When the behemoth of a change that was Brexit arrived, the world was shaken. Experts everywhere speculated about its origins, attributing the unprecedented phenomenon to an eclectic mix of socio-political, economic causes that often conflicted. Yet, what really caused Brexit to transpire was not one isolated event or even an amalgam of events: it was a movement, one that underlies every major episode in the global arena.
This movement was expounded upon at the European Horizons Midwest Regional Conference held in Wisconsin, Madison on April 6th by esteemed Financial Times writer Gillian Tett.
During her impactful presentation, Tett highlighted the framework "FUCU" to explain why Brexit was inevitable: Fragmentation, Untrustworthiness, Customization and Unpredictability.
With the advent of the technological revolution that has perforated every sphere of our lives, the process of fragmentation begins online when people engage in socioeconomic dialogue contained within their own peer groups. Herein lies the ultimate paradox of social media and of society itself: networking sites such as Twitter, which were meant to connect masses of people, eventually transformed into cliquey, polarized platforms that harbored a potpourri of segmented opinions based on different factions.
These factions then began developing an untrusting disposition towards one another, amplifying the appeal of customization regarding specific policies and the creation of cyber flash mobs that ultimately resulted in unpredictability, yielding phenomena like Brexit.
Tett had just effectively described the "Silo" effect, a phenomenon that occurs when specialization leads to lower degrees of interdisciplinary communication and therefore one-dimensional thinking, closed-mindedness and blind spots.
Translated into the world of business, the Silo effect has very dire ramifications in terms of corporate infighting and bureaucratic rivalry. Specialization may be beneficial in the short-term by improving efficiency, but eventually the lack of innovation it gives rise to overshadows the immediate effects of efficiency, costing a firm more in the long run.
This is exactly what happened with Brexit. With the insular disposition of the working class amplified by social media platforms and the existence of a geographical split between the Eurosceptics and the Europhiles, fragmentation was inevitable as the Labour Party was unable to unite these disparities due to the lack of a solid figure to spearhead the Remain movement- this only augmented the Silo effect that was already festering.
Moreover, misinterpretation of the polls and betting markets is further testament to the notion that fragmented groups were simply unaware of each other's outlooks and beliefs, or at least the extent to which they were influential.
Take London for example. A world financial capital, often its residents are prone to believing that the trends and opinions that infest the city are representative of the views of the entire nation. Given that 59.9% of London's residents voted to remain, clearly the Silo effect prevented the city from even accurately gauging its own self, as almost half of its dwellers still voted to leave.
It is common to hear that nobody saw Brexit coming; that it is an anomaly, an aberration in the tapestry of time. But the fact of the matter is that the signs were all there: they were simply scattered over different silos.
