
Russian
anarchist Peter
Kropotkin viewed the concept of "survival of the fittest"
as supporting co-operation rather than competition. In his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution he set out
his analysis leading to the conclusion that the fittest was not necessarily the
best at competing individually, but often the community made up of those best
at working together. He concluded that
In
the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in
societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for
life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense — not as a struggle
for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural
conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual
struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual
aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous,
the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress.
Applying
this concept to human society, Kropotkin presented mutual aid as one of the
dominant factors of evolution, the other being self assertion, and concluded
that
In
the practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to the earliest beginnings of
evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted origin of our ethical
conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress of man, mutual
support not mutual struggle – has had the leading part. In its wide extension,
even at the present time, we also see the best guarantee of a still loftier
evolution of our race.
References
1. ^ a b "Letter 5140 — Wallace, A. R. to Darwin, C. R., 2 July
1866". Darwin Correspondence Project. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-5140#back-mark-5140.f5.
Retrieved 2010-01-12.
"Letter 5145 — Darwin, C. R. to Wallace, A. R., 5 July
(1866)". Darwin Correspondence Project. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-5145#mark-5145.f3.
Retrieved 2010-01-12.
^ "Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology of 1864, vol. 1, p.
444, wrote: 'This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express
in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called "natural
selection", or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for
life.'" Maurice E. Stucke, Better Competition Advocacy, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=maurice_stucke,
retrieved 2007-08-29,
citing HERBERT SPENCER, THE PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGY 444 (Univ. Press of the Pac.
2002.)
2. ^ a b Freeman, R. B. (1977), "On the Origin of Species", The
Works of Charles Darwin: An Annotated Bibliographical Handlist (2nd ed.),
Cannon House, Folkestone, Kent, England: Wm Dawson & Sons Ltd, http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_OntheOriginofSpecies.html,
retrieved 2009-02-22
3. ^ a b "This preservation of
favourable variations, and the destruction of injurious variations, I call
Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest." — Darwin, Charles (1869), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (5th
ed.), London: John Murray, pp. 91–92, http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F387&pageseq=121,
retrieved 2009-02-22
4. ^ a b c "Stephen Jay Gould, Darwin's Untimely Burial", 1976; from
Michael Ruse, ed., Philosophy of Biology, New York: Prometheus Books, 1998, pp.
93-98.
5. ^ "Evolutionary biologists customarily
employ the metaphor 'survival of the fittest,' which has a precise meaning in
the context of mathematical population genetics, as a shorthand expression when
describing evolutionary processes." Chew, Matthew K.; Laubichler, Manfred
D. (July 4, 2003), "PERCEPTIONS OF SCIENCE: Natural Enemies — Metaphor or
Misconception?", Science 301 (5629): 52–53, doi:10.1126/science.1085274,
PMID 12846231,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/301/5629/52,
retrieved 2008-03-20
6. ^ Colby, Chris (1996-1997), Introduction to Evolutionary Biology, TalkOrigins Archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html,
retrieved 2009-02-22
7. ^ Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction.
Eugenie Carol Scott, University of California Press, 2005, ISBN 0520233913
8. ^ Sahney, S., Benton, M.J. and Ferry, P.A.
(2010), "Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological
diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land" (PDF), Biology
Letters 6 (4): 544–547, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.1024,
PMC 2936204, PMID 20106856,
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/6/4/544.full.pdf+html.
10. ^ U. Kutschera (March 14, 2003), A Comparative Analysis of the Darwin-Wallace Papers and the
Development of the Concept of Natural Selection, Institut für
Biologie, Universität Kassel, Germany, archived from the original on 2008-04-14, http://web.archive.org/web/20080414023545/http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb19/plantphysiology/wallace.pdf,
retrieved 2008-03-20
11. ^ Darwin, Charles (1869), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (5th
ed.), London: John Murray, p. 72, http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F387&pageseq=101,
retrieved 2009-02-22
12. ^ The principle of natural selection applied
to groups of individual is known as Group
selection.
13. ^ Herbert Spencer; Truxton Beale (1916), The
Man Versus the State: A Collection of Essays, M. Kennerley, http://books.google.com/?id=_Fg8kw8ztWkC (snippet)
14. ^ Michael Anthony Corey (1994), "Chapter 5. Natural Selection", Back
to Darwin: the scientific case for Deistic evolution, Rowman and
Littlefield, p. 147, ISBN 9780819193070,
http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=lBYuCMyaS4MC&pg=PA117
16. ^ Alan
Keyes (July 7, 2001), WorldNetDaily: Survival of the fittest?, WorldNetDaily,
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23533,
retrieved 2007-11-19
17. ^ Mark Isaak (2004), CA002: Survival of the fittest implies might makes right.,
TalkOrigins Archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002.html, retrieved
2007-11-19
18. ^ a b John S. Wilkins (1997), Evolution and Philosophy: Social Darwinism – Does evolution
make might right?, TalkOrigins Archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/social.html,
retrieved 2007-11-21
20.
^ Leonard, Thomas C. (2005), "Mistaking Eugenics for Social Darwinism: Why Eugenics
is Missing from the History of American Economics", History
of Political Economy 37 (supplement:): 200–233,doi:10.1215/00182702-37-Suppl_1-200, http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/mistaking.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)