Session 4 - change and reaction

Brief Overview/Summary of the themes/topics addressed during the session

Like all previous sessions, we did a recap of the past few lessons, and Professor Shahi showed us the links between each topic and how each of them relate to Yali’s question. In this session, we sought to understand the process of change as well as to understand the importance of our responses to the rapid changes.

The first part of the session discussed the various drivers of change. In other words, we learnt about the different factors that caused the global changes. I felt that it was an interesting observation of how competition was a driver of change, because before this was pointed out, I never viewed it as a factor. Disruptive change was introduced and compared with evolutionary and revolutionary changes. I felt that the understanding of these different types of changes is essential to determine how to react to these changes. And it is now, more than ever, very important to know how to react to the different changes and when to react. Yet, there was a question I found hard to answer – exactly what change are we heading towards? It led to a lot of questions and many implications.

The next part of the session dealt with management and leadership. I felt that this part of the session was quite dry and a bit confusing because there were many overlapping duties between a leader and a manager. We covered the difference between a leader and a manager. And we also recognised the importance of the followers, particularly the first follower. Yet, what I am still trying to figure out is the differences in the roles of a leader and a manager because I felt that their duties vary in different situations.

Interesting Observations and Ideas (ideas and concepts that captured your attention)

I found the graph relating to the adoption of new technology really interesting. From the graph, there seems to be a lot of late adopters of technology. Many people tend to react slowly to new technology. Most would be skeptical about the technology at first, and want to wait for others to try it out. And only when it has become a trend, will they join in the flow and begin using the technology. This concept is similar to the video shown in class regarding leaders and followers.

I think an important observation from this graph and the video is that many people tend to be resistant to changes at the initial stages. Not everyone is courageous enough to take the first lead and make a change and not all is brave enough to be the first follower. Good leaders will then come in to motivate, convince and persuade people to follow them. This is where I think leaders play a very significant role because to change one’s mindset is not a simple task.

It was also very interesting to observe the psychological effect of actions of the first followers – because as more people started to follow the trend, more were inclined to join because they would be seen as ridicules or outcasts if they do not. This is fascinating because this occurs in almost every situation where change takes place. I think to be able to recognise this effect is important so that actions can be taken to prepare for the worst reactions. 

Key Take Away Points (the 2 or 3 key messages from the session that you intend to keep in mind going forward)

I felt that the pre-session recap brought back many interesting ideas and even more new takeaways. I was very shocked when Professor Shahi flashed the “Sobering Thought” that our world’s oil reserves would finish in 9 years if everyone consumed as much energy as the average Singaporean and U.S. residents. I suppose this was a revelation that many people would not want to believe. It is astonishing to know that our daily consumption of energy (i.e. air-condition, manufacturing, charging of electronic devices, transportation, etc.) is so much. And I didn’t expect our consumption to have such detrimental effects to the natural oil reserves. I found this information frightening, and now I truly believe that there is a strong need to be sustainable.

The “linear model” of industrialisation is not dependable and will not be able to sustain our increasing consumption. We need to constantly innovate to find new ways of doing things. Energy has become so involved in our every day lives that living without it would be unimaginable. Furthermore, it will be wrong to only take into consideration of the needs of the developed countries, because I believe that there is a need to give everyone a chance to develop. And it is not only the rich that use energy; the poor should also have the right and have the chance to use energy.

I think one important takeaway from this is the urgency and the devastating implications of the impending issue of sustainability. Professor Shahi predicts that the green revolution would be the next big thing and I really hope he is right because if it is not, the consequences may be disastrous and we may not have the capabilities to react to it.

I think this is where leadership comes in. Good leaders who take notice of the problem, will take actions to shift the paradigm, and take the lead to change things.

I think that a key idea from the second part of the session was the roles of a leader and a manager. Before this class, I never spared a second thought about a leader and a manager because I thought these were interchangeable terms and they meant the same thing. This was why I was stunned when the Professor posed the question about the difference between the roles of a manager and that of a leader. It turns out that each held differing roles. But it was also pointed out during the session that one can be a leader as well as a manager. And there was also another idea that a manager can lead as well.

I thought that the overlapping of roles was rather confusing. But after much thought, I realized that we could never completely differentiate or separate these two roles because they complement each other. The more important part of this analysis is the responsibility that comes together with a leader and a manager. Both are essential for change. A leader seeks to lead the way, create the change, or rather is proactive to change, whereas a manager reacts to change and implements the necessary changes.

In any sectors, I believe both roles are essential to success. In this case of sustainability, I think that it is very important for these roles to be carried out well. These people would be the cause of change and would lead us in the change.

Issues for Further Discussion (stuff you wish had been considered or given more air-time in class – and why)

I wished more discussions were done on the readings, particularly the article “Global Drivers of Change to 2060”. I found this article particularly comprehensive because it covered a lot of the drivers of global change. But what I wanted to hear more was the issues underlying these changes. The article seemed to be pointing at an inevitable disaster if no actions were taken to head towards sustainability. Fortunately, in today’s world, there are organisations that have taken significant steps towards sustainability. So, the next question would be if these efforts were enough to remedy the damage done to the environment. I believe it would be interesting to hear others’ view on this. 

I crafted the following diagram to characterise the different drivers of change. I was surprised when I saw that the human drivers were significantly more than the natural drivers of change. I think there is more to explore in this area. I believe it would be interesting to discuss about why there are more human drivers than natural drivers. 

Personal Ratings for Session (how you would rate the session on a scale of 0 to 10. Feel free to be as subjective as you like in your assessment)

I thought that the individual presentations done by the students were rather informative. The information presented was relatable and new. Learning about leaders and managers and their importance were very enlightening. I believe that together with innovation and good leaders, we would soon approach the long awaited green revolution. And this will be necessary for our survival. I would rate this session an eight out of ten.

Session 3 - a sustainable world

Brief Overview/Summary of the themes/topics addressed during the session

The first part of the session, we explored the tension between human development and the environment. Societies in the world have all benefited from industrialisation. Some experienced an emergence of new economy sectors (i.e. service sector) while others managed to catch up with the advanced societies due to industrialisation. However, industrialisation today is a ‘linear model’. A very insightful video was shown in class, explaining how this is an impossible way of survival because we live on a planet with finite resources. The video is interesting because it covers how and why some societies lack behind while others prosper so much. However, this development is so fast that this ‘engine of growth’ may soon become the ‘engine towards an inevitable end’.

The next part of the session seeks to provide a solution to the ‘linear model’ problem of industrialisation. It aims to use innovation to change ‘linear’ to ‘cyclical’, and this can make industrial development a sustainable one. Concepts like the ‘R-D-A’ model and the ‘Valley-Summit-Cloud’ model were introduced to help us understand how innovation can lead to success. I believe that if innovation was applied for the purpose of sustainability, damage done to the environment can be significantly reduced.  But, the question is, will societies be willing to head towards a sustainable future or will they simply be satisfied with one that satiates their present wants? And more importantly, can innovation achieve both scenarios – can we have the best of both worlds? 

Interesting Observations and Ideas (ideas and concepts that captured your attention)

There was an interesting concept briefly mentioned in class, in which I pondered deeply about. The idea of internalising the actual environment cost of a product, such that we pay for the damage or impacts brought about by manufacturing the product, rather that the market price (which is based on demand and supply), caught my attention. The Professor did a survey to gauge how much more would we pay for a product that is environmental friendly. In the end, as he increased the difference of the prices, fewer people preferred to purchase the more expensive green product.

I then wondered, if an object was environmentally friendly (i.e. a highly energy efficient television), shouldn’t it be cheaper than one that is not? Isn’t it cheaper to make use of renewable resources (i.e. solar energy) than to use precious, finite raw materials (i.e. fuel)? Why is the world paying a premium for the things that damage us the least?

After a brief research, according to an article on The New York Times and  ‘Cost of going green’, raw materials tend to cost more than the traditional counterparts. Furthermore, the costs of productions tend to be too high due to the smaller market it has, as compared to the big, well-known brands. However, ‘Consumers Don’t Warm to Eco-Friendly Products’ provided a contrasting view. It said that we were not paying more, and that this is simply a general assumption that people make of green products.

After understanding these differing views, it was difficult to judge which is right because both situation seemed to exist. But, I realised that it did not matter which was more accurate because what is most important is the reaction of people towards a sustainable future. All articles seem to show that people are inclined towards green products but if the price becomes higher, fewer people would be interested. This means that people are still more concerned about the benefits for themselves and therefore I am in complete agreement with the article from The New York Times (from above).

I believe that to encourage more people to go green, it is important to convey to them the benefits that green products can give them. It is essential to do this because people don’t see or feel future consequences (brought by an unsustainable development), but they do see what they have presently and how they are benefitting from the present. The article said that ‘the most effective way to increase green-adoption’ is to convey to consumers the ‘personal benefit and then, deliver this benefit’. This way of promoting green products will help to change consumers’ perspective that green-products will only benefit the environment and not them.

I think that if the adoption of green products becomes successful, we would be heading towards a society that internalises actual environmental cost of a product. And with this, I hope that we not only become more aware of the benefits of a sustainable environment, but also try to eliminate all the non-environmental friendly methods of production, so that minimising our damage on nature can be more effective.

Key Take Away Points (the 2 or 3 key messages from the session that you intend to keep in mind going forward)

So, why is it so important to be sustainable? We haven’t seen the Earth crumbling into pieces; some of us have never felt the negative impact of industrialisation – the skies are still blue and the sea is still ‘clean’; most of us are still healthy and there is development of technology that can increase our life span. So why invest so much time, effort and money to be innovative when we are ‘not affected’ at all?

This is a common view held by many. Even when they do know the impacts, they do not see or feel it. This is because the effects of unsustainable industrialisation are affecting our environment and us gradually. But, consumers tend to treat things that cannot be seen or felt with less importance, so the consequences are not promptly or actively dealt with. The video ‘Story of Stuff’ provides a deep insight to the effects of industrialisation that are commonly missed out, or hidden to the general population.

The key thing to note is that industrialisation is doing more harm to the third world countries. All of the products that we have and use today are made from precious, finite raw materials. And if we do not have these raw materials on our land, who did? It is usually the third world countries, where there is still plenty raw materials left, that rich industrialised nations go to to exploit. These countries are poorer and tend to depend on rich nations for manufactured products and services.

While we do not face the loss of our homes, the poor face deforestation, which essentially took away their habitat and traditional way of living. And what happens when these people lose their way of survival (i.e. subsistence farming)? They are being forced to move to cities, to work in factories and live in poor-conditioned slumps. And by working in the factories, they face the danger of exposure to toxic chemicals and waste, all of which can do severe damage to their body. Their health will be affected and so may their future generations.

While we do not pay for the actual cost of production, others who are less fortunate have to do so to survive, because rich countries destroyed their way of life. And that’s why some people term this as the endless cycle of poverty. 

It may or may not be as bad as it was shown in the video, but I think it is important to remember that even though we may not see or feel the effects of industrialisation, there are others who do presently, and some lose their lives because of it. And I think if this message is made known to more, becoming sustainable will be more important.

I think another important takeaway point is the idea that ‘successful innovation builds on the confluence of 4 Smarts: Smart people with Smart ideas have access to Smart money and Smart partnerships.’ I believe that this concept illustrates successful innovations quite accurately. I think if this concept could be adopted by more companies and in a sustainable way, the hope for a circular model of industrialisation can be achieved.

Furthermore, I believe that this concept is also very applicable to help poor countries escape poverty. They may not have much money, but I believe with if they are able to make use of the money they have and surprise the world with something revolutionary, it will bring them much success.

However, I do understand that to apply this concept to third world countries may be overly optimistic because they have many other pressing problems to deal with. More over, it may be challenging for them to risk investing in innovation when they have a practical and reliable traditional ways of earning a living. But, this is where economically advanced nations can come in to liaise and form ‘smart partnership’ with them to aid them in innovation and success. I believe that only when nations collaborate and help out one another, can success be truly accomplished.

Issues for Further Discussion (stuff you wish had been considered or given more air-time in class – and why)

One thing that I wished could have been given more airtime is the idea of the advantages of being backward. I was rather fascinated and surprised that this fact was pointed out in the article ‘Industrialisation as an engine of growth in developing countries’.

The article analysed the history of industrialisation and raised an important note – that those who were left behind, actually do have an advantage when catching up. They do not need to face risk of the unknown, and would have the knowledge of present technology and can come up with ideas to improve on this technology. I wished we were given more time to discuss about this fact because I believed it would have been interesting to hear the others’ predictions of how present backward countries could catch up one day. 

Personal Ratings for Session (how you would rate the session on a scale of 0 to 10. Feel free to be as subjective as you like in your assessment)

At the beginning, we were asked a very simple question – what is the purpose of this course? How is Yali’s question related to the themes of the course? If we can use what we learnt to answer his question, can we then go beyond his question and resolve the issue of unequal rate of development of different societies? I believed this lesson started off at an important note because it brought me back to focus and allowed me to better direct my thoughts in this direction.

I enjoyed the individual presentations by students as they revealed new knowledge and technology that I was previously unaware of. The session made me feel, more than ever, the importance of sustainability, as well as innovation. I never thought that innovation was a key to becoming sustainable, but now, with that in mind, I think there is a stronger motivation to think out of the box and be more open to new ideas. I would rate this session an eight out of ten.