John O'Leary wrote an excellent post recently on "creative disruption" where he uses The Beatles as an example. I have written here on being disruptive a few times. As brilliant as they are, disrupters are often marginalized and isolated.
While often being maligned, disrupters, in fact, are those who make the difference in business, painting, music, science, education, medicine, poetry, fashion, communities, novels, religion, community philosophy, etc.
Who are these disrupters?
Jesus Christ
Martin Luther
Joan of Arc
Toni Morrison
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Jean Paul Gautier
Emily Dickinson
Friedrich Nietzsche
Chuck Berry
Tom Peters
Oscar Wilde
Leonardo Da Vinci
Gianni Versace
Muhammad Yunnus
Bela Bartok
Copernicus
Henry Miller
Malcolm X
Jean Paul Sartre
Marie Currier
Anita Roddick
Georgia O'Keefe
Nelson Mandela
Virgina Woolf
Igor Stravinsky
Vincent Van Gogh
Anais Nin
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Galileo
Nat Turner
History is replete which such ones, yet we seek to allow disruption to be. Perhaps without the struggle it would not find a place or consistency. Perhaps resistance is at the heart of disruption a necessity.
Showing posts with label Disruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disruption. Show all posts
Friday, February 27, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Being Disruptive
Being disruptive is important and bipartisanship is a great thing. I am for both. But it is also quite clear who the Americans now trust to bring change to Washington via their vote in both the Executive and Legislative branches. It is also quite clear who the American trust to be disruptive to bring this change. Personally, I am less concerned about how many votes are received from either side and more concerned about the policies themselves. The built in partisanship in the various branches has been reduced to mere grandstanding and gaming as opposed to real disruption and change.
It matters less to me what you call yourself; I care more about both how you vote and how you frame your argument. Both are important moving forward. I am also equally aware that Washington is a political place and games will be undoubtedly played. One administration or a few will not change this. BUT one administration, along with the consistent voice of the people, can be disruptive in a system that can begin the change in how we do things. Movement always starts with one step and is followed through by many.
I have noticed President Obama doing small things like trying to humanize the guards who stand as he boards a plane. They always look utterly surprised when he actually speaks to them. Sometimes he has had to prod them into responding. They are so accustomed to standing there and trained to be non-reactionary in the presence of the President; they are trained to be good soldiers in the line of particular duty. I suspect if they were on the battlefield that their reactions would be quite different indeed. I honor them wherever they stand.
We all have a serious disruptive task to bring change to all branches of our government, both locally and nationally. We can do it!
It matters less to me what you call yourself; I care more about both how you vote and how you frame your argument. Both are important moving forward. I am also equally aware that Washington is a political place and games will be undoubtedly played. One administration or a few will not change this. BUT one administration, along with the consistent voice of the people, can be disruptive in a system that can begin the change in how we do things. Movement always starts with one step and is followed through by many.
I have noticed President Obama doing small things like trying to humanize the guards who stand as he boards a plane. They always look utterly surprised when he actually speaks to them. Sometimes he has had to prod them into responding. They are so accustomed to standing there and trained to be non-reactionary in the presence of the President; they are trained to be good soldiers in the line of particular duty. I suspect if they were on the battlefield that their reactions would be quite different indeed. I honor them wherever they stand.
We all have a serious disruptive task to bring change to all branches of our government, both locally and nationally. We can do it!
Monday, April 28, 2008
Being Divisive, Different or Deficient?
In spite of the opinion of many of Reverend Jeremiah Wright as being divisive, I ask you to listen to his recent address to the NAACP in Detroit in its entirety, forming your own opinion.
Click on the title above to hear the address. It's 37 minutes in length. Youtube snippets will not do, as often such snippets won't in things that matter. Who's afraid of Youtube?
Reverend Wright's penchant for disruptive thinking, the only kind that engenders change, is powerful...whether you agree or not.
We often talk in business of change and innovation, but we so often avoid differences of thought and means of expression, dismissing them as dogmatic or deficient...even fanatical.
Is Reverend Wright's speech to the NAACP divisive or does it point to some of our differences in ways that could bring the needed change?
Does difference point to deficiency?
What is dereliction? Who, in fact, has been derelict in duty?
Of our two last esteemed presidents, who served in the military? (Which pundit, pray tell, has donned the stars and stripes?) Of the three, Reverend Wright served his country honorably.
(Is Reverend Wright running for the presidency?)
Who is disruptive? Who is different? Who is deficient? Who is distinguished?
Addressing hard questions is at the root of change and innovation in life or business. It is also the root of whether change or innovation occur.
Hard questions also draw the light inwardly, instead of outwardly, making us asks consistently who am I? Or, who have I become? Inward searching brings outward results.
Shhh! the disrupters is what we often hear. Marginalize them is the often refrain.
Why is it that we seek to silence or marginalize disrupters in life and business?
Is Reverend Wright in the purest sense a disrupter?
What are your thoughts?
Click on the title above to hear the address. It's 37 minutes in length. Youtube snippets will not do, as often such snippets won't in things that matter. Who's afraid of Youtube?
Reverend Wright's penchant for disruptive thinking, the only kind that engenders change, is powerful...whether you agree or not.
We often talk in business of change and innovation, but we so often avoid differences of thought and means of expression, dismissing them as dogmatic or deficient...even fanatical.
Is Reverend Wright's speech to the NAACP divisive or does it point to some of our differences in ways that could bring the needed change?
Does difference point to deficiency?
What is dereliction? Who, in fact, has been derelict in duty?
Of our two last esteemed presidents, who served in the military? (Which pundit, pray tell, has donned the stars and stripes?) Of the three, Reverend Wright served his country honorably.
(Is Reverend Wright running for the presidency?)
Who is disruptive? Who is different? Who is deficient? Who is distinguished?
Addressing hard questions is at the root of change and innovation in life or business. It is also the root of whether change or innovation occur.
Hard questions also draw the light inwardly, instead of outwardly, making us asks consistently who am I? Or, who have I become? Inward searching brings outward results.
Shhh! the disrupters is what we often hear. Marginalize them is the often refrain.
Why is it that we seek to silence or marginalize disrupters in life and business?
Is Reverend Wright in the purest sense a disrupter?
What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)