Archive for June, 2009
Tuesday, June 16th, 2009
Let’s take a quick look at the evolution of the modes of communication that we human beings have experienced. Around 5,000 years ago, the very first crude writings on caves appeared. It took 4,500 years for Guttenburg to invent the printing press (in case you had difficulty doing the math was 500 years ago). The very first photograph was take 180 years ago and something called the “radio” was invented around 100 years ago. Our beloved television was invented only 70 years ago, and the first staelliate message was relayed 48 years ago. Today, the “internet” is embedded in the day to day lives of hundreds of millions of people. Google, iPods, Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, are words that we just casually throw out as if they’d been around as long as our parents when only Google has been around for longer than a decade.
So what does this all have to do with commitment? Let’s start with a very general statement. The more information a person has the less ambiguous a situation becomes. So then when a person is confronted with a lot of ambiguity there is a natural drive to search for information. So what happens all of a sudden that number of information sources surges and increases exponentially. Simple, the time required to make a decision goes up, and decisions are delayed.
So what might be some situations or issues that human beings would consider involving a lot of ambiguity? How about all the major transitions that we take to mature? Things like buying a house, marrying, having kids, choosing a steady career.
So let’s strip away the frills again and go to the basics. When there is the natural search for information while facing ambiguity, the number of sources influences how long a person spends searching. So an increase in the number of information sources means an increase in the time spent search, which means an increase in delayed decisions.
What then do we qualify as a commitment? Many of us would say, “making a decision”. So just to extropolate from what I’ve written above, the more our decisions are delayed, the less committed we must be. And the final equation would look something like “Increase in Information Soruces = Decrease in Commitment”.
A human being is a human being is a human being. No one generation is less committed than the other. We have innate desires and tendencies that have been the same and consistent since we first decided to cease being nomads and settle with the invention of agriculture. But only the environment changes and the environment most young people find themselves in today has them drowning in information. Which explains the tendecy to put off major life state decisions untill they feel comfortable given all the information available to them.
Tuesday, June 16th, 2009
Fascinating/ horrifying stuff coming from the aftermath of Iran’s most recent elections, largely as a result of micro-blog posts, pictures and photographs being smuggled outside of Iran via Twitter. The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan has been covering the event in real time, posting tweets and videos. The raw, direct nature of this footage is fascinating, especially when you consider how it’s often only a few hours old.
Much is being made of the groundswell of action and protest stemming from Iran’s lyouth population. Thanks to the actions of an angry and engaged youth segment, we see a side of Iran that is far more secular and globally-oriented than is commonly understood. It seems to pervade the youth experience, right down to the street-level art protest.
Much will be made about the role of Twitter/ mobile phones/ You Tube/ Facebook as platforms for mobilizing these protests. Could this have happened without these technologies? I think Henry Farrell and Matt Yglesias get some things right in viewing the “Twitter made this possible” thesis with a more skeptical eye.
Still, it feels like something profoundly different is going on right now. It’s easy to criticize “Facebook participation” as some sort of easy, empty gesture. And yet? People in Iran appear to be gaining some comfort (and perhaps, motivation) in knowing that the world sees what they see. Communication is central to mobilizing protest.
No matter how this ends (and it may end poorly), it would be interesting to compare this to what little sneaked out during last year’s brutal crackdown in Burma. A few pictures snuck out, for a while there was some interest. But soon enough, Burma’s military leaders were able to choke information seeping out of the country. For some reason, Iran hasn’t been able to (or, perhaps has not chosen to) do the same.
*Updated: Twitter is the few fax machine: how Chinese students kept the world informed via fax.
Wednesday, June 10th, 2009
As Conor Clarke notes “this piece gets written every year.” Educational professionals have long fretted about how First World countries with fewer days of school (U.S., Canada, New Zealand) compete against those with more (Japan, South Korea, etc.) Kids have long been shown to forget what they learned the previous year in the summer months. Going back to school requires some reorientation. As Clarke notes, he length of the summer break amplifies a class divide.
Those children of wealthier parents benefit from all sorts of edifying experiences — lower class kids don’t. In the U.S., the Obama administration has already expressed its displeasure at the status quo. Time will tell if the U.S. is able to muster the political will to change.
Saturday, June 6th, 2009
The future of software is online; home computing is rapidly losing relevance. For one thing, software that connects us to each other can provide dramatic benefits (just ask Scott about Twitter, or consider Wikipedia). Additionally, software is increasingly providing enhanced usefulness by connecting us with enormous databases.
The Internet itself is a database, which predominantly served as reference source for some time. By storing enormous amounts of information in a distributed fashion, the ‘database’ is accessible, but not personally own-able. With the advent of Web 2.0, new means of interaction with databases necessitate supercomputers (as opposed to PCs) to process queries and responses: consider “Wolfram|Alpha“, a multi-disciplinary computing machine, and “Shazam,” an iPhone application that takes a short recorded clip of music and determines the title in about 30 seconds total. The processor and storage capacity required for these applications to function will likely not be available on our increasingly miniaturized computers without some dramatic technological breakthrough.
Our devices are progressing towards connected, human-computer interfaces, relying on remote servers for full functionality. They are no longer complete by themselves. Their identities are invisibly intertwined with society as a whole, now more tangibly than ever… one might even go so far as to call the term “iPhone” a synecdoche. Besides sounding cool, why is this important?
Ownership versus subscription
As an individual, and even as a larger organization, it is becoming impossible to “own” the infrastructure required for participation in the modern world. Buying temporary rights to participate is the only feasible option. Generational values may either clash or embrace this fact; few would dispute that there is variation between generations in how they react to this. However, willingness to purchase a subscription may not be as simplistic as being savvy and grownup digital [yes, that was intended to be a jab at Tascott being uncool]. In fact, younger generations often expect free content*. Youtube’s popularity despite lack of financial success with ad-supported content is a testament to this fact, and a testament to the elephant in the room: something has to give.
If accepting subscriptions is akin to accepting dependence upon society, then individualism and entitlement and other deep-seated psychological traits play a role in the solution. Understanding these ideas may be the key to targeting the right customers for these pioneer services of the new subscription paradigm, and may be essential for effective marketing to those who are resistant to this paradigm shift.
*Contradictory to this particular generational bias, younger generations are also perhaps more willing to view experiences as possessions, and are perhaps more willing to spend for temporary access – if it is framed correctly.
Friday, June 5th, 2009
A Few years ago I had the unique pleasure of creating a role in a sort of amorphous multimedia project which explored the concept of Firsts entitled Orange Clouds. As a culture, a society and perhaps even as a species we are obsessed with Firsts. My experience illuminated quite a few challenges and some outstanding rewards associated with that oft sought position, First. From our historical vantage point we usually elevate the achievement and relegate the all important journey to the footnotes. In tracing the journeys of the pioneers featured in Orange clouds I was struck by the phenomenal risks they took. It seems that road of a trailblazer is necessarily fraught with risk and therefore often connected with youth. My greatest learning was that being first is always a journey defined by fear.
In reading A conversation with Lowell Bryan and Richard Rumelt I found myself constantly nodding in agreement and again contemplating the miraculous series of firsts that seems to have defined 2009. Management in this environment is unprecedented. Everything in this environment is unprecedented. Earlier this week Samir pointed out that Brian Deese is heading up the monolithic dismantling of GM. Hummer was purchased by a Chinese heavy machinery manufacturer. A development which North American auto industries are watching with the baited breath of an adolescent virgin about to experience his first kiss. One can almost hear Lewenza and his friends giggling as they whisper “Do you think that this means we get to sell our cars there?”
We have allowed ourselves to float along comfortably taking modest liberties thinking someone else is looking out for our best interest, but why should they? In fact often one should question how could they? As I have been known to say you get what you pay for. People always assume that this means that quality costs more and while effectively that is oft true it is not a natural conclusion that cheap is bad. You see antiquated though it may be I am a huge proponent of an apprentice based model of hierarchy. While you may not be most proficient at jobs you hire other people to complete you really need to know how those jobs are accomplished to truly assess if they’re being completed well. I still think that the knowledge garnered from consistent daily practice is invaluable. Translation: if management doesn’t really know how what the make/sell/do gets done they cannot replicate performance in changing environments. Well it seems the economic climate has drastically changed and the pervasive messages for me are elemental. First what an extraordinary time for all of us but young people in particular. We are become like that proverbial phoenix watching the ebb of the flames and preparing to rise from the ashes.The truth is that no one knows what comes next; we’ve shattered our own economic theory models and now we’re faced with that most dreaded of all economic and political woes – instability. The most interesting thing is that the volatility that created this mess is exactly and the fear it spurs is likely what we need to get out of it. From the 31 year old currently effectuating the largest bankruptcy in American history to fledgling chefs walking out on Canadian chef David Adjay over his refusal to source equitable trade coffee the marketplace is being redefined.
Next is the message I hear time and again and it is as old as the hills Keep It Simple Silly. We’re all afraid. Fear is life affirming. The upside of this economic situation is a levelling of the playing field where the experts may well be those people who see the problem and simply have the courage to offer a simple solution to a problem we are all afraid to face. Seems to me those cocky head strong whipper-snappers may have a leg up on that one.
No Comments
Category Citizen, Employee, Financial Services, Leadership, Social Networking, Voting | Tags: Tags: Attitudes, Canada, Financial Services, Leadership, U.S., youth,
Monday, June 1st, 2009
A profile of Brian Deese in the New York Times. When’s the last time you heard of someone under 35 occupying a senior role in a Western civil service?
This likely would not have happened even 10 years ago. The notion of seniority is essential to how most government organizations in the world organize themselves. Granted younger people are often well-represented in political staff, whose jobs are largely administrative and logistical… But the notion that a young person could guide one of the key economic transformations of the coming years is truly remarkable.
What does this say about the changing culture of meritocracy in the U.S. civil service? Would something similar even be possible in Canada or Europe?
Are there any other examples I’m not aware of?
