Challenging Orthodoxy

Why can’t a hen be an egg’s way of getting more eggs? What makes it so difficult for us to look at things from a different perspective then what we have been taught, or have gotten used to? We like things to be as crisp as a winter morning, so when something makes that much sense, why think about it further? It becomes an orthodoxy and is stated fact! I think there is no absolute prove for any theory out there. In history, every theory has been proven wrong, completely or partially. Complete new theories are rare, extremely rare, especially today. What we are doing is make incremental progress and build on existing theories. The funny thing is that most real breakthroughs where created through challenging orthodoxy. The earth is flat!

The last real breakthrough in physics was quantum mechanics. Einstein, having been a revolutionary in promoting his own theory of General Relativity, opposed the thought of infinite possibility; “God doesn’t play with dice”. With all his brilliance he couldn’t accept a universe built on chance and while having contributed to it in the early stages, became a counter revolutionary to the theory of Quantum Mechanics as stated by Bohr and others. Einstein’s orthodoxy was a mechanistic view of the universe, cause and effect! In his mind, there was no room for a context where the observer was the deciding factor/influence regarding the state of the observed. The results of the observation are relative to the position of the observer, absolutely, but created by the observation? That was just a bridge too far, chance had nothing to do with it. At this moment everybody in physics is trying to produce the great unifying theory, combining Einstein’s Theory of Relativity with Bohr’s Quantum Mechanics; the main issue being Gravity. Einstein’s objections have still not all been fully countered, but through them, Quantum Mechanics has made quantum leaps in providing us with many applications, from lasers to transistors and even new religions.

The point I am trying to make is that by creating new theories, we are creating new opportunities and new orthodoxies that limit other opportunities ergo they will be challenged. The question; shouldn’t we challenge the challenge to orthodoxy is like the opening sentence; a semantic joke to cover up our confusion. It is human nature to create contexts we are comfortable with. If we don’t like what a theory can potentially do to our comfort zone, we challenge it and try to come up with something that either sustains the status quo, or creates a new one we are comfortable with.

Why write about it here? Well, we are on the brink of a breakthrough regarding our thinking in setting up successful organizations and even defining success. Our theory - by no means new, but certainly not an orthodoxy yet - is based on a networked model of organizing and a different approach to value systems. The network members are motivated not only by financial gains, but by the relationships they have and make, the new knowledge they gain and produce and by the personal growth they experience. According to current believes, the hen - the financial value - is the essential ingredient, because it provides a basis to invest in the other three values. What we are trying to promote is the perspective of the egg; by building the other three values, we provide the basis for optimizing financial growth.