The Culture of Speed and the counter culture of Slow Movement

 The Culture of Speed and the counter culture of Slow :-

 The Culture of Speed :-

The business world is transforming at breakneck speed. Entire industries like print publishing, digital imaging, and entertainment are undergoing radical evolutions, displacing established leaders, and launching new ones. Even once-successful companies like MySpace are burning out just three years into their mature life, demonstrating that if you can’t keep up, you will be marginalized.
All around you new products are emerging that demonstrate the profound impact innovation can have in just a year. Mobile video has gone from a pipe dream to a reality, and smartphones just a year old lack the hardware to take full advantage; chips from Intel that are introduced in January are commodities by December. Telephones that used to be viable for years in the 1950s today are obsolete with two years. A phone capturing a premium upgrade price in January could not be sold a year later.
 The increasing speed of change should not be a surprise; society has for centuries focused on accelerating nearly everything. That fact has long driven the efforts of business functions that directly touch the design, manufacture, sales, and distribution of products, but functions like HR haven’t always responded in kind.
 If you take the “need for speed” seriously, you need to move beyond having isolated “pockets” of speed throughout the organization.  Due to the interdependency of all functions and processes, diverse organizational units need to work in unison.  Finance is out of phase, it can dramatically delay innovations coming from other mission-critical units. Supporting all mission-critical roles in an organization are key roles that can cause just as much damage if staffed inappropriately.  You can’t have the fastest organizational speed in your industry if a single process, silo, or function moves at a lower rate of speed, creating roadblocks and “speed bumps” for the faster moving elements of the organization.
The most effective solution for increased speed across the organization is the development of “a culture of speed.” Just like any other type of corporate culture, a speed culture permeates every department and business process, including hiring, performance evaluation, finance, decision-making, communications, and rewards. In order to maintain speed in a speed culture, every new program, idea, product, process, etc. must be evaluated for its impact on speed, not just when first considered, but continuously post-adoption as well. Most organizations are full of policies and procedures that once made sense but today are nothing more than barriers to speed and productivity.
A “speed culture” is a variant of the more common “performance culture” or “innovation culture.” In a speed culture, you need to add processes, measures, incentives, and even people that have the capability of accelerating existing processes while maintaining the same or higher levels of performance and innovation.

 The counter culture of Slow Movement :-

In a study on twins, it was shown that both direction of political leaning and strength of adherence to ideology would appear to have a genetic root. Other studies also indicate that a familial tendency towards a particular social attitude, and the strength of adherence to that attitude, are heritable. If there is a transmissible component of political psychologies, then historical events which favored the survival and/or reproduction of K-type Competitors or r-type Anticompetitors could be expected to skew the proportions of Competitors vs. Anticompetitors conceived within that period, just as populations can be either r or K-selected. This would
then be expected to alter the general psychology of the affected
generation, relative to it's culture's baseline standards and mores. Under this theory, this effect would also alter the political ideologies of societies more generally.
The counter-culture revolution did exhibit many thematic

influences similar to that which we maintain would accompany an  Anticompetitive, r-selected psychology. They sought a competition-free, commune-like social structure.They denigrated capitalism and economic ambition,through embrace of anti-materialism. They adopted a radical form of sexual promiscuity denigrating of monogamy, and demanding that women provide “free love,” absent any careful fitness-based selection of potential mates.Finally, in an extreme form of out-group tolerance, they allied with a foreign enemy , and protested on this enemy's behalf at the very moment theUnited States was at war with this enemy.There even existed an animus between physically aggressive males who embraced K-type Darwinian Competitions, such as military members and police officers,and members of this “counter-culture,” r-typeAnticompetitive generation.Indeed, so great was this animus that these r-type counterculture Hippies even spit upon returning servicemen, and deridedthem as baby killers.

In the counterculture example, had America been

defeated and occupied by Vietcong forces , the counter-culture revolutionary would have been astonishingly well positioned to seize competitive advantage from their fellow indigenous Competitors, a group for whom they exhibited open animus. While the few remaining K-type Competitors resigned themselves to the oppression of outsiders, theAnticompetitor would have thrived upon the favor they curried with the new occupying force, while benefiting as well from the Anticompetitive environment an occupation would have brought.