21st-century activism is different perhaps in the sense that the individual can be more present in the process, especially via social media, but the underlying drivers remain the same as desire to change the status quo.
An era can be said to end when its basic illusions are exhausted.
Producing major change in an organization is not just about signing up one charismatic leader. You need a group - a team - to be able to drive the change. One person, even a terrific charismatic leader, is never strong enough to make all this happen.
No one thing can change the face of any sector.
Technological discoveries are the spermatozoa of social change.
You can use principles of the free market to drive social change.
Ultimately, change will happen when problems persist and enough people are concerned.
Business needs to push the agenda rather than waiting for it to happen.
I think one of the major themes in 'Escape Fire,' really, if you break it down, is that huge institutions, the military, the Safeway Corporation and others, are being forced to change.
To me, it's really important to drive change through a team because one person, while the buck has to stop with somebody, the company is just too big for one person.
People will do something—including changing their behavior—only if it can be demonstrated that doing so is in their own best interests as defined by their own values.
Production chains, how consumers can drive change: all these things may seem at odds with fashion, but arguably, they're not.
Little by little the look of the country changes because of the men we admire.
One of the things I have taken for granted, in terms of how technology works in the world, is the people that develop it and get it out there don't really know what we are going to do with until we have really gotten ahold of it and it has become ubiquitous. And then we wind up doing things that its inventors never dreamed of and those things become the real change drivers. That is actually where the whole technocracy thing falls apart for me, because the people who invented it can't predict what we're going to do with it.
But any big change is more likely to result if there is a disruptive event such as new technologies or platforms that have a surprising effect on market share.
What motivates most people to change their behavior is consequences. No consequences? No behavior modification.
If people want change, then they will find a way to get that change. So, whatever technology they may or may not have used was neither a necessary nor sufficient case for getting to the outcome that they got to, but having people who wanted change was.
It's competition that forces companies to get out of their complacency.
I've always maintained that it isn't the form that's going to make the difference. It isn't the rule or the procedure or the ideology, but it's human beings that will make it.
It is because nations tend towards stupidity and baseness that mankind moves so slowly; it is because individuals have a capacity for better things that it moves at all.
Always look for these changing technology factors- any market that has a significant change in the underlying raw materials ...or enabling factors, is an environment that is about to change in a very significant way.
We've learned, and this is true in many areas within the environmental movement, that change occurs more rapidly through marketplace movement than through regulation. We are also recognizing that not only do companies want to be green, they also want to save money.
Sometimes it requires national impetus to deliver real change.
You realize that if you're in the media business, technology is fundamentally what's driving the change in that business.
Goals always come from situations that are not so effective.
