classmates Discussion Thread Changes of Organizations

Kymberly Aviles

Discussion Response: Changes in Organizations

Over the past several decades, organizations have undergone monumental changes in nearly every aspect of their operations and management. Structurally, rigid hierarchies and centralized authority have given way to flatter, more decentralized frameworks aimed at increasing flexibility and adaptation (Scott & Davis, 2015, p. 191). Organizational cultures have likewise shifted from highly formal and bureaucratic environments to more relaxed and innovative cultures that empower employees (Holbeche, 2019). Technologically, manual processes and limited automation have been replaced by advanced information systems, big data analytics, artificial intelligence, and more (Davenport, 2018).

These changes have been driven by shifts in the external environment, including globalization, technological disruption, and evolving workforce demographics that demand more agile and networked organizations. While this organizational transformation has generated many benefits, such as improved efficiency, faster innovation cycles, and greater employee engagement, it has also created new challenges around coordination, accountability, and dehumanization. This paper’s thesis is that  organizational changes over recent decades, specifically regarding structure, culture, and technology, have fundamentally reshaped the theory and practice of management. Though these changes catalyze many positive outcomes, they also pose risks that must be addressed thoughtfully. Effective leadership in the 21st century requires balancing tradition and adaptation, structure and dynamism, and humanity and automation.

Changes in Organizational Structure

Organizational structures have undergone flattening and decentralization over the past several decades. Whereas rigid hierarchies and centralized authority once dominated corporate frameworks, contemporary organizations employ much flatter structures with decentralized leadership. In the past, most large companies were structured as tall functional pyramids with numerous management layers overseeing specialized departments (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 98). Key decisions flowed downward through chains of command, and employees had little autonomy. According to Weber’s bureaucratic model, these hierarchical structures promoted efficiency through top-down control, standardization, and division of labor (Weber, 2019, p. 249). However, they also suffered from rigidity, slow adaptation, and limited innovation.

Today, globalization and digital disruption have increased the need for agile networks over cumbersome bureaucratic machines (Luo, 2021). Companies have delayered management structures and pushed decision-making authority downward through empowered teams. Holacratic organizations take this decentralized approach even further, eliminating fixed hierarchies in favor of self-governing circles that adapt based on project needs. These flatter organizational forms enhance flexibility, responsiveness, and employee engagement.

Open systems theory helps explain this structural shift from tall, bureaucratic pyramids to flatter, decentralized networks. Open systems maintain viability through dynamic interaction with their external environment (Scott & Davis, 2015). Organizations have adapted their internal structures to increase information flow and processing capabilities as the competitive climate has become more global, digitized, and fast-paced. Flatter designs allow faster sensing of threats or opportunities. Decentralization empowers employees to take quick, context-specific action without bureaucracy. Self-managed teams enhance flexibility through autonomous reconfiguration. In open systems terms, these structural changes have enhanced organizations’ ability to import energy, process information, and export adaptive outcomes. However, they also raise challenges of coordination across dispersed units and ensuring accountability.

Changes in Organizational Culture

Alongside structural change, organizational cultures have also evolved dramatically from formal and bureaucratic environments to more flexible and innovative cultures. In the past, companies were characterized by strong top-down control, extensive rules and procedures, and individual roles taking precedence over teamwork—rigid hierarchies and standardized operating procedures aimed at consistency and uniformity (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 201). Communications followed formal channels outlined by the structure. Deviations from norms were discouraged. According to natural systems theory, these bureaucratic cultures enhanced internal coordination and alignment through socialization and shared behavioral norms. However, they lacked dynamism and suppressed individual creativity.

Today’s business environment demands constant innovation, adaptability, and employee empowerment. Thus, contemporary organizational cultures tend to emphasize collaboration, open communication, risk-taking, and decentralization (Robbins & Judge, 2019). Cross-functional teams are used to enable flexibility and sharing of diverse perspectives. Leadership styles are more participative, fostering input from all levels. Knowledge management systems capture expertise across the organization. Failure is reframed as a learning opportunity rather than something to be punished.

Natural systems theory elucidates this cultural shift. Organizations are akin to organisms that evolve based on environmental selection pressures. As markets globalized and technology accelerated, innovation and agility became competitive necessities. Companies with bureaucratic, risk-averse cultures struggled to keep pace. Thus, adaptive organizational cultures emerged as capable of quickly sensing threats, trying new responses through collaboration, and disseminating knowledge across units (Zapata-Cantu et al., 2023). Leaders facilitate evolution by propagating cultural elements that enhance survival. However, highly flexible cultures also have drawbacks. Weak social controls and behavioral norms undermine coordination. Role ambiguity and reliance on ephemeral teams may decrease accountability. Successfully navigating today’s dynamic environments requires carefully balancing creative autonomy and disciplined alignment.

Changes in Technology

Technology has perhaps seen the most radical transformation of any element of business over the past 50 years. Processes that were once manual or mechanical are now digitized and automated through advanced information systems and artificial intelligence. In the past, office work was often repetitive and paper-based, relying on typewriters, carbon copies, and physical file cabinets, and manufacturing involved significant human labor around dangerous equipment. Management decisions were made based on experience rather than data insights. Overall, technological capabilities were limited. According to rational systems theory, organizations of this era resembled machines with predefined rules and procedures aimed at achieving specified goals (Scott & Davis, 2015). Technology was an operational tool for improving efficiency within bureaucratic structures.

The digital revolution profoundly disrupted this model. As information technology advanced, companies digitized processes, built interconnected systems, and replaced repetitive tasks with automation. Data and analytics enabled fact-based decisions. E-commerce expanded reach and capacity. Artificial intelligence is now achieving feats once considered solely human, such as complex strategic analysis and creative problem-solving (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2019). Technology has shifted from a rote enabler of business to a source of transformation and competitive advantage.

Rational systems theory elucidates technology’s increasingly central role. As computational power expanded, organizations redesigned processes to leverage the efficiencies of digital systems over human limitations. Information technology enables rapid collection and analysis of data to inform decisions—a hallmark of the rational model. Automation exceeds human consistency in routine tasks. AI can even execute subjective tasks like planning and conclusion drawing more systematically than people. In essence, technology has allowed organizations to more fully actualize the rational ideal of objectivity, data-driven choices, and codified workflows. However, critics from Fritts and Cabrera (2021) argue that technology has enabled excessive automation, dehumanization, and loss of judgment. In the rational view, technology is a means to maximize outcomes, yet outcomes also depend on ethical discernment. Successful modern organizations will harness information systems’ potential while cultivating human wisdom and oversight.

Benefits and Drawbacks

Over recent decades, the transformations in organizational structure, culture, and technology have catalyzed immense benefits, enabling companies to operate with greater agility, innovation, and productivity in dynamic global markets. However, these changes have also created risks around coordination, accountability, and dehumanization that leaders must mitigate. Flatter organizational structures enhance information flow and quick decision-making, key advantages in fast-paced environments. Decentralization empowers mid-level employees to respond rapidly to local conditions without bureaucracy (O’Grady, 2019). Self-managed teams can reconfigure on the fly to tackle new challenges. These structural changes support adaptation and innovation. For example, modular product teams at Microsoft coalesce and dissolve based on changing customer needs. This flexibility allows for greater responsiveness and accelerated development compared to past rigid divisions.

Similarly, flexible, participative cultures spur creativity and engagement. When employees at all levels collaborate and share ideas openly, organizations leverage collective knowledge to drive innovation (Robbins & Judge, 2019). Cultures that encourage risk-taking and learning from failure are better equipped to experiment with new solutions and products. People analytics enables data-driven talent management rather than an outdated bias. Diversity and inclusion unlock previously underutilized human capital. By breaking down bureaucratic silos, contemporary organizational cultures empower employees and orient collective efforts toward continuous innovation.

Advanced information technology offers perhaps the greatest performance upgrades. Process digitization and automation yield dramatic efficiency gains over manual approaches. Artificial intelligence rapidly analyzes massive amounts of data to optimize decisions and strategies in ways no human could (Wilson & Daugherty, 2018). Machine learning gets smarter over time as algorithms process more data. Blockchain and Internet of Things technologies allow greater transparency and integration across value chains (Reyna et al., 2018). Technology lifts practical limitations on organizational goals like scale, complexity, and precision.

However, these organizational changes also pose challenges. Structural decentralization creates ambiguity around decision authority and accountability. Lateral coordination across dispersed units may prove difficult. Similarly, highly autonomous cultures enable creativity but undermine alignment on company-wide priorities. Overemphasis on teams erases valuable individual contributions, while excessive autonomy risks fragmentation.

Most concerning is technology’s potential to dehumanize organizations through automation and analytics (Zuboff, 2019). Over-reliance on technology erodes human judgment, wisdom, and meaning. Constant monitoring of employee data breeds distrust. Tasks become deskilled as machines take over complex jobs, previously providing intellectual challenge and satisfaction. Moreover, AI lacks human ethics and replicates biases if not carefully monitored.

Biblical Perspective

Scripture offers wisdom for navigating the tension between upholding tradition and embracing change. Ecclesiastes states that “for everything, there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven,” including times to tear down old ways and times to maintain heritage ( English Standard Version Bible, 2001, Ecc. 3:1-8). Though organizational structures, cultures, and technologies may need to adapt, biblical principles remain unchanging anchors.

The extensive changes in organizational design over recent decades have generally aimed to enhance agility, flexibility, and decentralization in order to thrive amidst the growing complexity and pace of change (Bolman & Deal, 2017, 64). However, traditions and hierarchy also have value in providing stability, accountability, and unified direction. As Ecclesiastes notes, there are seasons where innovation takes priority, just as there are seasons where preserving heritage is paramount. Wise leaders discern the times and respond accordingly. When old ways jeopardize future flourishing, transformation may be required. Jesus challenged religious hierarchies that had become bloated, dogmatic, and self-serving. Peter upended early church tradition when it was revealed that God’s covenant extended to the Gentiles in Acts 10. However, even amidst change, the essence of faith endured. Similarly, modern companies must determine when traditional structures and processes have become outdated liabilities needing revolution versus fixed cornerstones still serving a vital purpose.

Above all, the biblical perspective centers on eternal values over temporal techniques. While approaches like matrix structures or self-managed teams may suit a particular era’s context, principles like justice, compassion, integrity, and service remain constant. Technologies and cultural norms regularly shift like flowers of the field. However, the godly character stands against the winds of time. Additionally, the Scripture elevates people and relationships over impersonal institutions and routines. Jesus prioritized healing on the Sabbath over unflexible rules. Paul reminded believers in Corinth that gifts like prophecy and knowledge are meaningless without love. Similarly, modern leaders must ensure efficiency, innovation, and analytics serve human well-being rather than suppress it. As technology permeates organizations, preserving dignity and purpose for employees is critical.

Otherwise, the biblical community provides a model for organizational culture beyond isolated self-interest. The early church “had all things in common” and “day by day, attending the temple together” ( English Standard Version Bible, 2001, Acts. 2:42-47). Paul urged believers to look not only to personal interests but also those of others. While aspects of the organizational community have weakened amidst structural decentralization, leaders should find new ways to foster camaraderie and service across geographies, departments, and generations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper has traced monumental changes in organizational structures, cultures, and technologies over recent decades. While rigid hierarchies and bureaucracies once dominated, today’s organizations are increasingly decentralized, flexible, and digitized to operate viably in fast-paced, global environments. These changes catalyze benefits like agility, innovation, and efficiency but also pose risks around coordination, humanity, and fragmentation that leaders must carefully mitigate.

Analyzing organizational evolution through the lenses of open, natural, and rational systems theories provides insights into driving forces. Open systems theory elucidates how flattened, decentralized structures enhance environmental scanning and information flow for quicker adaptation. Natural systems theory reveals how participative, risk-taking cultures fuel innovation and learning under threat. Furthermore, rational systems theory explains how advanced information technology empowers data-driven decision-making and automation for vastly improved scale and productivity. Nevertheless, for all their benefits, these changes may also degrade social alignment, accountability, and human meaning if not implemented thoughtfully. Thus, biblical wisdom offers vital guidance, calling leaders to balance change with tradition appropriately to the times, elevate enduring values over fleeting techniques, and nurture community.

Looking ahead, organizations must continue adapting to the accelerating pace of technological change. Virtual work, artificial intelligence, and automation will proliferate. However, the fundamental human need for purpose and connection will remain. The future will reward leaders who humanize rather than mechanize their organizations. Visionaries will harness technology’s potential while cultivating cultures of creativity, meaning, ethics, and community. Moreover, they will balance innovation with heritage, understanding seasons for both. Organizations built on wise biblical principles, not just the latest techniques, will flourish.

References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017).  Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. John Wiley & Sons.

Davenport, T. H. (2018).  The AI advantage: How to put the artificial intelligence revolution to work. MIT Press.

English Standard Version Bible. (2001). ESV Online.  https://esv.literalword.com/Links to an external site.

Fritts, M., & Cabrera, F. (2021). AI recruitment algorithms and the dehumanization problem.  Ethics and Information Technology,  23, 791–801.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09615-wLinks to an external site.

Holbeche, L. S. (2019). Shifts in organizational culture when implementing agility.  Journal of Creating Value,  5(2), 124–138.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2394964319853164Links to an external site.

Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence.  Business Horizons,  62(1), 15–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004Links to an external site.

Luo, Y. (2021). New OLI advantages in digital globalization.  International Business Review,  30(2), Article 101797.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101797Links to an external site.

O’Grady, W. (2019). Enabling control in a radically decentralized organization.  Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management,  16(2), 224–251.  https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-07-2017-0065Links to an external site.

Reyna, A., Martín, C., Chen, J., Soler, E., & Díaz, M. (2018). On blockchain and its integration with IoT. Challenges and opportunities.  Future Generation Computer Systems,  88, 173–190.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.05.046Links to an external site.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2019).  Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.

Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2015).  Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Routledge.

Weber, M. (2019).  Economy and society: A new translation. Harvard University Press.

Wilson, H. J., & Daugherty, P. R. (2018). Collaborative intelligence: Humans and AI are joining forces.  Harvard Business Review,  96(4), 114–123.  https://hbr.org/2018/07/collaborative-intelligence-humans-and-ai-are-joining-forcesLinks to an external site.

Zapata-Cantu, L., Sanguino, R., Barroso, A., & Nicola-Gavrilă, L. (2023). Family business adapting a new digital-based economy: Opportunities and challenges for future research.  Journal of the Knowledge Economy,  14(1), 408–425.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00871-1Links to an external site.

Zuboff, S. (2019).  The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Profile Books.

Tony Poinson

The Changes of Organizations

 

The history of organizational change can be defined by systemic evolution that began in the nineteenth century. The organizations that exist today have evolved from rational systems that were largely organized to efficiently produce goods, to natural systems whereby organizational members were more involved. The current competitive form of organizations encompasses open systems whereby historical data is used in combination with an eye for the unknown, global future (Scott, 2016). 

From a corporate perspective, the United States of America is a great example of the gradual change in corporate form. Initially, corporations were basically solitary entities created to complete public projects. Corporations existed because the expense to build national infrastructure, like roads and canals, was simply too expensive for an individual to fund. The emergence of professionally managed firms in the United States began just after the Civil War with the beginnings of railroad construction. This expansion of corporate form can be described in two separate phases. The first phase was that of powerful entrepreneurs expanding their organizations vertically, while the second phase consisted of a change in capital management philosophy to achieve greater expansion. As the demand for cost reduction and process orientation grew, a generation of professional managers gradually replaced the once dominant theme of a founding entrepreneur at the head of a corporation. The requirements of railroad creation and operational management in the United States spawned the development of complex corporate structure. This corporate structure changed because of a change in the process of economic trade. Railroads enabled more trade in not only the United States, but in France and Great Britain as well. For brevity, this writing will focus on the United States. However, it should be noted that railroads in each of these three nations sparked a change from a national emphasis on societal control and military dominance to an emphasis on economic expansion and adjusted corporate structure. The resulting processes of change and subsequent decision of each nation led to the unique structure of each nation as they exist today. Railroads called for a variety of tiered management personnel to operate efficiently. Moreover, as railroads enabled trade on a larger scale, a new problem existed in regard to government management versus private business management. This was the beginning of transforming political structures from a focus on societal order to that of economic expansion (Scott, 2016). Next, the railroads led to a change in the use of stock exchanges. With the capital requirements of funding railway systems, the stock market transitioned from the trade of government debt to the modern investor culture. The stock market was the best route for corporations to raise the financial capital needed to progress the process of infrastructure improvements. These improvements in national infrastructure built momentum for increasing desires of economic competitiveness. With the pooling of resources to accomplish tasks and the associated reduction of singular government controls, ethics and integrity began to gain traction. With the shift from unitary to multi-paradigm corporate structures, more avenues of fraudulent activity have continually presented themselves.  This continues to be seen today with growing standards of corporate governance needed to minimize investor risk. In the later half of the 19th century the American economy was growing faster than that of any economy in the world, and businesses were able to grow to an enormous size before having to maximize the utility of production (Scott, 2016). These companies can be described as U-form companies that were directly linked to the economic expansion that resulted from the railroads. U form companies gave way to M-form structured companies that are multi divisional. The key feature of the M-form company was the emergence of hierarchical levels whereby a head office would create an overall corporate strategy with an associated resource allocation for the various divisions of the corporation. The M-form company structure is better suited to compete on a global scale.

As business corporations of the twentieth century came into prominence a timeline of historical shift can be traced from guilds of the middle ages. The evolution has led to corporations that now exist in various forms. In current times, the trend is headed towards an increasingly connected and unified global economy. Although corporations may be legally incorporated in one area, they exist simultaneously in various capacities and forms in other areas. In other words, increasing connectivity and a shift to multi national thinking has created an economy for corporations in which the entire world is the base of operation. With this new knowledge of continued global metamorphosis it is important for leaders in different national states to emphasize a change from monocultural to multicultural values in education. As the process of moving from monocultural to multicultural thinking societies leads to new structures of operation, it is important to consider all aspects of impact. The people participating in this new mindset of operation must be prepared for the high levels of social stressors and subsequent possibility of decreased psychological well being. Artificial intelligence and the internet are strange ways that powerful elites can undermine the effort of those who are seeking to effect positive change on a global scale: doing what they can on an individual basis to to facilitate the effort. Teamwork is critical to navigating through the trenches of this battle. Results from a recent study indicate that members of multicultural work teams perceive significantly more social stressors and lower levels of social resources than do members of monocultural teams; higher levels of social stressors suggest decreased psychological well-being, while social resources have an indirect positive effect on psychological well-being (Leifels & Bowen, 2021).

As the trajectory of change to open and dynamic systems takes global precedence it is important to maintain focus on the humanitarian aspect of multicultural acceptance. This is not simply a means to treating people better, it is actually the best route to peak economic performance! Let's be clear about this, by treating the world better corporations stand to realize more financial gain! It is now critical to understand different ways of changing attitudes that will foster this growth. One study looked at the changing implicit leadership theories that existed internally at an Irish business school. By studying internal cause to desired effect upon internal organizational culture, corporations are better equipped to adapt strategy to influence external ways of thinking. In this example, students from the same business student population rated men, women and managers in general, using Schein’s Descriptive Index, first during the academic year 2008–2009 and again in 2018–2019; the results of data analysis using the same population and same measurements at a ten year interval found that male students no longer gender type the managerial role (Berkery & Ryan, 2023). By focusing on the factors that led to this change, one can interpolate strategy into an external environment of similar characteristic. At the very least it would not be of poor consequence to try! The link between gender and managerial stereotypes is real and must be addressed. If you were unaware, the disgusting paradigm of this relativity theory is referred to as the TMTM paradigm: "think manager-think male" (Berkery & Ryan, 2023). How about “think manager-think manager”? 

In order to achieve organizational objectives, organizations require the participation of human beings. As corporations have unlimited life, barring any negative setbacks, the relationship to external participants and associated social boundaries can be seen as a problem that is constantly evolving. With natural and open systems becoming more prominent, especially in light of the trend towards a globally connected economy, the benefits of embracing human beings of all identities will help reduce the alienation felt by those working in the new world of employment (Scott, 2016). In an extreme example, a ban on women driving was recently lifted in Saudi Arabia as a "current economic policy". A recent study found that mobility constraints, moderated by socioeconomic status, continued to restrict women´s mobility even after the lift of the ban, reinforced by societal and family opposition; the "opposition effected impact" shows that mobility constraints and overly conservative attitudes that Saudi women face continue to affect their labor market preferences, opportunities, choices, and outcomes (Inmaculada et al., 2023). This entire example is sadly laughable from all perspectives for reasons that do not need be explained, but the lesson learned is that mono cultural ways of thinking and educating leave other cultures blind to real world issues. In order to progress as human beings, multicultural awareness and educated perspective is needed. Those who choose to not participate in the new global economy, with respect for humanity, will simply be dominated. Is it funny that the trend seems to be moving toward God? 

New forms of organizational structure must focus on incorporating increasing levels of interdependence and complexity in order to achieve the diverse goals of dynamically changing global complexity (Scott, 2016). The continued entanglement with military expansionism and hierarchical separation between public and private spheres, which has enabled the appropriation of natural systems and others labor as property is an issue of structural interdependence that must evolve (Eversberg, 2021). It can simply be acknowledged that people are not products, so in turn the work of people should be the product of that person. How can gainful personal utility of the individual existence be emphasized, while the larger economic goals of the world are realized? This is a question that must be pondered and continuously acted on to achieve structures of new design: structures that will improve the quality of life for everyone on earth, in an equal and non marginalized manner. As the old saying goes, "you get what you put into it"; but it is difficult for a person to get anything out of a situation based on old ideology, especially while encompassed in an oppressive environment. These are elementary issues that must be addressed while facing the challenges of changing the fundamental form of organization moving into the future. Everything is now being called into question as globalization is wreaking havoc on the once defining relationship of a corporation with a nation-state. At an increasing rate, the concept of an organization has changed due to intensified competition and globalization. Perhaps a new organizational paradigm will develop from the emerging open global network. As organizations have emphasized focus on empirical evidence of the past to achieve future performance, a trending focus must be placed on environmental mobility and predicted financial impact. Those who can build this focus with emphasis on treating others how they would like to be treated will be the long term "winners"; in reality they are the winners regardless of the time frame.

As a parable of the importance of asynchronous connectivity, the World Health Organization draws attention to the need for a focus on innovation created by digital transformations (Joseph & McCray, 2023). Just as it is important to expand the reach of healthcare initiatives, it similarly important to expand the reach of asynchronous communication modes for the interconnected, dynamic open network system to be globally successful. The main reason behind this includes its ability to handle constraints and accommodate the performance objectives in an optimal way; this dynamical system is technically referred to as a distributed networked system (Zhou et al., 2019). "Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness. Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord; Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer" (Romans 12:8-12). As the bible says in Romans, leadership approaches must rely heavily on the word of God to achieve righteous progress; especially in the evolving dynamic networks of open systems. These networks require leaders who understand and respect a multicultural approach to economic growth with an emphasis on progressing the state of the human condition worldwide. This will require strength as communist opposition is a significant threat.

It is now more important than ever for educators to understand the nature of the global economy. Moreover, leaders and educators must understand the trajectory of the global economy and begin to help implement associated educational measures to foster a global culture of respect. Great importance must be placed on the aspects of recognizing, valuing, and respecting the family, culture, language, and values of each child's family worldwide; this culture of respect and open attitude must further be articulated beginning with the literature read by the children of this world (Adam, 2021).  Moreover, the literature should support the human rights and equitable, socially just outcomes for all people; with an emphasis on continued economic expansion through open connectivity, not unified organization with dominance of a few select leaders. Research must not only be conducted, it must be evaluated for plans of action. For example, research on the types of book collections used for children's education moving through university education must be assessed for multicultural productivity. Less negative political influence must be involved at the top of corporations that are creating the educational material as well. The past is the past and it must be taught that it will not repeat itself because mistakes must be learned from. The accountability is on us as a people to make changes today that will benefit the future generations; this requires forgiveness of the evil acts committed by some of our ancestors. It is time to let go and seek positive outcomes for all. A great start would be to assess the materials used in various school districts nationwide. Then, begin the process of communication to find understanding among educators to move from an obsolete way of thinking towards a gainful collective approach of humanity through interconnected individual achievement and constant peer to peer motivation. 

 

References

Adam, H. (2021). When authenticity goes missing: How monocultural Children’s literature is silencing the voices and contributing to invisibility of children from minority backgrounds. Education Sciences, 11(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010032

Berkery, E., & Ryan, N. F. (2023). A longitudinal study investigating changing implicit leadership theory in an irish business school. Gender in Management, 38(5), 687-702. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-10-2021-0319

Eversberg, D. (2021). From democracy at others’ expense to externalization at democracy’s expense: Property-based personhood and citizenship struggles in organized and flexible capitalism. Anthropological Theory, 21(3), 315-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499620977995

Joseph-Richard, P., & McCray, J. (2023). Evaluating leadership development in a changing world? alternative models and approaches for healthcare organisations. Human Resource Development International, 26(2), 114-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2043085

King James Bible. (2023). King James Bible Online.  https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Romans-Chapter-12/#8Links to an external site.  (Original work published 1769)

Leifels, K., & Bowen, P. (2021). The dark side of teamwork–the relationship between social stressors, social resources and team member well-being in monocultural and multicultural work teams. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 28(4), 867-893. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-08-2020-0172

Macias-Alonso, I., Kim, H., & González, A. L. (2023). Self-driven women: Gendered mobility, employment, and the lift of the driving ban in saudi arabia. Gender, Place and Culture : A Journal of Feminist Geography, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2023.2189570

Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2016). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open system perspectives. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Zhou, Y., Li, D., Xi, Y., & Gan, Z. (2019). Periodic event‐triggered control for distributed networked multiagents with asynchronous communication: A predictive control approach. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 29(1), 43-66. https://doi.org/10.1002/rnc.4387