How did the startup Harry’s appear out of nowhere to disrupt an $18 billion market and topple entrenched giants Gillette and Schick from their perches? How did some retail newcomers like The RealReal and incumbents like Walmart maintain growth and valuations while so many like Lord & Taylor, Brooks Brothers, MUJI, and J.C. Penney have dropped into bankruptcy like flies this year?
In earlier blogs, we shared our hypothesis that societies and individuals are more resilient to cope with the COVID-19 crisis when they reconcile opposing values like rules vs. exceptions, top-down vs. bottom-up and being in control vs. being emotional. In this blog we concentrate on being in control vs. going with the flow orientation and how the joining of both can lead to better results.
In earlier blogs, we shared our hypothesis that societies and individuals are more resilient to cope with the COVID-19 crisis when they reconcile opposing values like rules vs. exceptions, top-down vs. bottom-up, and being in control vs. being emotional. In this blog, we concentrate on being short-term vs. long-term orientated and how the joining of both can lead to better results.
In the first four blogs in this series (here, here, here and here), we shared our hypothesis that societies and individuals are more resilient to cope with the COVID-19 crisis when they reconcile opposing values like rules vs. exceptions, short-term vs. long-term and being in control vs. being emotional. In this blog, we concentrate on the Achievement vs. Ascription orientation and how the joining of both can lead to better results.
In the first three blogs in this series (here, here and here), we shared our hypothesis that societies and individuals are more resilient to cope with the COVID-19 crisis when they reconcile opposing values like rules vs. exceptions, short-term vs. long-term, and being in control vs. being emotional. In this blog, we concentrate on the specific vs. diffuse orientations, and how the joining of both can lead to better results.
In earlier blogs, we shared our hypothesis that societies and individuals are more resilient to cope with the COVID-19 crisis when they reconcile opposing values like rules vs. exceptions, short-term vs. long-term, and being in control vs. going with the flow. In this blog, we concentrate on the neutral vs. affective orientations, and how the joining of both can lead to better results.
In our previous blog, we shared our hypothesis that societies and individuals are more resilient to cope with the COVID-19 crisis when they reconcile opposing values like rules vs. exceptions, short-term vs. long-term and being in control vs. going with the flow. In this blog, we concentrate on the individual vs. community orientations and how the joining of both can lead to better results.
In a series of blogs, we would like to inform you about the main challenges and dilemmas that our societies are facing due to the spread of the COVID-19 virus. It is our strong conviction that the dilemmas caused by COVID-19 are shared amongst all human beings but that the reconciliation approaches are culturally defined. Also, we believe that reconciliations rather than choosing between two desired states lead to more sustainable results in fighting this evil virus.
“The next 30 years are the most important 30 years there will ever be in the history of agriculture. If we get to 2050 without cutting down our forests, without draining our rivers, lakes and aquifers, we’re good forever.”
In 1986, when Robert Swan first reached the South Pole after a 70-day, 900-mile walk — leading the first team to do so — his irises bleached by ultraviolet radiation passing through the newly opened hole in the ozone, he reported having had two thoughts: “We’re not dead,” and “Now what?”
