Artificial intelligence (2001) a Steven Spielberg film is a thought provoking movie. When I had a chance to watch this movie it triggered an important question related to management. Before I proceed further with my thought let me give a small overview of the film.
The movie was directed, produced and co-written by Steven Spielberg. The film is about a mechanical boy manufactured by one of the scientist. The boy becomes the first of the kind who simulates almost all the feelings as that of human being. The boy even tries chasing his dream at one point of time. This movie touches the human feelings and it tries to question about whether it is possible to create a mankind simulation without affecting the real human kind. The story line is very simple yet very strong with close knitted sentiments and emotions. Who told western movies are not sentimental. They are far more sentimental than Indian movies. The only difference is that the sentimental sequences in those movies are like real so they are not displayed separately from the story line.
I hope with this short description about the movie let me dwell into the management thought that I obtained from this movie. Many people have a notion that management is to do with managing people. Yes the argument of leadership is right. But it is just one face to management. By this I mean that management is far more than leadership. But the important thing to note from my perspective is that there is a strong co-relation between neuroscience and leadership. Consider for example world’s 2nd largest economy Japan, there is very limited management theory emerged from this country. When we look at US, we say that the country was built upon strong expatriate community that came out of the parent country. This expatriate crowd is the one which became the base for the strong growth of US economy. The other countries either followed them are trying to imitate them. The exception can be seen from EU region. It is said that there occurred a brain drain in EU when many good brains went out of EU to settle in US. Along with them they took away the strong management brain to US from where majority of management theory emerged and is emerging. Does that mean the countries which acted as colonies or which was part of bigger nation cannot become leader? Does this mean leadership should come from the genes of a particular family?
But I feel that there is some sort of relationship between leadership and DNA. But this does not mean that leaders can emerge only from western countries or developed countries. As we practice management in developing countries, leaders emerge from these countries also. But the style of leadership differs based on the region from which they belong to. This can be found by researching different countries and the type of leadership they follow.
The movie was directed, produced and co-written by Steven Spielberg. The film is about a mechanical boy manufactured by one of the scientist. The boy becomes the first of the kind who simulates almost all the feelings as that of human being. The boy even tries chasing his dream at one point of time. This movie touches the human feelings and it tries to question about whether it is possible to create a mankind simulation without affecting the real human kind. The story line is very simple yet very strong with close knitted sentiments and emotions. Who told western movies are not sentimental. They are far more sentimental than Indian movies. The only difference is that the sentimental sequences in those movies are like real so they are not displayed separately from the story line.
I hope with this short description about the movie let me dwell into the management thought that I obtained from this movie. Many people have a notion that management is to do with managing people. Yes the argument of leadership is right. But it is just one face to management. By this I mean that management is far more than leadership. But the important thing to note from my perspective is that there is a strong co-relation between neuroscience and leadership. Consider for example world’s 2nd largest economy Japan, there is very limited management theory emerged from this country. When we look at US, we say that the country was built upon strong expatriate community that came out of the parent country. This expatriate crowd is the one which became the base for the strong growth of US economy. The other countries either followed them are trying to imitate them. The exception can be seen from EU region. It is said that there occurred a brain drain in EU when many good brains went out of EU to settle in US. Along with them they took away the strong management brain to US from where majority of management theory emerged and is emerging. Does that mean the countries which acted as colonies or which was part of bigger nation cannot become leader? Does this mean leadership should come from the genes of a particular family?
But I feel that there is some sort of relationship between leadership and DNA. But this does not mean that leaders can emerge only from western countries or developed countries. As we practice management in developing countries, leaders emerge from these countries also. But the style of leadership differs based on the region from which they belong to. This can be found by researching different countries and the type of leadership they follow.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment