1) Zygmunt Bauman's theory of "liquid modernity" argues that society has shifted from accumulating knowledge and goods to a fast-renewing culture of consumerism where goods and knowledge are constantly changing and being replaced. 2) In a state of "liquid modernity", investing in deep or long-lasting knowledge is seen as risky since knowledge becomes outdated so rapidly. It is better to acquire specific knowledge for immediate use and then discard it. 3) Bauman contrasts the current state of "liquid modernity" with previous eras of "solid modernity" where the goal was to build enduring things that create a lasting legacy, including deep knowledge meant to benefit future generations.

1. w w w . a n t o n i o s p e c c h i a . c o m
Liquid modernity?
Zygmunt Bauman's theory applied to organisational thinking.
Competition through innovation is realised by a sudden impact followed by an immediate
obsolescence. Innovation as a continuous driver for improvement, implies a fast changing
organisation not only in terms of products and services but also regard to ideas and culture. New
ideas serve to overtake old, obsolete knowledge. We are always looking for new better knowledge
so we can throw away the old one.
So Bauman shows how society is changing: from the accumulation of knowledge and goods, to a
fast renewing culture of consumerism as well as goods and knowledge. the Market is primarily a
group of clients to seduce, they are not people. The seduction game, to have an instant
opportunity to consume things and experiences before they go out of date, is the purpose of our
consumer lives. We are all clients before people.
Due to this reason we are continuously throwing the anchors and pulling them up. A
continuous stop and start which become a constant development. Pulling up the anchors is similar
to parking a car then driving away. We throw down the anchors in a safe hub ready to sail again as
soon the situation appears favourable. Investing in a profound knowledge, building new roads,
seems threatening considering the tendency of any knowledge to being rapidly out of date. The
common paradigm is “everything expires, as well as knowledge does”.
In this vortex of change, specific know-how
applied immediately is much better. Perhaps
used it only once then thrown away. To build
up a deep, strong knowledge based on
commitment and experience is no longer
valuable. Having experience does not entitle
you to make the right choice again and
again because future situations may be
different. Previous choosing process do not
serves us anymore, we need to make new
decision making processes, inventing new
methods, new approaches to a quite
different problems’ factor.
Tuesday, 16 September 2014 1
History isn’t
settled, it is
simply a trail left
in time by
several human
choices of
different origins,
almost never
blended.

2. w w w . a n t o n i o s p e c c h i a . c o m
Memory is no longer a useful baggage to carry around with us, on the
contrary it is much better to have no bias, zeroes the existing maps
then find out new roads, new interpretations to seize the momentum.
We have no clarity from the environment, in fact we are with it so
often that we receive opposite or weird signals, in which we only can
answer in confused way.
Bauman compares the liquid modernity concept with the
solidity paradigm. The “liquidity” characterised by the rapid shift from
one place to another, which are not only physical locations but also
ideas, concepts, knowledge and values. Its opposite, the “solidity”
paradigm, belongs to the Solid Modernity era. An era whose main
purpose was to build long-lasting, solid things. It didn't matter if they
were goods or cultural topics, people have been committed in
building things which last, just to create a legacy to enrich the future
with arts, ideas, deep culture or enduring goods.
According to this purpose we deepen the knowledge to
consolidate the competencies, then create knowledge which fosters
the future generations. The mainstream organisational thinking was a
management style which supported stable processes creation and
even a steady reply to the environment. A reliable uniform mechanical model which moves from
stimulus to regular feedback. An organisational perspective dominated by an orthodox
management culture made of rewards and correctives to stimulate more uniform processes
creation. A paradigm which fits to a steady world, one in which change happened mainly over a
long period. This long period allows plans to be made. In that paradigm the employee ought to
follow his bosses' detailed instructions, in order to be considered fit for the role. Rewards and
punishment have been used to the hierarchy in a mechanical routine of instructions and
deployment with very little room for personal initiative. Today’s management has no uniform
paradigm in which to set the best process of feedback, on
the other hand, environment impulses change incessantly.
Management threatens disengagement with its coworkers
as a way of orientating relations. A way to shift the “burden
of proof” from management to coworkers: they have to
behave to get their bosses' favour. Employees can “sell”
their ideas to their bosses.
The entrepreneurial approach is stimulated in any role: the
employees must become able to offer a "value proposition"
in their contribution to the organisation, more than what
the role already foresees. They have to become able to act
in the role, overpassing any planned routines or set processes, then improve the role with an
unexpected value. Their unique "personal value” differentiates their contribution, what
organisations reward is the unicity: the ability to be someone else than the standard, to be able to
be more than just the role.
Today we should learn to be ourselves, instead to be just like anyone else. The
organisation rewards those who become able to deliver more, better and faster improving
effectiveness and efficiency.
“Learn how to walk” instead of learning the route.
Being able to walk allows everyone to face any road.
Knowing how to go in the right direction and how to use
any tools which support efficiency improvement, will set
the change management thus creating new values to offer.
In Bauman’s mind the world no longer has any
steadiness, everything is moving, fast and endlessly. The
Information Technology world is creating immense
possibilities never known before. Everyone can access the
information as never before, anyone can dig them out and
create new meaning in a fast and more reliable way than
ever before.
Tuesday, 16 September 2014 2

3. w w w . a n t o n i o s p e c c h i a . c o m
On the other hand the volume of available information has created a content tangle which
is definitively too big and wild to be managed, practically unfathomable. Today the information
itself become the unknown. The speed in which the information expires, makes it unworthy to
collect. Actually just its immediate use makes sense. This can create a deep change in the
organisation in how it produces, markets and uses the Know-how. The organisational knowledge
is, at least, its “market value”. In one way the information itself seems like an impenetrable mass,
mockingly easy to get to, but exasperating in its distance.
On the other hand knowledge itself has become the main production factor. Bauman points
out how this feature tend to threaten self confidence in any of us: the answer I need is there
somewhere, if I can’t find it, I’m wrong.
The Knowledge-Worker tends to lose himself, he risks to losing direction when faced with
this huge information cloud; it should help through the value creation process in his job. In the
solid modernity era the knowledge worker was driven by investigation to unfold the issues, now he
has no incentive to do that: this effort seems too much in order to reach the specific purpose.
Digging out and unveiling seem to be an old approach which doesn’t fit this liquid modernity era,
an era where it’s much better to ride the wave instead of building borders.
Organisational thinking is looking to build a complete new model to fathom reality and
human relations. But the difficulty is to freeze reality as it is, while continues change, thus giving
problems to any researcher. In our opinion the clearer idea which illustrates the reality as it is,
shows the need to “learn how to walk” instead of “learning the road”. The road changes every day;
being able to walk on every road allows us to face any path wherever we go, looking for the
unique, right answer which fits the momentum.
Tuesday, 16 September 2014 3