I see what your saying, and in any organization it has to follow what it believes. I think there lies the threat of existence. Should you change, do you need to change, do you change and how much change, are all a difficult balancing act. How many companies survive sticking to their mission, their vision and where other companies are forced to change their mission and or vision because they did stick with their mission. How many companies have to change to survive. And in change or not changing have to do with politics. If you change what do you lose? If you don't change what do you lose? This is a huge issue for all organizations.
I think what you are talking about is diversifying, and merging, and not evolution. When you are diversifying you are bring in a new culture as a result that then has to be decided will it act independently from the parent company or not. Then comes the consideration of the results of those actions. Will it kill the old company brand and productions, that is highly identifiable with a huge customer loyalty? Will the new product brand be marketable with the same appeal and success? Remember New Coke? RIP, for example. Change for companies and institutions can be devastating to the public. A public that has a long held expectations and recognition with a strong standing toward these organizations, expecting these organizations to continue as founded. Again I use the failure of New Coke that lost it's original taste and tasted like it's competitors product.
What if Harvard's law school changed into a cooking school? Or the campus changed into an amusement park Harvard has a reputation that people recognize and are familiar with that. That is something you don't change unless the idea is to destroy the school.
It ain't football players learning ballet: Body coordination, if you haven't discovered or explored it in Aikido and are looking outside of Aikido for it that is everyone's right. But, it is sad that people don't have enough confidence in themselves or Aikido to know that it is there. That marvel comes with practice, practice is where you explore. Some people don't have the patience or don't want to work hard to get it. Others may need a different view or different teaching style to understand it. But that doesn't mean the art lacks it, it there. Anything worthwhile doesn't come easy.
The grass is greener on the other side of the fence, at first glance: If you look closely enough you will see in those other arts looking elsewhere to build around their core arts. MMA is a great example. And you will have a high number of people selling all sorts of skills to MMA fighters. In MMA you have many coaches of different areas teaching fighters.
It really is more about diversity then evolution of a organization. It is not bending to every trend that comes along. It is about sticking to your guns and preserving a establish highly identifiable institution, with all it's warts, for the future. A real tough act. I think credit could be given and respect and understanding for keeping the institution alive and kicking. Walk in their shoes. Would you want MMA to evolve into a pro wrestling? Of course not, you would fight to protect it from that, rightly so. Even though MMA lost it's freshness and marked as out of date as a dinosaur sport.
Politics are something best left to the politicians. Most of what you said at the start to me is really an issue of politics. Every place has them.
That is how I look at it. I don't expect anyone else to do the same. I guess what I am saying there are two sides to every coin.
Is there a point of disagreement between us? I hope not. I just understand from where they are standing. That is from a fundamental view point.
