I’ve been trying to make sense of the health care debate for some time now. Turns out, nobody seems to have a bloody clue what’s going on.
Until now.
To date, this is literally the only thing that has made any sense to me, and I wanted to do my small part to spread the…
Umair Haque is the Director of the Havas Media Lab, a new kind of strategic advisor that helps investors, entrepreneurs, and firms experiment with, craft, and drive radical management, business model, and strategic innovation. He is also a business blogger at the Harvard Business Review (which is, incidentally, where this bio came from: http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/haque/).
At the Dutch event VINT Symposium Fast Forward in June of this year, he gave the keynote presentation and talked about the idea of "constructive capitalism." (VINT, btw, stands for Vision, Inspiration, Navigation, Trends.)
It is a bit lengthy (48 minutes), but definitely worth your time.
If you'd rather get just the general idea, I've posted the synopsis from the Vimeo page here:
What’s really different about the world today is the fact that we’re much more interconnected. And when we’re more interconnected, we’re more interdependent. And so the question is, in this radically interdependent world, how do we have to behave to create real value, to create authentic value. Because until we can answer that question, we’re going to see the crisis that we’ve got today, actually intensify. What it really is a kind of a crisis in the way that our organizations behave. So what that means is, we see across industries this pattern of kind of self-defeating, or self-destructive, or value-destructive behaviour, because they don’t know how to do, how to behave any other way. And we don’t seem to be able to overcome that pattern; and so until we can overcome that pattern, I think that the crisis that we see today, even if we bail ourselves out of it, by bailing out the banks, by bailing out the automakers, the crisis will keep on repeating itself, across industries; it will keep on going on until we answer that problem, of very very self-destructing behavior; and so they’re kind of zombies. They know that they have to behave differently to create real value, but they don’t know how to do that, because they haven’t been organized and built in a way to do it. It’s kind of in their very DNA, because the question is not one of strategy, not one of competition but one of institutions. And unless you realize that institutions are what you have to change, you wind up as kind of as a zombie. Why do we see these patterns of destructive behavior going on? I think the reason is actually very simple: capitalism in the way we built it today kind of undercounts costs and overcounts benefits. Many of the costs that we’re now becoming more and more familiar with – social costs, environmental costs, human costs, the costs of unfairness – and it overcounts benefits, that’s kind of a structural flaw, the heart of the way that we built capitalism itself. And what that translates into is that we see this pattern of behavior of where I strive to make myself better off but I’m indifferent to whether you are better off. And if I can do that, then the result is very, very small amounts of real value that are being created, and today we’re facing that fact. The way that we should think about it in the 21st century is that we create the world through out action and through our behavior. So the world is kind of a function of what we do. And when we act in one way, we create one kind of industry, one kind of environment, one kind of world; and when we act in another way, we can create a very different kind of environment, or industry, or world. And so I think the question of “how do we respond to the world”, we have to think about the fact that we are responsible for the actions that we take, because those actions then go on to create the kind of world that then comes back to effect us. And so the challenge in the 21st century is learning to create authentic value, real value. So my question would be is how many of your innovations are really not innovations, how many are really unnovations. So I think the most important question companies can ask themselves today is are we innovating, or are we doing exactly the opposite? Is what we are doing really an improvement?There are a lot of fantastic ideas in here that I'll be discussing more over the next few months, as some of this subject matter overlaps with what my new book is about. If you'd like to join the discussion as I write, you can visit the page here. P.S. Just in case you don't watch until the very end, Umair's brilliant looking presentation was built by software called Prezi (http://prezi.com/). //
I came across this interview today, and thought it had some really great things to say (don't worry, it's short!).
MANAGING MILLENNIALS: OPENNESS, BALANCE, SPEED Get with it, baby boomers: A new generation craves information, speedy decisions and yes, an element of play at work, says CEO Brian Fetherstonhaugh Karl Moore: This is Karl Moore talking management for The Globe and Mail. Today I am speaking to Brian Fetherstonhaugh who is the CEO of OgilvyOne Worldwide, which is the new media arm of one of the largest advertisement firms in the world. So, good afternoon Brian, it's nice to have you with us again. Brian Fetherstonhaugh: Hello Karl, good to see you. KM: Will it change how we manage people in their 20s and early 30s in this world they live in? How is it different to manage that generation? BF: It's a great question. We have done a fair bit of research on the millennial generation as employees; what are they looking for, what's different from when you and I started in the workplace? And there are a couple of core values, three of which [include] the desire for openness: they have this insatiable appetite to be in the know and to share information in a way that I did not have when I first came into the company. So the implications for leadership are always to put it out there – what the new information is, and the reasons for that information and also to get over the fact that your employees will share their salary information with each other. I didn't grow up in that world but it is completely prevalent. Everybody knows when somebody gets a raise; everybody knows who got a bonus and who didn't. So as a manager of the baby boomer generation, this is a new reality but it's the truth about the workplace and the millennial workplace. Another [core value] is the desire for an element of play at work. Even in a recession there is a healthy element of play and social networking. This is one of the reasons people like companies and aren't in freelance businesses or independent contractors. So the workplace needs to be fun again. There has been a long patch of American business and Canadian business that hasn't been that fun, it's been more of an “all work and no play” experience and I think we need to recreate that balance. In our own company we brought back “Thirsty Thursdays” and events and parties, small inexpensive reasons for people in the company to get together, and that's been really successful. The final thing that the millennial generation has is an insatiable appetite for speed: speedy decisions, and speed of progression within their own careers. It comes from sort of a “Google reflex” which is if they have a question they go onto Google or their search engine of choice, and they find the answers instantly There have been tremendous short feedback loops and so as a leader in a company with millennial employees you need to understand that. You don't always need to make a decision in two seconds flat, but you need to know that the millennial employee is expecting it and has grown up with that so at minimum set up expectations. KM: Do you find they are less hierarchical and really want to have a voice in terms of decision making? BF: Great point, absolutely I think that there is this extreme desire for early engagement. I often give young people in our company advice on this. Part of the wisdom I think that baby boomer leaders can pass on is that there are consequences to that. You walk into a business situation, you are 23, 24 or 25 years old, and you want to put your hand out and contribute into big-time business decisions. A lot of millennials don't understand the consequences of that, which is if you do that once or twice and you do it badly because you don't have context, you are going to get killed “Big” people will ask you to not be on the team any more. So I think there is expectation setting on both sides, this very strong desire to contribute, but I think there are ways of channelling it and making it succeed so that the millennial employee finds their voice but also, frankly, does their homework and inoculates their opinion and is really prepared to make that viewpoint because it's not Facebook, it's a multimillion-dollar business decision, and it's different.As the resident non-spokesperson for Gen Y, I will say just a few things about this. To be honest, I almost completely agree on his 3 insights -- but, naturally, I have a few thoughts: 1) OPENNESS Openness IS key; as a generalization, we Gen Y'ers hold very few things "sacred," and are completely baffled as to why a person wouldn't want to talk about things like money, spirituality, or politics. (What else is there to talk about!?) In the age of Google/Facebook/Twitter, nothing can be hidden anymore, anyway. 2) BALANCE Play at work is good, but the paragraph in the interview is missing something pretty crucial -- the fact that work isn't, and never will be, our entire life. This is a pretty significant shift, as most of the Boomers I know, at least, seem to live to work. We, on the other hand, look at the same issue from the other side -- "How can I enjoy and derive meaning from the things that make me money? How do I design a lifestyle to where I can experience everything I want to?" 3) SPEED Understanding our propensity for speed is very perceptive (well done, Brian). It certainly does impact nearly everything we do, most notably the way we think. We cannot even comprehend why some decisions could take so long. We see a world that is inundated with technology... shouldn't we be using it? Shouldn't business be moving with the pace of the world? Makes all the sense in the world (to us). I hear some derivation of the last section a lot -- the part where Gen Y'ers feel entitled to make multimillion dollar decisions within 3 months on the job, or expect some kind of instantaneous promotion after Day 7. I think most of this is a complete misunderstanding, to tell the truth. The Gen Y'ers I know don't expect any of those things. But they do want desperately to be involved and to be appreciated for their talents. (After all, it's how our beautiful Boomer parents raised us!) For older leaders, the big hurdle to jump here is the "pay your dues" mentality that threatens to infect any reasonable adult at some point. And I do think this paradigm really does seem reasonable; it seems fair. After all, you had to pay YOUR dues, right? The problem is that this perspective is simply not in the best interest of your business anymore. The coming generations of leaders do not occupy the same business world you entered. Therefore, it isn't fair to expect them to think the same way you did. And because the mentality of the emerging workforce has shifted, the rules have changed. If we have employees that are craving engagement (which is the productive way to look at Gen Y behavior), why would we even CONSIDER risking their disengagement? If our org has passionate followers, how could we POSSIBLY think that crushing their passion would have a profitable outcome? The goal is redirection and refocusing of that passion. Not always easy, but always worth the effort. //
UPDATE 2/5/10
Apparently, the U.S. Congress has the same question I do: Why Did Hulu Block Boxee? Despite the strangeness of having something in common with Congress, I am still intrigued by the discussion around this issue; in many ways it represents a larger precedent for what could happen as the lines between television and the internet continue to blur. Click here for Mashable's take on the story.
//
The other day, I was talking with my friend Steve about tiny, insignificant things like the increasingly dystopian state of the world when we stumbled on the topic of the music industry. It's not surprising, I suppose, that this would happen since we're both musicians and have actually played in bands together over the years. During our conversation, Steve asked me -- "If you had a million dollars and were a musician with a lot of talent, how would you guarantee your success?"
I must say, it's a rather brilliant question. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have a simple answer. Or maybe any answer at all. (In fact, my friend Will is attempting to answer a version of this question with a documentary he's currently filming; stay tuned about that... it will be fantastic.) I pulled out my soapbox/preachin' podium and launched into a diatribe about how the music industry has seemingly made the exact WRONG choices at seemingly every turn over the last decade: Napster is born, and the industry instantly feels the cracks in their foundation. They react instinctively, rashly, by beginning to sue their customers, but it's already too late. As the imitable Seth Godin says, at the moment when the musical message was separated from its physical medium the world changed. Forever. It's impossible for the earth to spin backwards. The beast has been released. The toothpaste ain't goin' back in the tube.
It's a tricky tenet in business, innovation (which is just a fancier word for change, right?). Because if you don't have a culture that absolutely celebrates it, it really can't happen. It's almost impossible. Innovation requires people pay attention to intangibles and things that don't exist in this present reality, and these are pretty specific talents that won't survive if they are not recognized. And of course organizations have to also deal with tangibles. This is a difficult, paradoxical tension.
The thing is, Napster really should have been created by the record labels. There's no getting around it -- they should have seen this coming. SOMEONE should have seen it, recognized it as the logical progression. But like they say... if it ain't broke...? The "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality is dangerous, because the reality is that everything is broken, all the time. Our business systems need to constantly be in a state of progress because that's what the world is.
And now, Hulu. What are we going to do with you? You started with so much promise. In my conversation with Steve I was just bragging about you, how the film/TV industry looks like it will avoid the fate of their music counterparts. With a company like Hulu, they're already ahead of the game! But now this? Really? Did we learn nothing from the RIAA?
From where I'm standing, this story is akin to when labels began suing music lovers. Boxee is a brilliant, cutting edge program (currently Mac/Linux only, sorry PCeoples) that aggregates video content from the web. With the addition of an iPhone app a few weeks ago, this little program became one of the first significant potential stakes in the heart of cable companies everywhere -- a genuinely feasible TV service provider replacement.
But Hulu doesn't seem to want to play, which confuses me given their incredibly innovative spirit. Wouldn't it be true that allowing people to access content would be a REALLY GOOD THING? And the MORE people, the BETTER? Why would you alienate a group of consumers on the cutting edge? Why would you fight the future?
Believe me, I understand about quality control and all that. Perhaps there's more going on here behind the scenes. Maybe it's a technology thing. But to me, this decision seems out of character for a company built on pushing the envelope. And that worries me, in a big picture way.
We all have something important we can learn from the music industry, here. An organization doesn't have anything if it doesn't have something that people want. Anything. Furthermore, once a company (or industry) turns the corner and becomes the "bad guy," the collective population will not feel badly about taking from the "rich" (company/executives) to give to the "poor" (themselves). Haven't we seen this movie playing out on the screens of the "music business" over the last ten years? If companies don't provide reasonable ways to get content fairly, the people will just take it.
Perhaps even more disturbing, they will not even feel badly about it because you have become perceptually unjust.
The masses cheer for Robin Hood, not for the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Dear Film & TV friends, don't kid yourselves that you are above the fate of the music industry. Sure, your product is less replicable than music because it's more complex. But the crowds will get there. And besides, the content is already on torrents around the world. We can get it for nothing if we want to. But as Hulu has thus far shown, there are viable alternatives to this fate. Many people are more than willing to watch a few well-done commercials in exchange for quality free online programming. It just doesn't seem to make sense to limit the applications we can use to see it.
//
The thing is, Napster really should have been created by the record labels. There's no getting around it -- they should have seen this coming. SOMEONE should have seen it, recognized it as the logical progression. But like they say... if it ain't broke...? The "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality is dangerous, because the reality is that everything is broken, all the time. Our business systems need to constantly be in a state of progress because that's what the world is.
And now, Hulu. What are we going to do with you? You started with so much promise. In my conversation with Steve I was just bragging about you, how the film/TV industry looks like it will avoid the fate of their music counterparts. With a company like Hulu, they're already ahead of the game! But now this? Really? Did we learn nothing from the RIAA?
From where I'm standing, this story is akin to when labels began suing music lovers. Boxee is a brilliant, cutting edge program (currently Mac/Linux only, sorry PCeoples) that aggregates video content from the web. With the addition of an iPhone app a few weeks ago, this little program became one of the first significant potential stakes in the heart of cable companies everywhere -- a genuinely feasible TV service provider replacement.
But Hulu doesn't seem to want to play, which confuses me given their incredibly innovative spirit. Wouldn't it be true that allowing people to access content would be a REALLY GOOD THING? And the MORE people, the BETTER? Why would you alienate a group of consumers on the cutting edge? Why would you fight the future?
Believe me, I understand about quality control and all that. Perhaps there's more going on here behind the scenes. Maybe it's a technology thing. But to me, this decision seems out of character for a company built on pushing the envelope. And that worries me, in a big picture way.
We all have something important we can learn from the music industry, here. An organization doesn't have anything if it doesn't have something that people want. Anything. Furthermore, once a company (or industry) turns the corner and becomes the "bad guy," the collective population will not feel badly about taking from the "rich" (company/executives) to give to the "poor" (themselves). Haven't we seen this movie playing out on the screens of the "music business" over the last ten years? If companies don't provide reasonable ways to get content fairly, the people will just take it.
Perhaps even more disturbing, they will not even feel badly about it because you have become perceptually unjust.
The masses cheer for Robin Hood, not for the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Dear Film & TV friends, don't kid yourselves that you are above the fate of the music industry. Sure, your product is less replicable than music because it's more complex. But the crowds will get there. And besides, the content is already on torrents around the world. We can get it for nothing if we want to. But as Hulu has thus far shown, there are viable alternatives to this fate. Many people are more than willing to watch a few well-done commercials in exchange for quality free online programming. It just doesn't seem to make sense to limit the applications we can use to see it.
//