Este é um dos vectores

Este é um dos vectores que vai construir o mundo económico futuro:
.
"So often in our lives we put ourselves in uncomfortable positions because we think we have to. We go to law school or become accountants because our parents told us it would be good for us, not because we wanted to. We choose one job over another because it pays better, not because we are good fits. We offer a view of ourselves to the outside world based on what we think they want from us, not based on who we really are. We do the things that we hope will gain us acceptance all in search of that comfort, that feeling like we belong. But, ironically, all that twisting and turning actually makes us more uncomfortable.
.
I used to hide my geekiness. I used to cover it up for fear that others would judge me. I wanted to fit in like anyone else, so I acted the way I thought would gain me most acceptance. But this weekend, at Comic Con, I learned a big lesson. The goal is not to bend or change ourselves so we fit the norm; the goal is to find the group in which we are the norm. No matter who we are, no matter what our values or beliefs, our tastes or proclivities, there is an entire culture or subculture out there just like us. I learned that, instead of expending energy to fit into the group, it’s better to expend energy to find the group in which you fit."
.
Cada vez mais pessoas vão ganhar a coragem de abandonar uma norma, uma referência, um padrão homogeneizador, para assumirem a sua tribo.
.
Diferentes tribos, diferentes costumes, diferentes gostos, diferentes requisitos...
.
Agora coloquem-se do lado da oferta...
.
Empresas mais pequenas, empresas-tribo elas próprias...
.
Estatisticamente a palavra moda tem um significado. A moda diz respeito a uma distribuição. E se existirem n distribuições? No global não teremos uma distribuição, teremos um planalto resultante do somatório dessas distribuições. Estatisticamente, não faz sentido falar de moda para uma distribuição rectangular... estamos a falar do fim da moda e do triunfo das tribos?
.
Trecho retirado de "Fitting In"

Dá que pensar... a sério

É impressionante...

.

Li recentemente Linchpin de Seth Godin, ouvi recentemente Tribes do mesmo autor, ando a ler The Power of Pull de Hagel e outros.

.

Todos estes autores escrevem sobre pessoas e a economia do futuro, todos eles escrevem, ainda que indirectamente, sobre o fim das empresas como as concebemos ainda hoje, todos eles escrevem sobre novas relações entre criadores, produtores e compradores e, sobretudo, sobre as novas relações que existirão entre quem vai constituir as entidades futuras, as task-forces, de criadores e produtores.

.

Há momentos o cirandar pela net levou-me a esta citação:

.

"This, I believe, is what separates the new networked thinking from industrial era doctrine. Peter Drucker said "In the knowledge economy all staff are volunteers, but our managers are trained to manage conscripts". Dan Pink pointed out that 'management' is an invented technology from the 1850s, and that "management leads to compliance, but only self-direction leads to engagement". "

.

E páro... e recordo o que li ontem em "Complexity and Management":

.

"A complex adaptive system consists of a large number of agents, each of which behaves according to its own principles of local interaction. No individual agent, or group of agents, determines the patterns of behavior that the system as a whole displays, or how those patterns evolve, and neither does anything outside of the system. Here self-organization means agents interacting locally according to their own principles, or “intentions,” in the absence of an overall blueprint for the system.
...
Kauffman’s ... shows how the dynamics of a self-organizing network consisting of a number (N) of entities is determined by the number (K) and strength (P) of the connections between these entities.
...
Kauffman is developing a notion of formative causality in which numbers and strengths of connection between entities in a system cause the patterns of behavior of that system. The patterns of behavior are not, initially anyway, caused by chance and competitive selection, on the one hand, or by an agent’s choice, on the other. No agent within the system is choosing the pattern of behavior across the system and neither is Kauffman, the simulator. Instead, that pattern emerges in the interaction between the agents, neither by chance nor by choice, but through the capacity to produce coherence that is intrinsic to interaction itself.
If this notion of causality were to apply to human organizations, its implications would be profound because it would mean that organizational change, strategic direction, is caused neither by chance nor by the choices of managers, but by the nature of interaction, relationship or cooperation between people in that organization. If one thinks along these lines, it immediately leads one to ask what managers are doing when they think they are choosing and planning their organization’s future. The notion that managers can choose what happens to their organization as a whole is so deeply ingrained that it leads to a typical response. The response is to argue that if managers cannot choose a creative outcome because it is radically unpredictable, then at least they can choose those numbers and strengths of connections, those qualities of relationship that produce the dynamics at the edge of chaos where creative change is possible. However, this misses the whole point because no agent within the system is choosing the numbers and strengths of connections for other agents in the system, or for themselves either; even if they were, this is not enough to determine the dynamic"

.