Social learning

June 11, 2014

I’ve written a couple of posts  exploring the tension individuals and organizations experience as they  balance wanting/needing to innovate, with the tendency to, well, not. We  looked at some factors that support this ‘laziness’ - both at the  individual and organizational level.

I’ve also shared some of the recent research from the burgeoning field of ‘social physics’.

In today’s thrilling installment, I’ll rationalize how these two sets  of observations sit together, and do they fit together I hear you  burble? Well, yes, they do (I think).

Turns out that engagement (as defined by the social physics 'gang’)  could be rationalised as the process through which an organization or  individual is able to redistribute its energy from the ‘explore’  dimension (inclusive of the desired pattern of new behaviours), and use  it to change their current state of behaviours (their pattern of  exploitation, if you will). I’ve tried to draw this below.

You. Are. Welcome.

This takes place through social learning and the accommodation of  alternate patterns of being. Without this, one imagines the adoption of  new behaviours becomes unsustainable; the context you are changing  within won’t tolerate your shenanigans and you’ll be unable to realise  your new mode of being. This insight has plenty of implications in lots  of different fields, and something I’m sure we’ll elaborate on in future  posts.

What’s this all got to do with Lunch Roulette, I hear you grunt? That dear reader I’ll leave for another post.

Thanks for listening,

DT