Discussion: View Thread

Dear ODC colleagues:

I post this link with the hope of stimulating a rich debate on whether and how the intellectual elites should be re-educated.

Quy Huy

http://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/why-the-intellectual-elite-cant-learn-its-lesson-5040

Dear ODC Colleagues

The importance of reading the emotional side is definitely one issue – I think Quy Huy pointed out a very important issue. However, I think there are other issues as well such as...

-          CHANGE: Donald Trump seemed to stand more for change than Hilary Clinton did (representing the "old political system") .... As one US executive heading a European company once expressed to me "we Americans love change!" And the kind of change he voiced "make America great again" definitely resonated with the older voters but not with the younger ones (taking a look at the voting statistics).

-          Another issue is the US voting system... she got more votes of the people – he got the electors (an issues that also relates to organizations.... In traditional hierarchical systems, few make the decisions for many).

Sonja Sackmann

Prof. Sonja A. Sackmann, Ph.D.

EZO Institute for Developing Viable Organizations

Department of Economics, Management and Organization Sciences

Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 36

D-85579 Neubiberg

Phone: +49 (89) 6004 2697

Fax:      +49 (89) 6004 3293

Mobile +41 (79) 220 1928

www.unibw.de/orgpsy

Dear ODC colleagues:

I post this link with the hope of stimulating a rich debate on whether and how the intellectual elites should be re-educated.

Quy Huy

http://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/why-the-intellectual-elite-cant-learn-its-lesson-5040

Not sure this is the appropriate place to have this discussion, but let me chime in on a couple of things. First, President-elect Trump did not mobilize the older vote, per se, so much as he mobilized a broad set of sub-categories of voters (e.g., less educated, older white males; evangelical Christians) employing different issues that appealed to individually to these different sub-categories (immigration and open trade for older white males, abortion and gay rights for evangicals); an appropriate theory to assess his victory might be social categorization theory, I'd argue.

Second, the electoral college was established by the founders of the American Republic as one way to insure that a broad base of the constituencies being governed in the country had a role in being governed. Madison et al. studied other democracies and found that only homogenous societies (e.g., Swiss and the ancient Greek states) had survived very long as democracies (see Federalist papers). One thing they attributed this to was majorities in heterogeneous democratic societies, which ours was then and still is, forcing their opinion on minority constituencies which lead to what we might call faultlines and eventually to social breakdown. Specifically, it was enacted to insure that the more populous colonies in the north, where industry and trade was more prevalent, could not easily force their will on the less populated, farming-based southern colonies. (A closely related disagreement being avoided at the time to keep the new and fragile Republic together was slavery.) It isn't really about the few making decisions for the many, I suggest; rather, it is to insure that the voice of all the governed is heard. While the American demographic has changed since the late 1700s, the value of the electoral college is arguably still valid. A quick glance at the 'red state – blue state' map makes this abundantly clear. A pure majority approach would have a few big (populous) states ... CA (blue), NY (blue to a great extent because of NYC ... rural NY is very red), TX (probably going to turn blue due to growth in Hispanic population) ... pretty much running the country. Being a native NYer, I'd be OK with that, quite honestly ... but I can understand why my fellow countrymen and women might want a say in things, too.

Much as I would have preferred a different outcome, the American Republic isn't about a majority of individuals ... it is about a majority of constituencies. If I may be so bold as to venture out of my 'expertise' ... this is not conceptually different than parliamentary democracies, I would suggest, where coalitions amongst parties get created in order to form a government representing a majority of constituencies.

Dear ODC Colleagues

The importance of reading the emotional side is definitely one issue – I think Quy Huy pointed out a very important issue. However, I think there are other issues as well such as...

-          CHANGE: Donald Trump seemed to stand more for change than Hilary Clinton did (representing the "old political system") .... As one US executive heading a European company once expressed to me "we Americans love change!" And the kind of change he voiced "make America great again" definitely resonated with the older voters but not with the younger ones (taking a look at the voting statistics).

-          Another issue is the US voting system... she got more votes of the people – he got the electors (an issues that also relates to organizations.... In traditional hierarchical systems, few make the decisions for many).

Sonja Sackmann

Prof. Sonja A. Sackmann, Ph.D.

EZO Institute for Developing Viable Organizations

Department of Economics, Management and Organization Sciences

Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 36

D-85579 Neubiberg

Phone: +49 (89) 6004 2697

Fax:      +49 (89) 6004 3293

Mobile +41 (79) 220 1928

www.unibw.de/orgpsy

Dear ODC colleagues:

I post this link with the hope of stimulating a rich debate on whether and how the intellectual elites should be re-educated.

Quy Huy

http://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/why-the-intellectual-elite-cant-learn-its-lesson-5040

Bill (et al.)

I don't see how clarifying common misunderstandings about how the American system works is oblivious to the ethics of our founders. Yes many of America's founders owned slaves and, as I alluded to in my first response, the electoral college was 'kicking the can down the road' on that issue because the bigger issue in their mind, right or wrong, was preserving the Union. Trust me, I am well versed on American history. In fact, I've participated in it marching during the civil rights movement, participating in the first Earth Day, serving in ROTA Spain tracking Russian subs during the Cold War to protect freedom in European and our own. Aren't ethics about behavior more so than what we simply espouse? I haven't sat idly by ... I think I've earned the right to express an opinion.

Here's something else I can tell you about Americans. We're human and as humans we're not always perfect. We have faults. But we strive to get better, even to the point of spilling our blood to right a wrong as we did in the 1860s and the 1940s. My intent was not to justify the current state of affairs, I am simply trying to clarify misunderstandings about how our system works and why (i.e., majority of constituencies not of individuals).

I appreciate your perspective, and those of others ... your right to express them ... and as a grandson of Hispanic immigrants with a racially diverse gradnchildren I share many of the concerns behind them. But again, I for one do not see an AOM listserv as the appropriate forum to have this discussion. I'm sure you can respect my opinion on this, whether you agree or not.

Rock chalk!

Rob Davison, PhD

Area of Management

University of Kansas School of Business

(785) 864-6937

https://business.ku.edu/rob-davison

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw)

From: Organization Development and Change Listserv [mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG] On Behalf Of Bill Cooke
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 2:54 PM
To: ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG
Subject: Re: Why the majority of intellectual elites fail to predict Brexit and Trump: an inbreeding mindset

This certainly isn't tbe place for ignorant  nonsense like this oblivious to the ethics of the founders of our field.

If the AoM is in truth the US AoM that is one thing. Otherwise if the AoM considers itself international remember the USA has been a racial slave state for more of its history that it hasn't. None of your founders were of African descent.  Washington owned human beings as commodities. That is repellent.  The electoral college was established on a basis which enabled the preservation of the enslavement of people of African descent as slaves. Here is a link from Time magazine on this
http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

As it is there are two defining features of democracy. First, universal suffrage.  Second the one with the most votes wins.  Does the USA qualify on either count? Given an OD ethic is a belief in the scientific superiority of democracy, this matters.

And are ODC colleagues who are Muslim Gay and/or UnAmerican by definition, guaranteed safe passage at the next AoM meeting in Atlanta?

Peace and love

Bill

On 21 Nov 2016 20:24, "Davison, Rob" <rbd@ku.edu> wrote:
>
> Not sure this is the appropriate place to have this discussion, but let me chime in on a couple of things. First, President-elect Trump did not mobilize the older vote, per se, so much as he mobilized a broad set of sub-categories of voters (e.g., less educated, older white males; evangelical Christians) employing different issues that appealed to individually to these different sub-categories (immigration and open trade for older white males, abortion and gay rights for evangicals); an appropriate theory to assess his victory might be social categorization theory, I'd argue.
>
>  
>
> Second, the electoral college was established by the founders of the American Republic as one way to insure that a broad base of the constituencies being governed in the country had a role in being governed. Madison et al. studied other democracies and found that only homogenous societies (e.g., Swiss and the ancient Greek states) had survived very long as democracies (see Federalist papers). One thing they attributed this to was majorities in heterogeneous democratic societies, which ours was then and still is, forcing their opinion on minority constituencies which lead to what we might call faultlines and eventually to social breakdown. Specifically, it was enacted to insure that the more populous colonies in the north, where industry and trade was more prevalent, could not easily force their will on the less populated, farming-based southern colonies. (A closely related disagreement being avoided at the time to keep the new and fragile Republic together was slavery.) It isn't really about the few making decisions for the many, I suggest; rather, it is to insure that the voice of all the governed is heard. While the American demographic has changed since the late 1700s, the value of the electoral college is arguably still valid. A quick glance at the 'red state – blue state' map makes this abundantly clear. A pure majority approach would have a few big (populous) states ... CA (blue), NY (blue to a great extent because of NYC ... rural NY is very red), TX (probably going to turn blue due to growth in Hispanic population) ... pretty much running the country. Being a native NYer, I'd be OK with that, quite honestly ... but I can understand why my fellow countrymen and women might want a say in things, too.
>
>  
>
> Much as I would have preferred a different outcome, the American Republic isn't about a majority of individuals ... it is about a majority of constituencies. If I may be so bold as to venture out of my 'expertise' ... this is not conceptually different than parliamentary democracies, I would suggest, where coalitions amongst parties get created in order to form a government representing a majority of constituencies.
>
>  
>
> Rock chalk!
>
> Rob Davison, PhD
>
> Area of Management
>
> University of Kansas School of Business
>
> (785) 864-6937
>
> https://business.ku.edu/rob-davison
>
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw)
>
>  
>
> From: Organization Development and Change Listserv [mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG] On Behalf Of Sonja Sackmann
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 12:32 PM
> To: ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG
> Subject: AW: [ODC-L] Why the majority of intellectual elites fail to predict Brexit and Trump: an inbreeding mindset
>
>  
>
> Dear ODC Colleagues
>
>  
>
> The importance of reading the emotional side is definitely one issue – I think Quy Huy pointed out a very important issue. However, I think there are other issues as well such as...
>
>  
>
> -          CHANGE: Donald Trump seemed to stand more for change than Hilary Clinton did (representing the "old political system") .... As one US executive heading a European company once expressed to me "we Americans love change!" And the kind of change he voiced "make America great again" definitely resonated with the older voters but not with the younger ones (taking a look at the voting statistics).
>
>  
>
> -          Another issue is the US voting system... she got more votes of the people – he got the electors (an issues that also relates to organizations.... In traditional hierarchical systems, few make the decisions for many).
>
>  
>
> Sonja Sackmann
>
>  
>
> Prof. Sonja A. Sackmann, Ph.D.
>
> EZO Institute for Developing Viable Organizations
>
> Department of Economics, Management and Organization Sciences
>
> Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 36
>
> D-85579 Neubiberg
>
> Phone: +49 (89) 6004 2697
>
> Fax:      +49 (89) 6004 3293
>
> Mobile +41 (79) 220 1928
>
> www.unibw.de/orgpsy
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Von: Organization Development and Change Listserv [mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG] Im Auftrag von HUY Quy
> Gesendet: Montag, 21. November 2016 17:44
> An: ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG
> Betreff: [ODC-L] Why the majority of intellectual elites fail to predict Brexit and Trump: an inbreeding mindset
>
>  
>
> Dear ODC colleagues:
>
>  
>
> I post this link with the hope of stimulating a rich debate on whether and how the intellectual elites should be re-educated.
>
>  
>
> Quy Huy
>
>  
>
> http://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/why-the-intellectual-elite-cant-learn-its-lesson-5040
>
>  

Quy Huy posts an interesting discussion opportunity for ODC and it is notable that Rob and Sonja offer a perspective from a member outside the USA and within.

Just returned from Decision Sciences Institute's annual meeting and found insight from a half-dozen or so papers on different aspects of the USA 2016 election, with some of them from authors outside the USA.

Characteristic of most of Trump's rhetoric in his campaign was a false assumption of 'taking the high road' or nasty, falsely assuming he knows (best), whether based upon fact or personal perspective. 

Our humanity surfaces, and most importantly, illustrates for us the unpredictable challenge in OD. Historical rocks are so easily thrown at any country but we can appreciate the honest worldwide interest (worry) and insight on what happened (went wrong?) which offers potential for a way forward.

Regards,

Darlene

Darlene J. Alexander-Houle

HP Retired, UoP Adjunct, Determined Financial Planning

From: Organization Development and Change Listserv [mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG] On Behalf Of Bill Cooke
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 2:54 PM
To: ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG
Subject: Re: Why the majority of intellectual elites fail to predict Brexit and Trump: an inbreeding mindset

This certainly isn't tbe place for ignorant  nonsense like this oblivious to the ethics of the founders of our field.

If the AoM is in truth the US AoM that is one thing. Otherwise if the AoM considers itself international remember the USA has been a racial slave state for more of its history that it hasn't. None of your founders were of African descent.  Washington owned human beings as commodities. That is repellent.  The electoral college was established on a basis which enabled the preservation of the enslavement of people of African descent as slaves. Here is a link from Time magazine on this
http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

As it is there are two defining features of democracy. First, universal suffrage.  Second the one with the most votes wins.  Does the USA qualify on either count? Given an OD ethic is a belief in the scientific superiority of democracy, this matters.

And are ODC colleagues who are Muslim Gay and/or UnAmerican by definition, guaranteed safe passage at the next AoM meeting in Atlanta?

Peace and love

Bill

On 21 Nov 2016 20:24, "Davison, Rob" <rbd@ku.edu> wrote:
>
> Not sure this is the appropriate place to have this discussion, but let me chime in on a couple of things. First, President-elect Trump did not mobilize the older vote, per se, so much as he mobilized a broad set of sub-categories of voters (e.g., less educated, older white males; evangelical Christians) employing different issues that appealed to individually to these different sub-categories (immigration and open trade for older white males, abortion and gay rights for evangicals); an appropriate theory to assess his victory might be social categorization theory, I'd argue.
>
>  
>
> Second, the electoral college was established by the founders of the American Republic as one way to insure that a broad base of the constituencies being governed in the country had a role in being governed. Madison et al. studied other democracies and found that only homogenous societies (e.g., Swiss and the ancient Greek states) had survived very long as democracies (see Federalist papers). One thing they attributed this to was majorities in heterogeneous democratic societies, which ours was then and still is, forcing their opinion on minority constituencies which lead to what we might call faultlines and eventually to social breakdown. Specifically, it was enacted to insure that the more populous colonies in the north, where industry and trade was more prevalent, could not easily force their will on the less populated, farming-based southern colonies. (A closely related disagreement being avoided at the time to keep the new and fragile Republic together was slavery.) It isn't really about the few making decisions for the many, I suggest; rather, it is to insure that the voice of all the governed is heard. While the American demographic has changed since the late 1700s, the value of the electoral college is arguably still valid. A quick glance at the 'red state – blue state' map makes this abundantly clear. A pure majority approach would have a few big (populous) states ... CA (blue), NY (blue to a great extent because of NYC ... rural NY is very red), TX (probably going to turn blue due to growth in Hispanic population) ... pretty much running the country. Being a native NYer, I'd be OK with that, quite honestly ... but I can understand why my fellow countrymen and women might want a say in things, too.
>
>  
>
> Much as I would have preferred a different outcome, the American Republic isn't about a majority of individuals ... it is about a majority of constituencies. If I may be so bold as to venture out of my 'expertise' ... this is not conceptually different than parliamentary democracies, I would suggest, where coalitions amongst parties get created in order to form a government representing a majority of constituencies.
>
>  
>
> Rock chalk!
>
> Rob Davison, PhD
>
> Area of Management
>
> University of Kansas School of Business
>
> (785) 864-6937
>
> https://business.ku.edu/rob-davison
>
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw)
>
>  
>
> From: Organization Development and Change Listserv [mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG] On Behalf Of Sonja Sackmann
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 12:32 PM
> To: ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG
> Subject: AW: [ODC-L] Why the majority of intellectual elites fail to predict Brexit and Trump: an inbreeding mindset
>
>  
>
> Dear ODC Colleagues
>
>  
>
> The importance of reading the emotional side is definitely one issue – I think Quy Huy pointed out a very important issue. However, I think there are other issues as well such as...
>
>  
>
> -          CHANGE: Donald Trump seemed to stand more for change than Hilary Clinton did (representing the "old political system") .... As one US executive heading a European company once expressed to me "we Americans love change!" And the kind of change he voiced "make America great again" definitely resonated with the older voters but not with the younger ones (taking a look at the voting statistics).
>
>  
>
> -          Another issue is the US voting system... she got more votes of the people – he got the electors (an issues that also relates to organizations.... In traditional hierarchical systems, few make the decisions for many).
>
>  
>
> Sonja Sackmann
>
>  
>
> Prof. Sonja A. Sackmann, Ph.D.
>
> EZO Institute for Developing Viable Organizations
>
> Department of Economics, Management and Organization Sciences
>
> Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 36
>
> D-85579 Neubiberg
>
> Phone: +49 (89) 6004 2697
>
> Fax:      +49 (89) 6004 3293
>
> Mobile +41 (79) 220 1928
>
> www.unibw.de/orgpsy
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Von: Organization Development and Change Listserv [mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG] Im Auftrag von HUY Quy
> Gesendet: Montag, 21. November 2016 17:44
> An: ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG
> Betreff: [ODC-L] Why the majority of intellectual elites fail to predict Brexit and Trump: an inbreeding mindset
>
>  
>
> Dear ODC colleagues:
>
>  
>
> I post this link with the hope of stimulating a rich debate on whether and how the intellectual elites should be re-educated.
>
>  
>
> Quy Huy
>
>  
>
> http://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/why-the-intellectual-elite-cant-learn-its-lesson-5040
>
>  

Good morning all

Following your comments here are:

1.       Some analysis

2.       Relationships to ODC

3.       Suggestion

1.       Some analysis

It seems that for our netters it is appropriate place for this discussion, as it is relevant for organizations. After all, it is about decision making, at organizations, politics, home, and personal. Everywhere discussing the human behavior follows decisions. As such, Quy Huy is right to raise this issue at ODC network. I will refer latter more to top executives, but, it is relevant to other managers too.

Assuming we knows what who are intellectuals, at least to differentiate from the mob, for this discussion, we may say that we differentiate people who do decision making based more on rational reasons, rather than on emotional feelings like the mob. This separation about these two groups was made long time ago by great philosophers. We also knows from psychologists and psychiatrics that in most cases people do decisions from their belly rather than from their brain. Finally, just consider the conclusions made by the Nobel Prize winner, Daniel Kahneman (who worked with Tversky) that most of us do, all the time, decision mistakes due to our limitations as human being, such as emotional assumptions about how the world works.

2.       Relationship to ODC

RE organizations: from my consulting experience, working with top executives CEO, VPs, Board directors, etc., they all make decisions based more on emotions rather than decisions based on rational logic...This is true for corporate strategy decisions (corporate investments, M&A, corporate resource sharing, efforts and processes to analyze and capture synergy potential, etc.), as well as for competitive strategy, changes in organizational culture, etc. And, many still claims that important part of their decisions are based on...intuition.

Yes, intellectual as well as top executives (not all are intellectuals) need learning. Thus, during executive workshops, in organizations, or in Industrial Associations, chamber of commerce, etc. we are working among other things (such as quality decision making processes) on the most common decision making mistakes (from Hubris, to intuition, and many more). All of us, especially intellectuals, need some awareness, skills and processes to identify the assumptions and emotions, during decision making processes.

Final note, I find that what differentiate successful consulting from those that were found unsuccessful, is the ability to make emotional contacts with top executives...as you know it starts from rapport, building trust, develop "chemistry" in relations with them, etc.

3.       Suggestion

In sum, I suggest that those who are interested, can take the challenge to create a program that makes decision makers at any place more rational rather than emotional. This also can make a change at the mob.

Quy Huy posts an interesting discussion opportunity for ODC and it is notable that Rob and Sonja offer a perspective from a member outside the USA and within.

Just returned from Decision Sciences Institute's annual meeting and found insight from a half-dozen or so papers on different aspects of the USA 2016 election, with some of them from authors outside the USA.

Characteristic of most of Trump's rhetoric in his campaign was a false assumption of 'taking the high road' or nasty, falsely assuming he knows (best), whether based upon fact or personal perspective. 

Our humanity surfaces, and most importantly, illustrates for us the unpredictable challenge in OD. Historical rocks are so easily thrown at any country but we can appreciate the honest worldwide interest (worry) and insight on what happened (went wrong?) which offers potential for a way forward.

Regards,

Darlene

Darlene J. Alexander-Houle

HP Retired, UoP Adjunct, Determined Financial Planning

From: Organization Development and Change Listserv [mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG] On Behalf Of Bill Cooke
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 2:54 PM
To: ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG
Subject: Re: Why the majority of intellectual elites fail to predict Brexit and Trump: an inbreeding mindset

This certainly isn't tbe place for ignorant  nonsense like this oblivious to the ethics of the founders of our field.

If the AoM is in truth the US AoM that is one thing. Otherwise if the AoM considers itself international remember the USA has been a racial slave state for more of its history that it hasn't. None of your founders were of African descent.  Washington owned human beings as commodities. That is repellent.  The electoral college was established on a basis which enabled the preservation of the enslavement of people of African descent as slaves. Here is a link from Time magazine on this
http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

As it is there are two defining features of democracy. First, universal suffrage.  Second the one with the most votes wins.  Does the USA qualify on either count? Given an OD ethic is a belief in the scientific superiority of democracy, this matters.

And are ODC colleagues who are Muslim Gay and/or UnAmerican by definition, guaranteed safe passage at the next AoM meeting in Atlanta?

Peace and love

Bill

On 21 Nov 2016 20:24, "Davison, Rob" <rbd@ku.edu> wrote:
>
> Not sure this is the appropriate place to have this discussion, but let me chime in on a couple of things. First, President-elect Trump did not mobilize the older vote, per se, so much as he mobilized a broad set of sub-categories of voters (e.g., less educated, older white males; evangelical Christians) employing different issues that appealed to individually to these different sub-categories (immigration and open trade for older white males, abortion and gay rights for evangicals); an appropriate theory to assess his victory might be social categorization theory, I'd argue.
>
>  
>
> Second, the electoral college was established by the founders of the American Republic as one way to insure that a broad base of the constituencies being governed in the country had a role in being governed. Madison et al. studied other democracies and found that only homogenous societies (e.g., Swiss and the ancient Greek states) had survived very long as democracies (see Federalist papers). One thing they attributed this to was majorities in heterogeneous democratic societies, which ours was then and still is, forcing their opinion on minority constituencies which lead to what we might call faultlines and eventually to social breakdown. Specifically, it was enacted to insure that the more populous colonies in the north, where industry and trade was more prevalent, could not easily force their will on the less populated, farming-based southern colonies. (A closely related disagreement being avoided at the time to keep the new and fragile Republic together was slavery.) It isn't really about the few making decisions for the many, I suggest; rather, it is to insure that the voice of all the governed is heard. While the American demographic has changed since the late 1700s, the value of the electoral college is arguably still valid. A quick glance at the 'red state – blue state' map makes this abundantly clear. A pure majority approach would have a few big (populous) states ... CA (blue), NY (blue to a great extent because of NYC ... rural NY is very red), TX (probably going to turn blue due to growth in Hispanic population) ... pretty much running the country. Being a native NYer, I'd be OK with that, quite honestly ... but I can understand why my fellow countrymen and women might want a say in things, too.
>
>  
>
> Much as I would have preferred a different outcome, the American Republic isn't about a majority of individuals ... it is about a majority of constituencies. If I may be so bold as to venture out of my 'expertise' ... this is not conceptually different than parliamentary democracies, I would suggest, where coalitions amongst parties get created in order to form a government representing a majority of constituencies.
>
>  
>
> Rock chalk!
>
> Rob Davison, PhD
>
> Area of Management
>
> University of Kansas School of Business
>
> (785) 864-6937
>
> https://business.ku.edu/rob-davison
>
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw)
>
>  
>
> From: Organization Development and Change Listserv [mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG] On Behalf Of Sonja Sackmann
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 12:32 PM
> To: ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG
> Subject: AW: [ODC-L] Why the majority of intellectual elites fail to predict Brexit and Trump: an inbreeding mindset
>
>  
>
> Dear ODC Colleagues
>
>  
>
> The importance of reading the emotional side is definitely one issue – I think Quy Huy pointed out a very important issue. However, I think there are other issues as well such as...
>
>  
>
> -          CHANGE: Donald Trump seemed to stand more for change than Hilary Clinton did (representing the "old political system") .... As one US executive heading a European company once expressed to me "we Americans love change!" And the kind of change he voiced "make America great again" definitely resonated with the older voters but not with the younger ones (taking a look at the voting statistics).
>
>  
>
> -          Another issue is the US voting system... she got more votes of the people – he got the electors (an issues that also relates to organizations.... In traditional hierarchical systems, few make the decisions for many).
>
>  
>
> Sonja Sackmann
>
>  
>
> Prof. Sonja A. Sackmann, Ph.D.
>
> EZO Institute for Developing Viable Organizations
>
> Department of Economics, Management and Organization Sciences
>
> Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 36
>
> D-85579 Neubiberg
>
> Phone: +49 (89) 6004 2697
>
> Fax:      +49 (89) 6004 3293
>
> Mobile +41 (79) 220 1928
>
> www.unibw.de/orgpsy
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Von: Organization Development and Change Listserv [mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG] Im Auftrag von HUY Quy
> Gesendet: Montag, 21. November 2016 17:44
> An: ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG
> Betreff: [ODC-L] Why the majority of intellectual elites fail to predict Brexit and Trump: an inbreeding mindset
>
>  
>
> Dear ODC colleagues:
>
>  
>
> I post this link with the hope of stimulating a rich debate on whether and how the intellectual elites should be re-educated.
>
>  
>
> Quy Huy
>
>  
>
> http://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/why-the-intellectual-elite-cant-learn-its-lesson-5040
>
>  

Dear Bill

Thanks for the links. I was not aware about them. For me this leads to a clear answer to your last two questions:

Yes, and Yes. In fact, in light of what come up in our, and world, discussions, it is our responsibility, a moral responsibility, to answer and act yes, and, yes to your questions, as academics and as human being

   Prof. Yaakov Weber

1.      Director, Research Unit

School of Business Administration

College of Management

Rishon Lezion, Israel

2.      President, EMRBI

EuroMed Research Business Institute

www.emrbi.com

From: Organization Development and Change Listserv [mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG] On Behalf Of Bill Cooke
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 11:36 AM
To: ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG
Subject: Re: Why the majority of intellectual elites fail to predict Brexit and Trump: an inbreeding mindset

First, let me retract an early POV ... this is quite a valid discussion for us to have so long as we keep it about organizations, leaders, human behavior and not about politics specifically (please). Frankly, as I stated previously, I see this as a case study in social categorization, persuasion and motivation; what President-elect Trump did was tap into people's inner prejudices and fears with vague innuendos which allowed them to 'fill in the blanks' as they saw fit (confirmation bias?). For example, I'm convinced that the subtle message behind the slogan "Make America Great Again" is a beckoning back to a time when 'Anglo-Saxon (aka white) males ruled.' (Just a hunch, mind you.) My read of the climate in American society is that the majority of people feel left out, left behind, but the reasons they feel this way vary greatly. Blue collar workers see their jobs going overseas or being taken by lower paid immigrants. White collar workers see their hours going up, pay stagnant, QOL dropping, and owners (the proverbial "Top 1%") reaping most of the spoils, etc. Very different issues but a common theme. Growing dissatisfaction with the status quo, impatience with leadership, and a desire for change. (French Revolution take 2?) From my consulting experience leading major change efforts, growing dissatisfaction with the status quo, impatience with leadership, and a desire for change is exactly the sort of thing many organizations face. Like politicians in Washington, executives often turn a deaf ear to it severely limiting the organization's potential. When asked what I did as a consultant I often quip, "My job was to distract the executives long enough that the organization could do the things it already knew needed to get done; I provided air cover ... I removed the biggest barrier to change, the executives." (If only it was that simple ... haha.)

I'd like to thank Bill and Yaakov for their 'call to act.' Growing up in the turbulent 60s, I'm reminded of a term from that era ... "the silent majority;" I believe the silent majority's heart is in the right place in 2016, but silence (like not voting ... our voting turnout %s are embarrassing and as a veteran who served to protect, among other things, the right to vote I take it personally) is tantamount to tacit agreement. We can discuss things as intellectuals, but we all know science does not enter practice unless we venture beyond ourselves and our ivory towers. You don't need to look very hard to see that there is a rising tide of human crisis in this world; thus, a question I'd like to pose on top of Bill's is what are we as scientists and dedicated servants of society going to do to help resolve these issues facing society? We absolutely must be inclusive in Atlanta; but shame on us all if it starts and ends there.

So, for all of you in the silent majority reading but not yet engaging, I'd love to hear from you (i.e., I promise to 'shut up' now ... haha).

Dear Bill

Thanks for the links. I was not aware about them. For me this leads to a clear answer to your last two questions:

Yes, and Yes. In fact, in light of what come up in our, and world, discussions, it is our responsibility, a moral responsibility, to answer and act yes, and, yes to your questions, as academics and as human being

   Prof. Yaakov Weber

1.      Director, Research Unit

School of Business Administration

College of Management

Rishon Lezion, Israel

2.      President, EMRBI

EuroMed Research Business Institute

www.emrbi.com

From: Organization Development and Change Listserv [mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG] On Behalf Of Bill Cooke
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 11:36 AM
To: ODC-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG
Subject: Re: Why the majority of intellectual elites fail to predict Brexit and Trump: an inbreeding mindset