As an athlete and sports enthusiast, it is natural for me to think about change and innovations that have taken place in the world of athletics. If there is one constant that has remained in our society, I believe it lies in sports. Since the days of the first Olympics in ancient Greece, sports of all types have evolved, changed, been invented, and revolutionized the way we live our lives. But as technology advances and athletes push themselves and their bodies to the limit, is there a point where our society goes too far? With the conclusion of the 2010 Winter Games, we have all witnessed the world's best athletes competing harder, faster, and higher than we have ever seen before. Will there or should there be a limit to innovations made in the athletic world?

Change is an inevitable constant in sports just as it is in our daily lives. Rules, regulations, players, coaches, the game itself; they all change. Some are for the best and others aren't. Take the recent changes made to the rules of volleyball for example. It is now legal for a player to touch the net or cross the center line during play as long as it doesn't interfere or give an advantage to said player. The rule change that allowed for overhand passing on all first balls and serves also changed the nature of the game to make it improved, innovation, faster. However, in my personal opinion, I think those changes take away the finesse factor of volleyball.

Other examples that spring to mind are those that are both physical yet foreseeable. Look at the size of football players in the NFL today. Compare a defensive lineman to their counterpart twenty years ago, and it is amazing to see how much bigger, stronger, taller, just physically superior today's athletes are. Thanks to innovations in technology, weight training, even diet and nutrition, changes in the physique of today's top athletes are staggering. Certainly these changes are to be expected, and most stand to improve players and the sport itself. But when does becoming the best hinder the sports we love so much? Take the impact pharmaceutical and nutritional advances has had on Baseball over the past decade alone. A different player admitting to using steroids or performance enhancing drugs seems to be in the news every other day (Mr. Bonds, your thoughts?). The steroid-scandal shadow continues to hang over professional baseball yet it is becoming apparent that change takes a trickle-down effect. Change doesn't occur only at the professional level, but at college, amateur, and high school athletics too. As more reports show up in the news regarding steroid use on the rise among you males who play football, wrestle, or maybe not even a sport at all, it is obvious that change that may have once been confined to particular sports ultimately begins a societal, even cultural change as well.

I came across two different articles regarding change and innovation in sports:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2004-08-27-10-things-to-change_x.htm

The link posted above is an article I came across in the USA Today that discusses the unique ability sports has to effect us on a much bigger scale than simply entertainment. Author, Erik Brady brings up several interesting points about how changes made in the athletic arena are often times a precursor to societal or cultural change that is about to take place.

The link posted below offers an insight into innovations made in sports technology; specifically the flex-foot prosthetic limb and the Speedo LZR racer swimsuits.

http://www.america.gov/st/scitech-english/2008/May/20080515113855zjsredna0.712002.html

Both bring up interesting arguments about the role innovation plays in this sports obsessed world we live in.

GAME ON!

Over the past twenty years, our society, I think I can safely say, has developed a slight obsession with video and computer games. Thanks to seemingly daily advances in technology, the gaming industry seems to have spurred (your welcome Danny) a gaming epidemic that is overtaking our youth. Perhaps a little bit of an exaggeration, but I have yet to find a better example of an industry that has embraced technology and innovation more. Considering I was blown away by the likes of Oregon Trail (Dysentery always got me though),Where in the World is Carmen San Diego, and Street Fighter, I may be out of my league discussing the most recent editions of World of Warcraft, NFL Live, and Call of Duty. Maybe it's because my brothers and most of my guy friends DON'T allow me to play their Xbox Lives and Playstations, I have had the pleasure and ample amount of time to watch, observe, and become fascinated by the intricate details, features, and life-like graphics of the most popular games on the market. While I have grown up in this era of gaming-innovation, I am still amazed at the capability of anyone with the proper subscription and headgear to communicate, converse, and well, most importantly talk smack, with fellow gamers to anyone in the world! This observation also provided the time to make the realization that, most importantly, and perhaps even unintentionally, all you gamers out there serve as connectors for companies like EA sports, Nintendo, SEGA (is that even still around?), and all the others that produce your precious commodities. Because technology allows for gaming enthusiasts to share opinions, recommend, promote, and spread the word about the games they play, know, and love; they inadvertently become salesmen, gatekeepers even, that ultimately affect the success or failure of new games.

In Malcolm's words, the stickiness factor isn't even a question in the gaming industry. In this instance, gaming has spread virally and globally over the past two decades. What stereotypically started out as a product directed towards the youth, has exploded to all ages, races, male and female alike, thanks to Wii, Wii fit, Dance Dance Revolution, and many others. As the gaming industry continues to tweak, modify, improve, and innovate, the question in the back of most people's minds is "what can they possibly think of next"? Are holograms the next big thing( don't act like you haven't thought about it!)? But in all seriousness, the way we play has become part of our daily lives. Social gaming provides us with an opportunity to educate, entertain, to work out, and most importantly, ROCKOUTTT together. Is there a tipping point for this unique product medium that could possibly go too far? When will virtual reality become our "real" reality? How much further will change and innovation take the gaming industry?

Adapt or Fail- the new fight or flight?

The Fight or Flight response is something we have all run into a time or two in this challenging world we live in. When we perceive threats, an attack, or god help us all, CHANGE, to our survival or living environment, the argument states we have one of two options: peace out (yes that is a technical term) and flee the scene, or stay and fight for what we want to protect. However, if we apply the fight or flight context to the Corporate world, results may vary ever so slightly. What happens when mergers occur, new management takes over, and suddenly all the comforts of your working world are being attacked? Will employees adapt to new leaders, new policies, and most importantly, new norms in order to keep the company alive or will the change eventually kill the organization?

This type of change can occur rapidly, seemingly almost overnight to some. Or it occurs gradually over time as management slowly starts to instigate new procedures overseen by new faces, mixing up the status quo little by little. Either way it happens, getting an organization to accept and adapt to the changes becomes the key. Easier said than done my friends. Speaking from personal experience as a collegiate athlete, I went through three coaching changes during my career at Radford University. Talk about survival of the fittest. Not only did we have to change the way we physically played the game, and relearn skills the way they taught it. But we had to adjust to new personalities, new rules, and new leadership. One of the main reasons most of us survived were due in part to captains of the team. The Captains served as connectors between head coaches and the freshies, and everyone else in between. Because we saw our team as our family, our captains were our strong ties. The ones we trust, follow, and expect to tell us it's okay to change. They lead by example. By doing things the way the new coaches said to. They were the liaisons between the old way of performing and the new and unknown.

The same situation can be transposed to any organization undergoing similar restructuring. Organizations with strong internal leaders will be more likely to come out unscathed in the changeover process. If they're smart, new management will use them as connectors to diffuse new ideas into the existing culture. They have the high social capital, the ties, and the ability to relate, understand, and influence the rest of the employees that make up the organization as a whole. In theory, the trickle down effect takes place as change works its way into the pulse, the daily routines, the life of the organization. As a result, a different, perhaps new and improved culture emerges within the organization. The adaptation process allows companies to survive the transformation.

Is failure the only other option for organizations who decide to flee, or at the very least, ignore the new guys up top? What are your opinions? Do you think there is a gray area where companies have other options besides adaptation or demise? Check out Steve Tobak's CNET blog on why mergers ultimately fail. Tobak is the managing partner of Invisor Consulting LLC, and I found his perspective on corporate behavior interesting, perhaps you will too.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13555_3-9796296-34.html

What Strand Of The Change Virus Are You?

What is it about the notion of change that brings about one of two reactions: resist it or embrace it? When it comes down to it, our human nature divides us into two groups: the ones that hate change, the same group that likes the comfort of a routine and knowing what to expect on a daily basis; and those who are seeking a way to bring a fresh, new perspective to their daily lives. As we discuss certain companies, industries, and people who fall into the latter of the two groups, I can't help but wonder what it is that separates the embracers from the resisters.

For those of us in Leadership this semester, is change something that is born in us? Like trait leadership, are there those select people who simply possess the innate characteristic that allows them to instill ideas of change in themselves and others? Or is change something that can be learned and possessed by all people in different levels and abilities? From my perspective, change is something I have always viewed personally. I don't necessarily think of a singular company, (think corporations like Apple or Google) as the reason change occurs. I think of the people who make up that company, who personally think of new ideas, products, or processes that spurs change. Perhaps inventor is a more appropriate word choice. But whatever you call it, I think it takes a certain type of person, including their characteristics, and their own perceptions of the world around them, to spur what Gladwell refers to as the epidemic of change.

In my own family, I immediately think of my grandfather when innovation comes into conversation. Mr. Wallace Almquist III isa civil engineer who was the President of Colombia Oil and Gas for the majority of his professional career. An engineer, is someone I think of who naturally enjoys taking things apart, figuring out new and improved ways of doing things, mixing up and changing the system in order to make a process better or perhaps more productive right? Ironically, this is the same man that refuses, and I mean will argue with anyone, about computers and how much they have improved our lives today. He wants nothing to do with them. In fact, he insists that his 100 year old typewriter can suffice to get anything he needs done and do it just fine. So riddle me this: how is it that change ever occurs when there are millions of people just like my Grandfather who pose such a strong resistance to the epidemic? Who are these leaders, these innovators, the "connectors, mavens, and salesmen" as Gladwell refers to them, that are able to diffuse new ideas that really do change our world. How do they get someone like my stubborn Grandfather to change? Is there a tipping point in all of us that ultimately enables even the strongest strand of resisters to embrace change? When does the "stickiness" factor finally take over and allow the idea or innovation to spread?