Historic co-determination helps monasteries navigate digital change
phys.org
phys.org
Abstract
Some organizations remain adaptable across centuries while others struggle to evolve and ultimately fade into irrelevance. Only a handful of theories can explain this extraordinary adaptability. We test two competing theoretical perspectives in imprinting research: Liability of aging suggests that older organizations are at greater risk of disruption by modern technologies, but older organizations can also repurpose their imprinted structures and processes to their advantage in a process termed exaptation. To resolve this contradiction, we analyze Catholic religious orders and their monasteries. They represent the oldest extant organizations, were founded in various historical eras, and are facing contemporary challenges posed by digitalization. Our quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that the orders with historically decentralized imprints show higher adaptability in embracing digital innovation. Our results confirm that long-term adaptability is increased in organizations whose imprinted decentralized logics provide a propensity for exaptation. However, these long-standing organizations are also more wary of the negative effects of digital disruption and appear to shield their organizational core more strongly. We contribute to imprinting research by shedding light on the intricate relationship between historically imprinted organizational logics and contemporary organizational practice and highlight the often-underappreciated importance of exaptation for long-term adaptability.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004873332...
Both of these are unlike, say, corporate environments, where the core work uses up almost all available time and where most people are looking mostly to extract something from the organization.
There’s a lot less of the cutthroat competition, than you’ll see in industry and academia, and many folks plant trees that they will never use for shade.
Personally, I’m not religious, but have many close friends that are, and I see this mindset in action.
I also worked for an old-fashioned Japanese company, which had many of the same features.
Even though many people see these as conservative (or weak) traits, they actually work well, for development of new things.
Big things take time, and teams.
Time is supplied by people taking the long view, and making long-term plans, and teams benefit from people not stabbing each other in the back, sublimating personal goals, in favor of those of the collective, and trusting each other, and their management.
I agree with most of this, and also have experienced the positive outcomes of people thinking ahead and sublimating short term reward for long term gain (for the collective).
However it seems antithetical to put a reward function on it so there is this catch-22 about what makes the thing "good" also makes it difficult to achieve.
Good behaviour is ideally its own reward: intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation—either (monetary) reward or punishment—is (AIUI) less effective.
Fulfillment through meaningful relationships and accomplishment has been considered the basis of happiness for quite a while:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia
Wealth, honour/fame/glory, power, pleasure are not bad in themselves, but generally can be considered as means to an end of and not really ends in themselves:
There are two ways to evaluate things. One is selection: look at the options available, decide which is best, and go all in on that one. The other is to understand things as deeply as possible, what the moving parts are,what makes them tick, what the unknown possibilities might be, etc.
We as individuals have to use selection a lot of the time. You can't do only the good parts of two jobs, or marry only the good parts of two spouses. But it's also profoundly negative to be obliged to only think in those terms: for example, when citizens are told that they have no choice other than to vote for the lesser evil, it lets politicians off the hook for only being slightly less corrupt, and reduces citizens to a passive role. Ironically, those who try to shut political discussion out of HN are doing the same thing: saying "just choose, do not think".
So, while I might be interested in instances where religious people have a longer term approach, it's not interesting to me as a "plus for religion". It's interesting if it leads to understanding and new ideas. Of course, as a non-believer I would like to separate any benefits from the need to be loyal to unprovable assertions. But that's actually secondary.
They know they will outlast some of their reports, so they're incentivized to build memory and maintainability at the levels below them.
And good managers get promoted, i.e. leave the team but stay in the company, so there's a reputational incentive to leave things in a good place for whoever comes after you. (Though this is only true at good orgs -- at bad orgs, the next person will get fully blamed for a bad handoff).
The best leaders have values that transcend their bank account, and understand their legacy depends on being able to transition effectively.
Your career and relationships transcend any single gig, and there is a dignity that people recognize in departing well, and even in making the best of a bad job. Campground rule, leave things better than you found them.
The core activities is praying and working, ora et labora:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ora_et_labora
The praying is done at fixed times:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_the_Hours
With work and other activities (meals) planned around them. Nuns have a similar framework:
* https://www.franciscansisterstor.org/about/daily-schedule
I'm sure you could find "time to think" in there, but the schedule is pretty packed.
Sorry, but the whole concept of "place for people who don't fit" - is really not appropriate for monasteries in general. Because they have been very strict about who can fit. Only those who are fine with this special lifestyle and fixed rituals (and fixed hierachy and dogma). And most monks had to adopt to accept, whether they liked it or not, as the alternative was starving.
I may have missed something though - I don’t see how is that related to the linked article.
— Voltaire
It stands to reason that disciplined, dopamine starved monks find modern engagement economy computers and software somewhat engaging, as they are probably like recreational drugs to enquiring bored minds
Do communism and secular humanism count as "religions" here?
Do you not know anything about history?
You'll have a hard time justifying that unless you're some sort of hardcore Jewish cryptosupremacy conspiracy theorist.
People can and will justify almost everything.
So do they have have a sort of executive officer for the week/month/year, with all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more important matters?