“There it was again, that creepy smil e,” I cringed as I cheered on my leader in the first leaders’ debate of the 2015 federal election. Following the debate, as pundits discussed how his handlers were to blame, I lamented, others had the same reaction as myself. I first noticed that smile in Mulcair’s address at the NDP 2013 Policy Convention in Montreal. I was wrong to assume Team Mulcair would surely correct this smile before the 2015 election.
In the last weeks of the 2015 election campaign I was engrossed in the book, Social Physics by Alex Pentland. I began to despair. Interpreting the media coverage of the NDP through the conceptual lens offered by this book, I anticipated the electoral demise of the then official opposition. Social Physics puts forth a methodology for measuring and understanding collective intelligence. It introduced me to the framework of fast and slow thinking which better integrated my study of why people do not always vote in their best interest.
Like many concerned citizens from around th e world my reading of the available science is that we are rapidly approaching a singularity where we must choose as a global collective between a caring and sustainable global society and the collapse of civilization. I see in the NDP principles coming from Tommy Douglas, a political path to a caring Canada. I wanted the NDP to shift from opposition to governing by leading the way to a Canada that cares for its constituents and the planet they live in. I contend Team Mulcair would have gotten better results if they paid more attention to the many modalities of fast thinking to take leadership and communicate NDP principles. This paper investigates how elements of human information processing, other than the process of slow thinking reason effected the outcome of the election.
Gone are the days when a hero entrepreneur can establish an overnight success based on an individual's singular excellence. Today the key characteristic of exceptional entrepreneurship is collaboration. Increasing complexity in the business world makes it difficult for the single person to muster all the resources needed for a successful business innovation. Many business schools recognize the increasing significance of collaboration in entrepreneurship. University courses on entrepreneurship invariably encourage future entrepreneurs to collaborate in group projects.
All collaborations are not equal. Certain collaboration is much more effective than others. Neuro Linguistic Programming(NLP) scientist Robert Dilts demonstrates a distinctive quality of collaboration that he finds to be a critical success factor in highly successful business innovations. Through the modelling of this collaboration he discerns best practices to increase the presence of this quality in business innovations.
In the last decade Robert Dilts modelled highly successful start-ups in Silicon Valley. In one instance he modelled a start-up that began with an individual leaving his job with an idea. One year later this start-up was sold for $750 million dollars. The complexity of creating this much value in this short time frame could only be achieved through an enhanced collaboration.
In another instance investigated by Dilts, a large telecommunications company organized 600 people to develop a new product. A competing organization set out to develop a similar product involving only 20 employees. This second company was able to develop a better product and bring it to market before the larger company. Both companies relied on team collaboration to develop their similar product. They however differed in the quality of the collaboration.