===

“We are witnessing the crack-up of consensus. Most previous societies have operated with a broad central core of commonly shared values. This core is now contracting, and there is little reason to anticipate the formation of a new broad consensus within the decades ahead. The pressures are outward toward diversity, not inward toward unity.

This accounts for the fantastically discordant propaganda that assails the mind in the

techno-societies. Home, school, corporation, church, peer group, mass media—and myriad

subcults—all advertise varying sets of values. The result for many is an “anything goes”

attitude—which is, itself, still another value position. We are, declares Newsweek magazine,

“a society that has lost its consensus … a society that cannot agree on standards of conduct,

language and manners, on what can be seen and heard.”

Toffler, Future Shock, 1970

===

“Sometimes I wonder if we shall ever grow up in our politics and say definite things which mean something, or whether we shall always go on using generalities to which everyone can subscribe and which mean very little.”

Eleanor Roosevelt

===

The world has become a confusing swirl of realities. A mixture of fantastical thinking, alternative universes, and an absurd mix of selectively used facts/data points.  The urge for clarity—for a logical articulation of what we’re experiencing, of a mosh pit of realities world suddenly beyond our understanding, is never stronger than in moments of fantasy realities. Of course, by definition, fantasy realities refuse logic, living in a space beyond comprehension, beyond reason.

Which leads me to the battle between fantasy and reason.

One of the most underdiscussed reasons for our deepening sense of crisis and confusion is grounded in the fact while we talk endlessly of individual freedom there is an incredible pressure for conformity or, let’s say, some common thinking. This conformity is often grounded in ‘reason’ or ‘common sense.’ But let me focus on reason (because common sense is possibly the penultimate fantasy).

All the weird ideas that could have been considered counter to reason basically went mainstream. Common sense got flipped on its head. Anything is possible meant it was possible. We became unshackled, free to indulge in our own opinions with fewer and fewer fetters in the forms of facts, rationality, and reason. We began creating reality out of fantasy grounded in, uhm, ‘reason.’ But this reason was grounded in our own truths which made reality something you were free to construct on your own. At some point it seems like the majority of people just rejected the claims of reason and rationality, and reality, and began to embrace fantasies.  As a consequence, experts got thrown under the bus. Fantasy realities demand rejection of expertise, okay, well, the expert advice that didn’t agree with our own opinions that is. This became significantly easier to do the moment we started attaching so called experts with whatever bias we wanted to insert. We began attacking credentials and everyone was on the payroll of someone. At least in our reality so we could craft the reality we want (unfettered by facts).

Here is where we are.

We have turned reason into either (a) a process, i.e., a fantasy tangible thing to build a house of truth on stilts or (b) a method to manipulate, i.e., dubious logic crafting dubious reason. The former creates a cult of some beneficial machine bereft of sense and morality. The latter is a tool of corrupted experts and charlatans. Both, and all, of which means people increasingly dwell in a world of illusion, i.e., fantasy.

Which leads me to nostalgia as a major fantastical illusion.

Nostalgia has been turned into a pathological ideological tool. Nostalgia’s vague outlines gain mythical concreteness as we apply it to our fantasy realities. The problem with nostalgia is that its defining quirk is a weakness for illusion and delusion. As a consequence of this nostalgic whimsical thinking, we begin to believe that we have an accepted standard of reason and truth, but unfortunately a significant portion of the population actually becomes less reality based and more myth-addled. Yeah. it gets worse. Fantasy realities demand a ‘bad guy,’ an enemy, a “reason” why nostalgia isn’t exactly perfect and why the present isn’t using all the perfect nostalgia. That enemy is always tied to some mysterious manipulator. That’s bad, but even that gets worse. If manipulators lurk everywhere, well, we start believing that evil lurks everywhere. We all begin to feel like we are all holding onto an overhead hand hold on a careening driverless bus.

But nostalgia explains everything – the good or bad – which means the present is, well, made up of whatever you want (because all that past stuff is mostly an illusion anyway – note: does creating an illusion present from an illusion past mean we are a reason-based delusional population?). Anyway. The present doesn’t exactly help. The constant 24/7 exposure of actual conspiracies have led many people to assume that anything bad is the intentional result of some conspiracy. I mean, well, if there are that many, certainly they have to be intentional? That asked, this makes it harder to expose and dismantle the truly rare real ones. We’ve moved beyond isolated events to exposure to an onslaught of relentless sudden events. The societal discourse is now clogged more than ever with conspiracy theories and fantasy realities. Reality, the real one, is being bludgeoned by fantasy. One of the most worrying consequences of this is that all the conspiratorial noise obscures the occasional signals of the important things we should pay attention to, but we don’t. To be clear. This fantasy reality issue is highly asymmetrical. Or let’s just say the asymmetrical has gone too far out of whack. Fantasy reality thinking has taken on outsized gravitas versus reality not because the fantasy is any more believable, but rather because the believers have become more strident, more vocal and, well, more. Not to bring politics into this we should just admit that there are more absurd, and just, well, more, fantasy realities on the American Right then on the left. To be clear. I am not suggesting if you are on what is deemed ‘the far right’ you believe in fantasy realities, but of the people who believe in fantasy realities they are most likely somewhere on the Right spectrum. That said. Politicians, in general, thrive on fostering fantasy realities (see opening Eleanor Roosevelt quote as reference) so on this point I am not sure if it is a chicken or egg discussion.

The truth is America’s unhinged right has become much larger and more influential than the unhinged left. In addition, the unhinged right now has significantly more power and effective control than it is ever had. The truth is only the American right has a large and organized faction based on paranoid conspiracism that has spanned over decades.

Kurt Anderson

So. Maybe my point is that fantasy thinking has seemed to gain momentum. There have always been people with fantasy realities and those random beliefs have been incredibly resilient and enduring. They have had the ability to morph into other forms to fit into different groups as time and context have changed. This can partially be explained in that in the past (and worryingly too often in the present) most of the reality-based people typically ignored the fantastical thinking, if not were amused by it, as the quacks, charlatans and paranoid conspiracists pushed and pulled and encouraged people to believe their fantasy realities. Uh oh. Over time the quacks, charlatans and paranoid conspiracists carved out ‘believable-enough’ slivers of fantasy factions and we saw more people gravitate towards them. ‘Believable-enough’ is key here because as with most things, for every force, there is typically an equal and opposing force. In this case the slivers of fantasy realities grew as a force as the world became more complex, more un-understandable and, consequently, more difficult to explain, i.e., less believable. What were once vague unbelievable dangers now seemed very very real and believable. From those seeds grew fantasy realities. Yeah. I just rationalized fantasy realities with reason.

Which leads me to sensemaking.

Sensemaking is the weapon against fantasy realities. The sensemaking process is a cognitive and social process of creating meaning and understanding out of complex or ambiguous information. It involves interpreting and making sense of data, information, and experiences in order to develop a coherent understanding of a situation. The sensemaking process typically involves the following steps (source lost or maybe this is a good ChatGPT response):

1. Perception: This is the initial stage where we perceive or become aware of information or data that is relevant to the situation.
2. Attention: We focus our attention on the information or data that we perceive as being most relevant or salient.
3. Comprehension: We attempt to understand the information or data by organizing it into a coherent framework or mental model.
4. Interpretation: We make sense of the information or data by interpreting it in light of our existing knowledge, experiences, and expectations.
5. Integration: We integrate the new information or data with our existing mental model or framework, making adjustments as needed.
6. Evaluation: We evaluate our understanding of the situation, checking for inconsistencies or gaps in our understanding.
7. Action: We take action based on our understanding of the situation, either by making decisions or taking other appropriate actions.

Sensemaking, in my words, is transactional and structural. What I mean by that is while everything above is iterative and an ongoing process, sensemaking performs on two axis: the current situation (finite in its time and resources) and the situation as it evolves (a seeming infinite onslaught of information, data and inputs that make the situation dynamic). Effective sensemaking accommodates the challenges of the “now” (the law of the situation) as well as offers a foundation to navigate ‘the long now’ by offering a coherent set of lily pads in an uncertain, dynamic, in-flux, world barraged by fantasy reality spewing charlatans.

I would also point out that from a societal perspective sensemaking is largely a social process or, as James Carse suggests, “the smallest unit of change is a conversation.” The more conversations that take place with regard to reality, the less likely some fantasy can impersonate reality. The social process, the conversations, make everyone an individual and, yet, part and parcel of all reality (Hanzi Freinacht calls this being a transvidual). Try this thought on for size. If we encourage sensemaking, conceptually we all become accountants. Not in the traditional sense, as in dollars and cents, but instead you keep account of political trends, ideological thinking, military actions, religious leadership, technological developments, communities, local news/activity and even the price of wool, oil, cheese, milk and tea, i.e., reality. In some way you keep account of the ten thousand threads that make up the tapestry of reality. Yes. That can sound a bit daunting. A bit overwhelming. A bit like, well, it makes fantasy realities sound a bit more appealing. I will end there because, as well know, our favorite indulgence always looks appealing – the Haagen Daz ice cream, the double chocolate cake, even the favorite brand of shoes – but we know we can’t afford it all the time because it isn’t healthy; for the body, mind or wallet. Fantasy realities are exactly the same. Appealing but unhealthy. Ponder.

===

“The coming struggle for power will increasingly turn into a struggle over the distribution of and access to knowledge; not just consumption. Power seekers’ will use this struggle to further their power ambitions. While mass media could have been seen as sweeping generalized manipulation of attitudes and beliefs, technology is using fragmentation to have those with power divide and conquer.”

Alvin Toffler, 1981

===

It is too simplistic to suggest any society, or nation, is divided. The reality is that society, and communities, have become fragmented, each isolating into its own cocoon of mindsets, attitudes, beliefs and even performative metrics (proof). If we step back, this is a natural consequence of years of rhetoric and unhealthy narratives. What else would we do after years of businesses suggesting business was a war and the other businesses were out to get us and it was a battle of us versus them, kill or be killed. Or your church is telling you only you will go to heaven and everyone else is designated for hell (or heathens). Or some Cause suggests it is Armageddon if you do not agree with them and if you don’t you are part of the problem. Even issues like climate change, abortion and vaccinations have become battlegrounds of us versus them. And the politicians, well, they are an onslaught of ‘the other party is evil and will destroy this country” or “that country is evil and out to destroy us” or whatever us versus them derivative they can create. Each, individually, divides, and each contribute to fragmentation. There are two main consequences to all this which leads to the creation of smaller groupings, communities, of like minded people:

• –         The more dividing issues occur, the more complex the world seems and the more inept, or unable to contend with, any centralized center of power is, which leads to decentralization (of everything) which only compounds the sense of lack of coherence.
• –         From a whole cloth perspective this cacophony of dividing creates an overall sense that everything is out of control and the world is spiraling downwards into the depths of despair (this is the roots of cultural despair).

But then we get too technology.

Technology, in and of itself, is nothing. Without people, without people generating content, it is a passive tool regenerating itself to its own purposes. Yet. Once humans become involved technology begins to amplify – amplify divides, fragments, communities and tribes. It is within the fragmentation aspect in which we begin to pause on the benefits of technology with regard to society. The fragmentation, the phrasing of ideas, ideologies, values, norms and actual ideological commitments just begin to blur the greater truths associated with each. Fragments get emphasized to strengthens pieces of views all the while blurring larger issues and societal coherence. The extension of technology into our lives has only seemed to accomplish the fact that people everywhere sensing their control over their lives slipping away as the world becomes increasingly complex. With that mindset/belief people begin discerning specific scenarios within which they can find meaning, self identification & success and then go about creating a subsystem, a likeminded community, where desired actions and direction are created, further intensified by a sense of their own survival within the larger system. There is a general feeling of remoteness from the centers of decision making so they create their own decisonmaking centers. These choices are supported by a feeling (which becomes a belief) that those in power don’t care what “people like me think” which only increases an increasing sense how little capacity individuals, alone, feel they have to shape events. Individuals recognize they cannot flex power to manipulate any meaningful levers of control, they end up groping around almost desperately for ways to bring back some order and sense to their lives, and inevitably smaller likeminded communities are forged. What ends up happening is that society becomes an interaction between these likeminded communities and their changing micro boundaries at a community level all trying to exist in a macro larger system attempting to shape boundaries and pull levers itself for the collective good. The consequence of this conflict/tension tends to make the likeminded communities only double down and increase close identification with those within that particular group. This means that society has become fragmented and not divided.

To state again, a major part of the issue is that people have come to believe that whole systems are simply too complex to meet their needs or serve their wants. So, they’ve sought to regain control by turning to subsystems, in likeminded communities, less complex relatable groups, in the hope that their interests can be better served and some control is regained over the distant impersonal forces that intrude upon their daily life. Simplistically, people have simply given up on the distant big structures of power striking a “big is threatening” and “small is effective/beautiful” pose. Technology has simply taken a gentle sloping trend rising towards skepticism and doubt, laced with some conspiracy theories, and exponentially made it a steep climb.

This has become a period of cultural despair and creation of likeminded communities is an active response to fight despair. I say that because this smaller group creation is an adaptive response to the problems of complexity; not an abandonment of responsibility. The creation of likeminded communities should not be equated with indifference nor is it an expression of apathy or cynicism. Development of smaller communities is simply a search for new structures around which to organize scenarios and which the individuals’ micro needs can have macro consequences. I highlight this to make two points:

• –         This is active participation in society, not a passive reaction. These people are not retreating, they are going on the offensive toward things they actively care about. This is important if we attempt to engage with a collective future in mind. As with any self-decentralization if we seek to regain some centralization or, at minimum, coherence, the fragmented communities must be solicited with sincerity, not disdain or a belief they are not ‘smart enough’ to know better.
• –         Technology feeds on active participation. This is more a warning than it is anything else. If a likeminded community ‘feels’ something, the internet will feed that feeling until it hardens into a belief. It will also actively feed other likeminded people into that community. Contrary to opinion, technology can create blindness and will actually encourage people to go blind.

Which leads me to proof in a complex world.

In order to have some legitimacy and just survive within the larger system the likeminded communities construct scenarios, assume responsibilities, and assign analytics to everything they are involved in. In other words, likeminded communities have their own analytics, they have their own narratives and, unfortunately, sometimes they have their own facts. In fact, the larger the macro societal crisis the more likely it will involve a shift at the subgroup level performance criteria that they will attach to their own legitimacy. This expanded use of metrics may dispose people to rethink what has long been taken for granted and decide to shape their own performance criteria themselves. I would be remiss I remiss if I didn’t point out that media plays a role in subgroup performance criteria development. For example, what Fox News cites is important can often become a community criteria. This criteria becomes a measurement for the larger system – even if the larger system may not have the same criteria. So, while the larger system may actually be quite effective in totality, if not the very specific issue at hand, the performance analytics are not aligned and the conflict only creates further dissonance between the groups and the system.

Technology is the ally and the enemy.

Information should be intrinsically beneficial to society and, yet a fragmented flow of information and communication results in increased knowledge AND fragmentation. Technology plays a role in where we go from here, but first, people need to think about the future they desire which, typically, rests on the most fundamental assumptions we make about reality. In the present competitive view of the world, we often think that the most capable are those who are the most competitive, and accordingly that competition creates and secures long-term viability. On a societal level, we have essentially adopted a zero-sum dynamic behind most of the things we do. This separates everything, and everyone, into a binary 0/1, yes/no, good/bad, this way/that way design world (software, algorithms, business individuals and even countries). This current design belief has only made the divide between winners and losers constantly grow and this polarization leads to radicalization (of ideas, opinions, behavior) and, well, society does not benefit. A fragmented society is not one that will effectively build a future good for the collective whole.

We do need technological advances, but our humanity and society must develop at the same speed as technology develops. As our technological ability to impact the world is radically scaling up, our human ethical choices as to how to implement that power must scale up accordingly.

The solution resides in being able to see clearly.

It may be difficult for a likeminded community, from all views within a healthy community, to recognize that humanity – even theirs – is lagging our technology. It may be difficult for a fragmented society, specifcally the smaller communities themselves, to see beyond their loose talk about obsolescence and the rot at the core of our society and institutions and business when the existence of that community may be grounded in some apocalyptic view about every systemic crisis. It would behoove each of these smaller communities to understand it stretches credibility to extend each individual systemic indictment to the entire structure of business, government, justice, and institutions. Every debatable action does not demand some mandate to destroy the entire system and every disappointment or concern about the larger system is not a mandate to shrink away to a smaller community mindset. We need some optimism, not just in humanity, but in the grander systems and institutions. Not blind faith, but optimism. I always recommend reading Rutger Bregman’s Humankind to remind everyone about humanity. I recommend for the ‘We’, those who seek to find solutions to what seems like a dysfunctional society, we need to recognize the difference between fragmentation and divided because the solutions are different for each. Divided is about building bridges and fragmentation is about building coherence. Ponder.

=====

“If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people together to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.”

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

============

“The problem today is not lack of proper resources, but lack of proper distribution.”

Mahatma Gandhi

==============

We gussy up organizational discussions with teams, networks, communities, but, at the core of every business organization is “distribution” — distribution of people, resources, ideas, skills, talent, energy, time, etc.

Unfortunately, hierarchy isn’t particularly conducive to effective, let alone efficient, distribution of any of these things. Most organizations don’t ‘distribute’ these things, they allocate them. The organic distribution of anything is an anathema to a business.

That said.

Here’s what I’m thinking.

Can technology, specifically algorithms, instead of forcing team collaboration (or ‘network teams’) extract skills/talents so friction is decreased and potential (company and individual) be optimized?

First. Extracting is a derivative of cross functional.

Cross functional teams is not a new idea. Toffler called it “poly malleable” organizations in 1970.

The issue is the idea is excellent in concept, a bitch in practice. Business has become contortion artists in applying “collaboration” in organizations (kind of their answer to cross functional and malleable).

Personally, when individuals interact in groups, I do not believe long-term commitment is necessary to build a real team, therefore, extracting talents can be situational and be quite effective.

“Collaboration is a cultural construct, but also a coordinative one.”

Mike Walsh

However. Just as collaboration needs to be consciously coordinated, so would extracting talents & skills. My thought is rather than have some person (who may, or may not be, effective at assessing submerged, non obvious, skills & talents) coordinate, why not have algorithms monitor activity & behavior and pluck out submerged potential as needed?

Second. Technology as a force for positive ‘human’ progress.

The pace of technological progress is accelerating, bringing significant opportunities to create value providing opportunities to reinvent the way we live, work, and organize.

Far too often, when speaking of people, we speak of this acceleration in bad terms – loss of focus, distraction, non productivity – while, with organizations/business we tend to speak of it in glowing terms – faster revenue growth, improve profit margins & innovation.  There is no reason technology cannot accelerate people potential if not optimize an organization by having technology augment people.

Harnessing algorithmic capabilities, computing capacity and data should enable human competencies (beyond their obvious role) and a new generation of system level innovation & productivity.

Third. People are not wholes, but rather a sum of parts.

Sum of parts? Let’s call it ‘the potential within Fragmentary interests’. I was tempted to discuss this as “distribution revolution of interest and knowledge.” It’s a deeper dimension to Drucker’s knowledge worker in that each knowledge worker contains fragments of knowledge – some fragments bigger, and more well developed than others, but fragments. Therefore potential doesn’t reside in optimizing one skill or fragment of knowledge but rather optimizing the fragmented interests residing in each individual.

—–

“The key to individual parts coming together to create an emergent whole is coordination, and that means a sharing of information between parts in the system.”

Gideon Rosenblatt

—–

Now. interestingly the technology exists (in some form) and it called ‘Digital twin’.

Therefore we would be seeking to optimize our digital twin. I will note this thought may also be a derivative of ‘semantic web’ but I am focused on algorithms with this idea.

fourth. Meaningfulness distribution

I hesitate to suggest distributing meaningfulness (it sounds to productivity purposeful) but at the core of this thought is what I stated in Distribution Revolution  that all transactions are dependent upon distribution. And while it may sound harsh a business makes transactions with its employees – one of which is quite possibly “I will give you opportunities to optimize your potential & you will find meaningfulness in the process.”

Regardless. Transaction aside, is there a way to better enable meaning in traditional organizations – which tends to distance people from any meaning in work.

Meaning. No one defines meaning better than Alain de Botton (The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work): “meaning is simply ‘making someone or something better.’” it is all about contributing to helping in some way (in small, grande or venti dimension).

I would argue that when humans are at the center of the molecule of all business activity, all connections gain value (even with digital & work) and the person gains intrinsic self-value because, well, everything augments them & their potential. That is scaling potential & meaningfulness.

“Your business is only as strong as your least scalable component.”

Mike Walsh

(part 1). I say that because we often say powerful forces are changing the business world but we rarely speak about how the powerful forces of people within an organization can radically change the business itself. Because of connectedness the loci of productivity and dynamism resides in movements in people, information and idea within a company. This is like a value chain which evolves based on the context of the need which reshapes to amplify the potential & knowledge of the team. Using algorithms thru the entire organization focuses skills, talents and people based on the situation at hand. These forces may morph in some unexpected ways and combining ideas & skills to create even greater impacts than we expected. And while we may discuss ‘greater impact’ in terms of productivity & return, the largest impact will be found in meaningfulness.

Think about it this way – company value chains become more knowledge-intensive and reliant on multi-skill labor.

Look.

(part 2). I think we are all beginning to realize we are all contributing to the blurring of life and work. Realizing that distractions and attention isn’t what is around us about what is within us.

At the same time realizing that festina lente matters. Not suggesting this is easy and we will not get it right but the more we practice it, the more an algorithm does it, the better we will all get at it.

But do we quit at the first failure?

People are rediscovering they matter in a business system that has talked about how people matter, but has actually done everything it can to squeeze out natural untidiness and compel conformity under the guise of efficiency. Yeah. people have always grumbled about this but hierarchy has naturally sucked the life out of believing real change, and empowerment, can occur. Now. as a recent article just stated “hierarchy is just a shape.” In general, I agree. But it does ignore that organization, construct, in and of itself, encourages stasis. But what if algorithms stimulated activity from within and discouraged stasis? That is my question.

With the concept outlined, let me highlight would I would see as four potential positive consequences:

Consequence 1: individual potential

Individual potential is always a tricky thing. Many times it is trial & error in an environment in which ‘stepping out of your specific responsibility zone’ is rarely encouraged and often high risk. This is unfortunate because if a system existed in which secondary, tertiary and even quaternary talent could be not only utilized but even exercised to become stronger, all individual skills improve.

Introverts tend to be hesitant to offer and extroverts tend to offer on the wrong things.

If an algorithm could tap into the potential mines of talent that exited on an ad hoc basis then every individual’s potential gets tapped. If that happens their productivity (mental or output) gets maximized.

Consequence 2: individual meaning

Here is the weird thing. Even though I am speaking of algorithms I am also speaking of community. Introverts or extroverts. Wallflowers or the bombastic. Getting everyone engaged is tricky. Yet. Everyone wants to be part of a community and everyone finds happiness part of a tribe/community. It is the getting in and getting engaged which is a very individual type decision. Work is no different. In fact. I could argue that work is not defined by some milestone attained or some project completion but rather “community is about a series of small choices and everyday actions.” Within those small interactions will be found that larger individual meaning.

Look.

Everyone wants to contribute. Everyone wants to do something to benefit others (“what I do has value to others”). Everyone wants to do both using whatever (all) skills available. Simplistically, if a business can trigger individual contribution it will enhance individual meaning.

Consequence 3: organizational potential

Strip away culture, shareholder value or whatever metric you want to discuss, business is dependent upon maximizing its resources. Think about it from a health perspective. If employees show up every day (no sick days), healthy and happy (health & happiness or linked), you maximize productivity on 2 dimensions – time productivity and individual responsibility productivity. Therefore, if you expand productivity beyond an individual’s responsibility and seek to tap into additional skills/abilities beyond their own specific responsibility you have the opportunity to expand organizational productivity in another dimension. Its possibly a different version of collaborative productivity. This one is collaboration not of people but of talent/ability fragments (via people). Its coalescing type collaboration. If you look at ability as resources it is possible an algorithm maximizes all organizational resources.

Consequence 4: organizational hiring

Assume consequence 1 thru 3 is true. You would no longer hire off a specific role but rather with an eye toward what combination of primary, secondary, tertiary & quaternary skills the leaving person has subtracted or, conversely, gaps the organization needs to fill if a role opens up.

Hire not for an individual role but rather organizational contribution made up of multiple roles.

Conclusion.

Oddly, my greatest defense of using algorithms to enhance organization potential may be found in the objective, the desired outcome, rather than in its more dubious companion – the algorithm itself.

The outcome?

As Don Cornelius said, ‘It is always a pleasure to find something that matters.’

What if algorithms helped find out what matters to people (skills) and optimized them?

What if all people were optimized (or, simply more & better utilized)?

What if all people skills were activated in a business?

The answers are obvious. More productivity. More individual meaning. And, arguably, more happy people and business.

Here is what I know.

Creativity is always what gives business, & brands, traction in the marketplace and is what insures businesses progress. If a business can maximize its creativity, it will always progress. Progress, rather than growth, should always be the objective a business.

Notice that nowhere in that paragraph did I mention meaningfulness, productivity, technology or purpose. I didn’t have to because if algorithms can tap into submerged skills people, and the organization, will inevitably be more creative in thinking & in solutions – which equals progress. And, bottom line, any algorithm that can do that is worth its weight in gold.