Utilising models and theories in this manner enables practitioners to challenge the status quo, fostering creativity, innovation and ingenuity - ultimately helping produce visionary leaders rather than mere workers
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its potential impact on how we work and live is the defining issue of our era. Yet, few realise that AI is a multidisciplinary field incorporating knowledge from statistics, neuroscience, psychology, computer science and philosophy. The debate over how AI will alter human interaction with our environment is ongoing.
However, this article focuses on applying knowledge, theories and models from one domain to different, sometimes seemingly unrelated, fields.
Ironically, while AI as a technology is interdisciplinary, we live in a time of hyper-specialisation. Educators, students, practitioners and policymakers are often discouraged from employing knowledge from different domains. In our complex world, where a war in one region can cause financial havoc across the globe, we rely on so-called "specialists" to solve pressing problems.
This is not to denigrate those with deep knowledge in any field, but our current time demands that people apply unique insights from one domain to another. This approach goes beyond mere collaboration; it requires creating an environment and, above all, a mindset where future generations feel comfortable using their knowledge across various disciplines.
In this article, we challenge the status quo by applying a management model to the current political environments in the United States and Nepal. The model in question is a framework for analysing the pace of technology substitution, represented as a standard 2x2 matrix with four unique segments.
Segment 1, "Creative Destruction", describes a scenario where new technology quickly replaces the old, like a 16GB flash drive replacing an 8GB one. Segment 2, "Robust Coexistence", is where old and new technologies coexist, such as hybrid engine vehicles versus internal combustion engines. Segment 3, "Illusion of Resilience", involves a period of stasis followed by rapid substitution, exemplified by GPS navigation replacing paper maps. Finally, Segment 4, "Robust Resilience", describes a scenario where the substitution of old technology happens very slowly, as with fully electric cars versus gasoline-powered cars.
Initially, following Biden's victory, media coverage painted a positive picture, positioning him as a "Robust Resilience" (segment 4) within the model. This suggests that Trump's ecosystem, the network of supporters and media outlets backing him, faced challenges in regaining momentum. Biden capitalised on this by expanding his own ecosystem to swing voters and secured a victory.
However, during Biden's presidency, a shift occurred. While lacking the drama of the Trump era, the final two years witnessed Trump's resurgence. Despite initial social media bans, he built his own platform, "Truth Social", and rallied his base. This dynamic aligns with "Robust Coexistence" (Segment 2) of the model, indicating both leaders maintained strong support systems.
The turning point came with media portrayals of Biden as someone struggling cognitively and lacking the necessary vitality and energy to govern not only the United Stated but the entire world in an uncertain time. Speeches and the recent presidential debate fueled concerns about his fitness for re-election, potentially shifting him to "Illusion of Resilience" (Segment 3). This suggests dwindling confidence within his own party, with Senators and donors potentially considering alternative candidates.
While Trump faced challenges in expanding his ecosystem, Biden's perceived decline significantly improved his opponent's position. Finally, the recent assassination attempt on Trump solidified his position. Media coverage and a surge in national support for Trump further eroded Biden's standing, with calls for his withdrawal from the race even emanating from his own party. Finally, he succumbed to the pressure and exited from the presidential race. This unexpected event could be interpreted as pushing Biden towards "Creative Destruction" (segment 1), where Trump emerges as the dominant force.
At home, former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal believed he was a kingmaker, capable of manipulating the next election by playing a political cat-and-mouse game with the two largest parties, the Nepali Congress and Nepal Communist Party. He felt secure in segment 4 of this model. However, the recent coalition between the two largest parties has relegated him to segment 1 (creative destruction).
The general public may never know the underlying reasons behind the new coalition. Beyond the desire to stay close to the power centre and circumvent legal issues faced by powerful members of the new coalition, this situation highlights the versatility of applying models in different contexts. This is particularly relevant for the new generation, who are often pigeonholed into using academic theories and models solely to justify means. The power of these theories and models lies in their applicability to various contexts across seemingly unrelated domains.
Utilising models and theories in this manner enables practitioners to challenge the status quo, fostering creativity, innovation and ingenuity. This approach can ultimately help produce visionary leaders rather than mere workers, which the current system tends to generate.
The writers are education management consultant at Islington College and founder of the brand voyageride.com
