Dynamic Mentality

Change is dynamic. It creates constantly new challenges for humans to deal with.

We cannot meet new challenges of higher level at the same level we were used to. We need to find ways to elevate our thinking and above the level of the challenges that we encounter.

Dynamic thinkers think of not only the direct effect of change but also of its repercussions on other related activities.

Change is like an octopus and extends its arms to many areas that affect our social and economic lives. I covered in a presentation on “The disruptive rippling effect of technology”. The presentation covers the disruption of many facets of our lives due to the introduction of driverless cars.


First order thinking does not help. To ask what effect a certain technology would have on an industry is not enough. We need to ask more revealing questions to have a better anticipation of the dynamic change that the technology is going to disrupt and its boomerang effect on our own industry.

If we simply ask one question then we are subject more likely to our confirmation bias. We tend to favor feedback that supports our belief.  This is misleading and may expose us to unanticipated risks.

We need to peel the onion of new technology to reveal its full possible impact. Questions such as

  • Which sectors are most likely to be affected?
  • What would be the reaction of competitors?
  • How society would react?
  • What disruption in peoples’ lifestyles the technology would have?
  • How do we reduce the risk of the technology not getting popular?
  • What differentiates the new technology from existing ones?
  • How the environment would be affected?
  • Are there religious beliefs that would hamper the penetration of the new technology?
  • And many more…

Charlotte Wittenkamp  wrote a great comment in which she saidmanagers must learn to model openness and vulnerability so the employees are not afraid to ask questions or say when they need help for fear of retributions.” No leader or manager shall do that because this leads to first order thinking only.

Asking questions and answering them is the way to bring your mind to higher thinking levels.

Dynamic minds keep asking dynamic questions.


Ali Anani
Ali Anani
My name is Ali Anani. I hold a Ph.D. from the University of East Anglia (UK, 1972) Since the early nineties I switched my interests to publish posts and presentations and e-books on different social media platforms.

DO YOU HAVE THE "WRITE" STUFF? If you’re ready to share your wisdom of experience, we’re ready to share it with our massive global audience – by giving you the opportunity to become a published Contributor on our award-winning Site with (your own byline). And who knows? – it may be your first step in discovering your “hidden Hemmingway”. LEARN MORE HERE


  1. Wow Brother Ali!
    I really like your slide share, especially the condensed view “mind map.”

    Your questions about sector, societal, environmental impact, etc. get at unintended consequenses. I often used discussion questions like this when I worked with leadership groups on strategy and change.

    I confess to being a late adopter of technology, not a never adopter, just late. I also like to drive, so you can take my comments with the requisite grain of salt.
    My questions on driverless cars:

    Any new technology that replaces human-machine interaction takes a certain amount of time for the computer to get as good or better than a human. Cmputer typesetting replacicing the linotype hot metal typesetting machines in newspapaers took three years to replicate line justification and the temperature- viscosity-impurity computerized gauge that ultimately controlled the pouring of molten steel in the fully integrated steel mill rolling mill took five years to get the same quality to the pour that a human looking at the molten stell in a bucket got. How many years and at what cost in accidents, injuries and lives is involved in the development of this technology?

    What is the driver/chauffeured paasenegr doing while being diven by AI and the communications network? Work? Wordle?

    Today – I’m feeling a bit Luddite-ish.
    (Despite the popular view of the the followers of Nedd Ludd, 19th century Leister weaver labor leader, were not crazed anti-technology reactionaries, but were protectors of jobs and safety for workers.)

    I feel like we ought to be asking ourselves what kind of world we want to create, rather than rushing to build a new technology just because we can. (I also feel like this point is in your thesis.)

    In the 19th century the Arts & Crafts movemen rebelled against the technology of the day which they believed took the human elements of aesthetics and quality away from peoples lives, a scrifice of meaning. UK designer William Morris, historian Thomas Carlyle, art critic John Ruskin, Scottish architect/designer Charles Rennie MacIntosh, US furniture builder Gustve Stickey, and Roycroft arts community leader Elbert Hubbard, demonstrated this ethos of mana and work being intertwined with beauty and meaning.

    Where are these questioners of the moral imperatives of technology today?

    • Brother Alan,

      What I like most about your comments is that you not only read the full article, but also the linked ones. This makes your comments comprehensive and solid.

      I could hold myself not reading your comment with those of @Harvey at the same time for I find common grounds in your thinking.
      Human may forget but machines with software would not unless something goes wrong with the software.
      This brings the huge issue in your comment. If human lives are valuable and automated machines can produce better parts than humans should we become machine dependent?
      We have to consider many factors such as unemployment and its social, financial and economic effects. Is the lives of few saved people worth of many people losing jobs? I am sure this topic is open to debate. You covered few great examples of what I mean.
      The above brings me to your core question “I feel like we ought to be asking ourselves what kind of world we want to create, rather than rushing to build a new technology just because we can. (I also feel like this point is in your thesis.)”
      I open this issue for discussion. It is badly needed.

  2. I want to make clarification regrading the comment of Charlotte Wittenkamp quoted in the post.

    I loved this comment because ir says that a great leader/manager leaves the door open for asking more questions. Employees do not feel threatened to ask questions. This way the employees produce their best ideas.

    By no leader shall do that I meant shall make the employees feel threatened to ask question.