Digital technologies have transformed the way we live. My generation grew up without email. It did not exist back then. I remember the first few times I used the Internet to connect virtually to the world. I soon learnt about email (not too long before Sabeer Bhatia made Hotmail a common household name). I continue to use email to date, and I’m sure most, if not all, of you do so too.
The advent of email has transformed communication. For modern generations, using digital technologies to communicate their thoughts instantly includes WhatsApp or Instagram. I don’t think the modern generation can relate to the world that existed before the Internet. In that world, one had to wait days to communicate or deeply express their thoughts. At family gatherings, people would share pictures of their vacations, graduation ceremonies, birthday parties, newborns in the family and so on. Today, it happens instantly through social media networks. Digital technologies have ushered in the transformation of our lives in a manner that is markedly different from even about fifty years ago. In many ways, digital transformation makes one think about its impacts on us. But who is us? More generally, what is life?
Various theories and models assume a view of the individual. The economic or evolutionary models of life, which form the foundations for various regulatory and managerial choices, define “who is a wo(man)”. For instance, evolutionary models of life in biology underline that individual behaviours are driven by the gene’s characteristics. The Selfish Gene, a popular book by Richard Dawkins, underlines that an individual is a means for replication of a gene – a biologist’s view of life. Similarly, a popular view of an individual in economics sees him or her as a self-seeking entity. The noted economist Oliver E. Williamson argues opportunism – seeking self-interest with guile – is one of the core characteristics of humans.
Around this view of an individual, a notable debate involving Williamson, S Ghoshal and P Moran brought to the fore how what we think about life shapes the actions of executives and others. Ghoshal and Moran challenge Nobel laureate Williamson’s view of the individual as an opportunist. Opportunism is one of the assumptions about human behaviour that many economists make. Outlined in transaction costs economics, opportunism underlines that every individual is guided by self-interest and may pursue it with guile. Debating with Williamson, Ghoshal and Moran challenge the view, arguing that such a view encourages unethical practices that make the world amoral. They argue that the behavioural assumption is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Getting the perspective on life correct is paramount for digital leaders. Specifically, taking an apt view of “what is life” is crucial to creating a digital transformation that is in line with the broader social ethos and, in turn, shapes this ethos as well. Different, often competing, views of an individual are prevalent. For example, a rational agent model underlines an individual as a perfectly rational being with complete information to make perfect decisions. This model underlies many AI programs.
On the other hand, a behavioural economics model argues the opposite. Most popularly seen in the works of Herbert Simon, the model underlines that decision-making is characterized by individual biases and heuristics. So, it is not accurate to presume that an individual is well-organised, has all the information and has the required computational capabilities. Similarly, a game-theoretic model emphasises that individual decisions are dependent on the decisions of others, as rational agents respond to each other’s moves. Society has many different perspectives on life and individuals. Indeed, life is one of the most contemplated topics. Well, it should be. We all have one! So, we develop philosophies to unravel life’s purpose.
Most thinking and philosophies outline a purpose underlying life. For example, Hindu philosophy may outline life as a cycle of birth, death and rebirth. The pursuit of dharam, arth, karam, moksh (freedom from the cycle of life and death) and many other related concepts underline the philosophy. Similarly, Sufi philosophy may underline the purpose of life as a union with the divine through the pursuit of love, devotion and spiritual ecstasy.
Buddhist philosophy may see life’s purpose as overcoming suffering (to achieve nirvana) and overcoming desires that lead to suffering. Many other philosophies – such as Jain, Christian, Sikh, Ayurvedic and Yogic – define what life is and underline its purpose. Beyond philosophy, scientists also identify life’s purpose. For example, as above, evolutionary biologists argue that life’s purpose is evolution, and it happens through adaptation and selection. What is life’s purpose that guides a leader’s approach to digital transformation? The question is tough, as the answer should help identify both life and its purpose across species (say, lion, deer and human; revisit the example above). Can we equate all through some conceptualisation of life?
Excerpted with permission from Purpose: Digital Transformation of Individuals, Organizations and Societies, Pankaj Setia, Penguin India.