This article is actually an interview of Peter Senge, author of The Fifth Discipline, and Margaret Wheatley, author of Leadership and the New Science; both are also organizational theorists. The two discuss how organizations can be more successful if they can work better with uncertainty, and incorporate meditation, derived from periods of silence in dialogue sessions, into their work. They claim that organizations need to accept that change should be accepted as the reality, and that life is a continuous state of change. The two also discuss the concept of "collective cultivation," wherein Buddhism teaches that cultivation is the practice of meditation, study, and service. Organizations not only need to accept change, but they need to collectively work hard and know how to accept this change. Unfortunately, most organizations don't have the tools or methods to support this idea. This interview allows the reader to think more about the concept of organizations and leaders in general, and how we understand them. We can't blame the hierarchy for the way things are, because we put the hierarchy in place. We are responsible for our own actions when we obey the demands of our leaders. If we can change our own views of organizations and the habits that we have adopted to work in them, then we can potentially change the way that they function from the inside out.

This is an interesting initiative of a local business executive-turned-sculptor. I love that he not only found the courage to explore a creative avenue that he had never practiced in the past, but that he also seeks to help others do the same. I would be interested to read his book in which 100 people are interviewed regarding their significant life changes, and found it inspiring that there is actually a group in Needham that explores these ideas, called Discovering What's Next. What a great idea!

While it does make sense to me that social policies should be effectively evaluated, as is the case with medical/scientific controlled trials, it is interesting to think more about the appropriateness of these trials in social policies. Are there some types of studies that cannot be completely random or objective because of the assumptions and ideologies of the researchers as well? Politicians should have an open dialogue with researchers about the evaluation of these policies, not just getting researchers to justify the policy that the politicians want put in place.

I can see the struggle for politicians to prove that they have accomplished something in a short amount of time, and how a long trial wouldn't be seen as impressive... however, a lot of people today want to see proper evaluation and justification for policies, and would rather have a politician back out of a policy after it is proven to be ineffective, rather than continue it regardless.

As a higher education employee, it's interesting to me to hear about what the new trends are in terms of programs at other universities compared with our own. This article both saddens and inspires me, because it discusses how the study of humanities may be in danger, because it is not considered "practical" and does not always lead to a definite career path. I am reminded of how some K-12 administrators are taking away programs in the arts, to free up more time for math and science, subjects that are considered more important because of statewide testing. The article inspires me, because it goes further, to mention what some specific colleges are doing to increase focus and enrollment in humanities fields, and how the colleges and universities are trying to hold on to these fields, despite the low enrollment. I would be interested to see how these techniques end up working, and how the schools plan on evaluating them.

The Communications Director of Pepsi co discusses the marketing campaign Pepsi Refresh, wherein the public is encouraged to come up with new ideas to "refresh" some part of their world, and with the votes of the public, potentially win grant money to fund that idea. It is both a great marketing tool for Pepsi, and a great way to get the public to be creative. I have come across the Pepsi Refresh project in my research, because there are some ideas from the public that include finding ways to incorporate play into people's lives. I think that this project is a great way to have people think about the change that they want to make in the world, and create a proposal for it that is compelling enough to get others to vote for them and make it happen. With the added incentive of possible grant money, people can think freely without the worry of "how could I actually make this happen financially?"