Hegemony

Hegemony is the imposition of structure on others. Attempts to achieve hegemony often result in structural melting of both the aggressor and the target.

Structure

What do I mean by structure?

Structure is the patterns of living developed to simplify complexity. It is rules of thumb...symbols, semiotics, institutions and norms.

The purpose of structure is stability--the reduction of cognitive dissonance (see learning). It enables us to be "efficient." But efficiency is I think a tautology meaning that we act in such a way that is structured and stable. That is, it becomes a goal only when we set it as a goal. It defines itself a priori.

We create language and culture to reinforce structure. When we act out those languages and cultures we claim to be efficient. But structure naturally melts in the presence of interaction between those within a structure and those who do not enclose themselves with that same structure. Thus, globalization melts structure.

In what fields does my view of leadership apply?

"Fields" is an interesting term...and one I would push back on. Fields are melting.

For example, EDTECH is the hot topic now in education research, teaching, and lots of related technology areas. Now, it's hot for me because it's about to become a lot of my life again. But I think it is fair to say it is still hot in the general buzzosphere.

Is EDTECH education? Technology? Org theory? Management? Human ecology? Training? As it becomes more diffuse and immediate...it's all of these in my opinion...and more.

In technology "clouds" I think we are seeing a move toward a network of "servers" and a set of very light clients called "appliances" or gadgets...like the iPhone or the ASUStek Eee PC 4g or the new ultra portable PC by Everex called Cloudburst, etc.

On the software side, you see it in things like Twitter, which a lot of people don't understand even while others say it defines the future of net interaction--immediate, personal, ephemeral and ad hoc. Twitter is, in my view, a way for humans to "implant" light connections to each other...what sociologist Mark Granovetter called "the strength of weak ties." It's like building a network of thousands of people you ride the bus with every day. You don't really know them...but you do know them too...and then when a snowstorm hits...you are mates of a sort to solve ad hoc problems. These are leaderless organizations in a proto-state.

FedEx/UPS and Amazon/Ebay have a similar relationship with "sellers" who are melted retailers. We're not sure what relationship we have with them or their brands. It becomes buzzed at times...when some brand or need heats up or our needs become highly specialized because we want to brew our own beer or take a trip to conquer K2.

RSS is the circulatory system of the new economy. Leadership as enabling comes from Google, Firefox, people who build free (libre) software, and their supporters.

Leading

Leading, or leadership, is the process of using our own learning to enable the learning of others.

Leadership without learning is impossible as I view it going forward. Old ideas of leadership focused on expanding or advancing an agenda for people who held a certain identity. That isn't leading as I view it here. I call that identity-based agenda pushing form... "old leadership." Old leadership is used in bureaucracies, feudal systems, hierarchies and command and control sorts of systems.

But there is nothing very new about what I call "new leadership." It's always been around. What's new is the recognition of its power to deal with environments where the old leadership literally crumbles. I will elsewhere define something I call "melt" to describe this crumbling.

My research often concerns why this melting occurs and what it means.

Learning

If I had to name one word rapidly that I associate with learning it is coping. Coping is the capacity to deal with that which causes us cognitive dissonance...unrest with the seeming facts.

If we feel shaken by what we experience, learning is what puts us at ease until we again become shaken. We can still be shaken even with learning, but things seem more coherent and we can make sense of things.

Some people, myself included, seek out this unease in certain measures. Cognitive dissonance is a sort of excitement for us. People who have learned a lot are often able to cope with a lot of dissonance--particularly in areas where challenges relate to what we have previously learned.

But learning can also lead to short rules of thumb called heuristics, and these can lead to huge errors and really shocking dissonances if they are applied too casually. Heuristics are essential to human ways of living, but they are dangerous technologies...like fire or weapons.

For me, learning isn't know-how. And learning sciences are not the technologies of training. Training is something much more rote and less interesting. Learning is about openness...like studying the possible strategies of a game rather than learning how to execute one play (which is more like training.)

One can never learn rules. Rules are always guides. Learning is something one does in the presence of rules.