“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” — Ken Olson, Founder of Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC), arguing against the PC in 1977.
“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” — Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.
“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered.” - Albert Einstein, 1932.
“The cinema is little more than a fad. It’s canned drama. What audiences really want to see is flesh and blood on the stage.” -– Charlie Chaplin, 1916.
“The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty - a fad.” — The president of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford’s lawyer, Horace Rackham, not to invest in the Ford Motor Co., 1903.
“Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.” — Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.
“The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to no one in particular?” — Associates of David Sarnoff responding to the latter’s call for investment in the radio in 1921.
It seems that whenever we try to predict the future based on our paradigms of the past we are usually, hopelessly short sighted! Joel Barker in his book “Paradigms: Business of Discovering the Future” suggests that there are three qualities organisations need to survive in the rapidly changing world of the twenty-first century:
Firstly they need excellence – that is creating goods or service of genuine quality for the people they serve. This will be the non-negotiable ‘ticket’ to the game, but it will not be enough. Ask yourself: “Does what we produce provide quality, significance, and delight for those we serve?”
Secondly, they need innovation – the capacity to keep on improving and advancing the potential of original idea. Think how each generation of smart phones builds extra features or lower price. Ask yourself: “Do we keep evaluating, fine-tuning, hearing feedback, and improving what we do?”
Thirdly, and most importantly, the successful organization demonstrates anticipation. That is the creativity and imagination to embrace the future! The new possibilities, needs and context – before anyone else does! Ask yourself: “Are we prepared to walk out of our comfort-zone; let go cherished trophies; experiment with the new; risk failure; and celebrate the prophet or the radical?” in other words, an openness to explore new paradigms.
Writes Barker: “A paradigm is a set of rules and regulations (Written or unwritten) that does two things: (1) it establishes or defines boundaries; and
(2) it tells you how to behave inside the boundaries in order to be successful.”
Prevailing paradigms become the lenses through which interpret reality. A prevailing paradigm is so much part of our experience it becomes like the water and glass in a fish-bowl -- How could a fish even imagine the ideas of dryness and air?
Often it is our ‘outsiders’ who can ‘see’ the new paradigms and question the old: A young person fresh out of training; An older person shifting fields; The maverick or prophet; the tinkerers! Interestingly, in turbulent times, just as the prevailing paradigm is under stress and new possibilities are required – the old paradigms and their gatekeepers reassert themselves the more strongly! The outsiders are marginalised until it is too late.
I wonder if this is relevant to us as as local
We could start by asking three questions:
1. Who are the people in or community with creativity? Who can ask the ‘why’ and ‘what if’ questions? Who are the prophets, evangelists, those from the margins or other places who see with fresh eyes?
2. In what ways can we build a culture of creative communication? How can we steer away from the often adversarial decision-making processes and meetings which militate against imagining an experimenting?
3. Brainstorm this question: “What is impossible to do in our organization (church), but if it could be done, would fundamentally change it?”
