A RESILIENT DIALOGUE: PREFACESteve DeAngelis
continued our discussion
of resilience with a new post on the interface of technology, organizational culture and individual action
. A critical excerpt:
" But the organization becomes truly resilient when its leaders, managers and staff are willing to reach across those departmental lines themselves -- when they collaborate to bring all of the organization's resources to bear on the threat or the opportunity. Technology supports resilience -- but true resilience also requires cultural and psychological comfort, as well as intensive training in the operation of resilient systems. Resilience requires a constant interplay between technological and human factors, with each reinforcing the other.
In the past, we've described resilience as the ability -- of an individual, or an organization, or a nation state, or a trans-national system -- to draw on all available resources in the face of a challenge. There is clearly a cultural component to this. Londoners were resilient in the face of the Underground bombings -- and New Yorkers were resilient in the face of the September 11 attacks -- in some measure because of a shared culture and heritage that they could draw on. They knew how to think about the challenge and how to rise to meet it. The same can hold true in an organizational setting -- the people in a resilient organization know how to respond, have access to systems that support resilience, and know how to use them
This is a very apt description of the resiliency dynamic ( the cool part of interacting with sharp thinkers like Mr. DeAngelis is the speed with which they can extend or deepen any point of discussion) and here's why:
Most of us have been educated to think in terms of compartmentalization, isolation, sequence and hierarchy which would be the entirely wrong paradigm for considering the effects of phenomena like resilience. Instead, we should reorient our cognitive perspective toward integration, synergy, interdependence, feedback and simultaneity - a more useful framework for understanding networked behavior. Resiliency has its greatest effects as a systemic characteristic and as such, it is a conceptual tool for systems analysis or engineering.
What therefore do we need to ask ourselves to pursue resiliency on a practical, useful level ? Here are some of the concepts and questions I would like to consider in future exchanges with Steve ( since the tech "platforms" aspect currently being discussed by Tom Barnett
and John Robb
are far, far, far outside my area of expertise, I'll leave that subject to them and for Steve):The strategic edge provided by resilient cultures.Engineering resiliency and cultural evolution Can resiliency be a two-edged sword?The psychology of resiliencyEducating for resiliencyThe " flow" of the resilient moment.
Comments, criticism, suggestions from readers are solicited.