Written by: Nad Philips, Executive Contributor
Executive Contributors at Brainz Magazine are handpicked and invited to contribute because of their knowledge and valuable insight within their area of expertise.
The short answer is the death of the commons. What Camus called common decency. I will add the common good and the idea that the commons can be defined as a social practice of a self-managed shared resource (a process).
Despite the multiplicity of what could be commons for the common good; like the digital commons; cultural and knowledge commons and of course the ecological commons; they remain uncommonly commons (I mean by that not common at all). An individualistic collective of sorts where everyone is prioritizing self-interest. Everyone is trying to export their own constraints to the other party.
Take for instance a digital tool like Zoom or Teams it enables us to convene virtually and use cooperative apps to animate a group and create a shared reality. Great! so why it didn’t turn into a digital common for the common good? Let’s examine some of the caveats in terms of actual usage behavior:
Because it has a memory and leaves traces that are aggregated and analyzed as big data by the company and the app creators’ people are careful about what to share.
When people use their cameras, they can choose a background or use the one the company provides for advertising purposes and thus places the participant in a virtual space ( one could argue that you can make a statement by your choices however people use generic or unrevealing backgrounds like empty corporate space or random space).
Some will not put their cameras on, and they might not even be dressed properly.
Some will multitask and do other things at the same time.
People will use the chat instead of speaking.
Digital body language is difficult to decipher and the new etiquette dictates using emojis to express “true” feelings. The Droopy effect: you know what? I am happy! It just doesn’t show.
Most agendas are task-oriented with little attention given to human relationships.
The quality of the collective experience is often poor; people do not want to participate in those meetings.
Stop bothering me, just tell me what the deliverables and I’ll ship them to you on time.
The longer we work virtually the more we get used to another way of working and find a different work-life balance.
I teach a seminar on hybrid management where participants often will complain about being tired of pushing and pulling to create interactive meetings. They complain that the team spirit is dwindling, and the difficulty to maintain rapport and trust. My answer is to think of the new commons of a hybrid world: it invariably entails a new modus operandi based on shared values, agreements, and principles. You cannot run with the old rules and processes where everyone was in the office.
So, a tool that can foster cooperation and a shared experience to build team spirit could end up being alienating creating less engagement, less authenticity, and more distance and withdrawal.
Let’s take social media; again, it could be a wonderful tool to keep up with the lives of our loved ones or organize social actions.
However, in our day-to-day practices, it raises some issues. It will very conveniently remind us of the birthday of one acquaintance then another app allows us to choose a birthday card and it will even suggest a few wishes we can use or quotes from famous people. The recipient will receive it on time, but is there anything authentic or show care and proximity or is it some kind of politically correct way of executing our social duty? All this creates distance and disengagement.
Also, the fact of interacting or not interacting with a post, liking, or disliking a post or even expressing other emotions just turns the whole exercise into an evaluation game, creating more cleavage.
I guess the question I am really asking is whether the negative unintended consequences supersede the initial purpose. Whether our use of technology is not accelerating isolation and disengagement in what appears to be a world of connection whilst virtual.
If we contrast that with what psychology and sociology tell us about our needs as social beings.
Learning and development are social. Everything you know you learned from someone, notwithstanding self-experience.
You can not individuate (build your own personality) in isolation you need an alter ego (without getting into a nurture/nature debate).
Self-determination theory emphasizes the importance of three basic needs of belonging, autonomy, and competence without which you can’t be intrinsically motivated.
Attachment theory advocates that to be able to securely attach with others; you first need loving, adequately responding caregivers, and second all your life you will seek like-minded people to whom you can relate authentically.
Even Darwin noted that our specie dominated because we had the advantage of communication and cooperation.
Where did we go wrong?
From a corporate perspective, companies lag behind recent social advances. We keep antiquated organizational structures and management practices that are ill-adapted to the new normal and to the new awakening of the people. Especially true with new generations the relationship to work has changed. What are the commons in a corporation: cooperative structures, and pathways to collaboration?
Hybrid work is paving the way to a more gig economy and towards self-employment, yet countries and companies alike are legislating and acting as if salary-based long-term employment is the future.
The gig tribe is also going to have to organize. What are the commons of a gig tribe: knowledge, know-how, competencies, and capabilities?
Hybrid work could also mean that since our work colleagues are no longer the people we spend most of our time with; we do not seek to fulfill our social needs with them.
The social contract and the employment contracts as agreements governing business and social interactions need to evolve. A new world order is emerging, and the free world needs to update its democratic functioning and the new institutions that go with it, probably more toward direct democracy.
What are the commons of the new democracies: the resources natural (earth itself), technological (in service of the masses and not to replace them), and lifestyles (hedonic and eudaemonic)
It is the same for the corporate world: the “the winner takes it all “mentality is not an option, and the sharing of wealth among stakeholders needs to change. What are the new commons in the business world: wealth, values, principles, and risk?
Think about what our commons should be and let me know your thoughts.
Nad Philips, Executive Contributor Brainz Magazine
Nad is an adult learning and development, global consultant. He specializes in helping teams design prosocial relationships and become future fit. Prior to coaching Nad served as European VP and MD France for a Fortune 500 company. He was an honorary professor with ESSEC Business school. Nad also launched several startups in Europe. He is an Amazon best-selling author and lives in Paris, France.
