Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

The ever-changing nature of transformation

The term “transformation” has come into vogue in recent years. Pundits emphasise the promise of technological developments such as robotics and machine learning, collectively falling under the rubric of AI, or artificial intelligence.

Modern Singapore is an example of transformation on two levels. First, in its journey from Third World to an advanced economy and affluent urban society. Second, in doing so, it has transformed how other small countries view their prospects. Photo: Reuters

Modern Singapore is an example of transformation on two levels. First, in its journey from Third World to an advanced economy and affluent urban society. Second, in doing so, it has transformed how other small countries view their prospects. Photo: Reuters

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

The term “transformation” has come into vogue in recent years. Pundits emphasise the promise of technological developments such as robotics and machine learning, collectively falling under the rubric of AI, or artificial intelligence.

Some politicians, on the other hand, are concerned both with ensuring their economies are not left behind in the technological race and dealing with the profound social and economic challenges engendered by AI.

However, the widespread use of the term has meant that its meaning has become weakened and blurred. For instance, some refer to transformation only in reference to technology. Yet the most powerful transformations concern ideas and visions for a different future.

Different people perceive transformation differently. The fatalists do not dispute the momentum behind change, but fear it and feel threatened by it. Those with these mindsets form the nucleus of radical movements, as for them the prospect of change is dangerous.

In contrast, romantics view change with an uncritical eye and undiluted joy. Precisely because they are true believers, romantics are drivers of the change they seek. But it is important that we treat both fatalists and romantics with caution.

One driven by fear and the other by an excess of enthusiasm, both carry the danger of radicalism and extremism. Compromise often has little or no place in either world.

Then there are the realists. These are those cautious about change. They do not deny it, but are sceptical about the enthusiasm of the romantics and repelled by the fear of the fatalists. However, the realists are motivated to get involved to shape the nature and course of change rather than leave events to unfold as a series of accidents.

That means being informed, interested and involved, especially on matters that merit the description of being transformative.

WHAT IS TRANSFORMATION?

Transformation needs to meet the test of the three “Bs” — it must be big, it must be bold, and it must lead to better outcomes.

To be transformative, ideas must have scale. Only if they affect a large number of people and have an impact on social, political and economic models can they merit the term. Technology has impacted and is impacting us on all these levels.

But so too should ideas. One often-neglected fact about technology is that it is morality and idea-free. It depends on governments, thinkers and entrepreneurs to give it shape, meaning and purpose, and to govern it so that its benefits are extracted but its negatives are contained.

Past examples of large-scale transformation have been political and religious change or contests. These harnessed the energy of belief and conviction to propel social and economic changes in directions.

The colonisation of South-east Asia and Africa from the 17th to 20th centuries, and then rapid decolonisation in the mid-20th century, were both transformative.

Industrialisation in Europe and the United States in the 19th century dramatically altered their trajectories of growth and set them on a path of advancement that was radically different from the rest of the globe.

Great wars, such as World Wars I and II, were acute periods of transformation. Both led to drastic redrawing of national boundaries, creation of new political structures and systems, and massive death and displacement.

Second, transformation has to be bold. This speaks to the intensity and degree of change involved.

It is easy to speak of transformation within the limits of a particular sector or field but once we widen the perspective, few things truly have the impact of altering our daily routines.

The antibiotics revolution and birth control have both significantly changed the pattern of human society.

The information revolution, powered by the spread of the Internet and cellular technology, is now a fact of modern life. These forces of transformation are so bold that it is difficult to imagine our lives without them or how they were before them.

The next “B” is really what matters to the realists as it speaks to taking the initiative over events; to direct, shape and govern transformation to best effect.

Third, transformation is about making things better for the majority of people. This connotes a relentless, competitive focus on excellence. The Singapore Government has initiated 23 industry-transformation exercises. It should be expected that these initiatives have the objective of keeping the Republic in the front rank of performance.

Modern Singapore is arguably an example of transformation on two levels. First, in its journey from Third World to an advanced economy and affluent urban society. Second, in doing so, it has transformed how other small countries view their prospects. Up-and-coming nations such as Rwanda explicitly use Singapore as a source of inspiration and as a case study in the pursuit of their own better future.

I would argue that the sustained emphasis on globalised trade following the end of the Cold War, till more recent times, has been, on balance, a transformative force for good.

Look at the uplifting from poverty into middle-class of hundreds of millions in India and China, and the prosperity of nations such as Singapore, though small, that continue to benefit as intermediaries and as a staging post in global finance and trade.

Even the Welfare State introduced after 1945, for all its fiscal challenges, uplifted the lives of millions of lower- and middle-income people in the United Kingdom and other western European countries. The US had its own variant through the “Great Society” policies of the Johnson administration in the 1960s.

Transformation affects different demographics and income groups differently. It is vital when undergoing the stresses of transformation that attention be given to maintaining social harmony by ensuring that the middle space of opinion is enlarged and preserved from encroachment by extremes, and care is taken to deal with the needs of the marginalised and alienated.

That is the foremost imperative of modern leadership, and acutely so in the political space. To this end, it is necessary to have an energetic and proactive approach to government, a vibrant but responsible private sector, and an informed and active citizenry. Paying attention to those at risk of marginalisation or alienation is part of the approach of responsible transformation.

Transformation should not be treated as something that just happens, it must be directed and defined so that it makes sense to us as a people and a country.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Devadas Krishnadas is chief executive of Future-Moves Group, an international strategic consultancy and executive education provider based in Singapore.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.