“…, we live in the age of psychological capital, where who you are is what should matter most. Knowledge and expertise are still important, but your ability to think, create, be curious, and empathize with others, is more important especially in leadership roles because machines will struggle to automate these abilities (though there is no doubt their designers will try).” (Fast Company, 20 July 2021)
As a (human) being with “psychology” and some interest in “capital” ;-p , such writing is interesting to me.
It activates more questions and (immature) reflection, some of which I feel many other human beings too, with their psychology and capital, are asking in one or other (more eloquent) form. I have no clear answers yet. Perhaps you have some ideas and wish to add some value.
Read some of the questions that rolled into my consciousness, as merely passing phenomena:
Would now the “psychological” become even further commodified by considering “psychological capital” as a servicing in the happiness industry, mindfulness centers, and self-improvements in search for “true self”, etc.?
Shall this redirection be in analogy with how knowledge has historically been a coveted property of or by the happy few (e.g. historically in the hands of religious institutions and its initiated; later in the form of publishing houses and “Orphan Works” ; even later in forms of data hoarding and academic gatekeeping mechanisms such as payment walls)? (With the exception of the digital / digitized knowledge, offered under such constructs as the Creative Commons licenses)
Would it be accessible by more than only those with time, funds and perceived credibility?
Would such scenarios then best service a similar set of happy few or maximize entire teams, communities, societies and species within and beyond their competitiveness of their perceived markets or jungles?
Might it just be that some applicable steps to action could be found in sources that are, or that reference sources that are, several thousands of years old?
If so, could such sources perhaps be Daoist & Buddhist (& to some extent perhaps debatably Confucian) in nature & methodological praxis?
Over time and space, an increasing number of individuals and communities seem to have explored a mapping of “psychological capital” (under different nomenclatures) with Daoist (rhizomic) praxis, Buddhist methodology (without having to move into “religious” metaphysical interpretations), perhaps Confucian governance, a Shamanistic ritual of moving within a larger context of natural worlds, or an Abrahamic-Good Samaritan considerateness.
Each of these seem to be allowing a *friendliness* with the lesser-known (non-)human “other”.
Each of these are in some attributes and processes considering compassion, the impermanences (i.e. transformation, changes, fluidities, ambiguities or innovations), questioning the singular, polarized “self”.
These methodologies seem to have been offering a willingness to embrace some complexities via profundity or contextualization, as opposed to their hyped versions or the commercialized search for “true self” or “happiness” as if unchanging collectibles into one’s psychological wallet.
Would these be applicable to those who might be struggling with an obsession for over-simplicity, yearning for quick-fixing hypes, while understandably being driven by biases; as every one of us is?
Could such hesitance towards a practical aggregation of methodologies perhaps be influenced by Eurocentrism, dualistic hyper-individualism, narrow forms of professionalism or other understandable reductionist lenses, such as hints of xenophobia or a lack of a kind of co-reflective due-diligence?
Could a search for methodological application (with or without a focus on hierarchical and rhizomic ritual) and with a duty-of-care, when looking into existing sources, prevent one from hubris and the reinvention of the proverbial wheel; over and over again?
Is it too superficial that these would be methodologically considered, and not necessarily be applied through nationalist, philosophical nor religious filters & ontologies?
Could HR, consultants, Professional Development trainers, academics focusing on ethics, or (professional) community leaders transcode these well-established methodologies with an intent toward a practical ethical & compassionate action plan; though while maintaining a holistic consideration?
Would such approach be sufficiently accepted (ie scaleable) as practical & not dismissed as idealistic or offensive to one’s cultural & economic frameworks?
Would integrity in such processes still be utopian while actually measurably scientific: without cutting corners, without ill-willed ulterior motives or with reduced hyper-capitalist motives; while making a living in a market setting can still be practiced?
If so, could this then be introduced at a youngest learning age & be continued throughout one’s life-long learning, while collectively being supported to apply these in co-workable practice?
Who is picking up this gauntlet as we speak?
Sources:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJgMK21-tk
header image: “”re-become” . digital sketch . animasuri’21