~synthesis~

impossible??

You are what you measure. What gets measured gets done. These and other phrases are taught in most business schools around the world -- if you want someone to do something, pay them based on getting it done.

In sales, it's commissions -- if you don’t sell, you don’t eat; outside sales, many use MBOs (management by objectives). The process is slightly different, but the effect is roughly the same. The key is designing the measurement to ensure the desired outcome.

When students are measured based on test scores, the skill created is not understanding the curriculum, but rather knowing how to pass tests (an unhelpful skill in the working world). More insidiously, if schools are paid based on standardized test scores, an easy was to improve is to expel the poor performers. Sure the numbers look good, but is that really the right outcome? Are we measuring the right thing?

You need money to live, you work to earn money; like students who learn test-passing but not curriculum, adults learn how to game their system, how to interpret and translate their MBOs into the greatest income at the lowest effort.

Health care is rife with “gaming,” and like any other player in this game, (some) doctors are no exception. I was listening to Marketplace recently, and their fascinating show on billing codes -- every patient-related activity has a code assigned to it, and doctors must map their work to these codes to then bill the insurance companies and get paid.

To “clamp down” on rising costs, the insurance companies are reducing the $/code - so if lancing a boil used to pay $100, it now only pays $90. The result? Increased payouts, and more sophisticated gaming. Not exactly the desired outcome.

According to the show, 2.2 people are employed to do billing for each doctor in America. They even have their own conference -- CodingCon, where they “equip medical coders, billers and related healthcare professionals with best practices and tools needed in correcting codes from the start, avoiding claim denials, maximizing productivity and increasing practice’s bottom-line.”

Or, “learn how to not only overcome the $10 cut on boil lancing, but also add $100s more to your bottom line.”

The Marketplace doctor’s codistas have increased his revenue by 70% ("hundreds of thousands of dollars per year”). A codista at a hospital discovered that instead of claiming knee surgery and rehabilitation under one code, they could discharge the patient from surgery and then readmit them to the physiotherapy clinic downstairs, thus billing against two codes, and making much more.

How big is this? An additional $360B (yes, BILLION) per year is spent on the whole coding process - a concept that was introduced to standardize care and lower costs... We reap what we sow.

Net -- the best way for a doctor, clinic, or hospital to dramatically grow revenues is not by providing better care, adding more doctors, or serving more patients; it is by hiring more coders, and sending them to CodingCon.

We are what we measure, and what we measure gets done.

What if instead of student test scores and attendance, schools were paid according to how well their graduates did after they left that school? (Click for more info.) Now principals, teachers, staff, unions, etc. have a common purpose: the more prepared their students are for the future, the more money they earn. You’d better believe they will work together to ensure that their students are prepared for elementary (if a pre-school), middle, high school; or college/university, and the workplace. Attendance and tests are a piece of the picture, but the key measure is student preparedness.

The (state of federal) secretary of education’s only concern is tracking how students do after they graduate (something they, and the census system already does). By eliminating tons of redundancy and complexity, we should be able to educate all public school students at half the cost of today, saving $2-300B/year.

What if instead of procedures, doctors were paid based on how healthy their patients were? (Click for more info.) The job of health care is not to perform procedures, it is to assure a healthy community. This measurement would save $2-300B/year in coding procedures and such.

It is possible to create centralized (federal) funding with autonomy at the point of execution. The key is to ensure that the recipient of funds does NOT control how their performance is assessed or reported. Create the right measures...

For both education and health care, we can accomplish this with existing measurement systems and existing funding mechanisms. Not only would we achieve better graduates and a healthier population, we would do it for as much as half a $trillion less.

These are but two examples - consider the 39-year long war on drugs (metrics: arrests and interdictions). The result is $billions spent jailing street corner dealers (3 years in jail @$33k/yr for a $200 transaction) and intercepting tons of easily and inexpensively replaced drugs, with NO corresponding drop in consumption (constant for the last decade). If instead the last 39 years had been spent helping addicts, the war might already be over.

To quote a man of immense wisdom: “Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing."

motility

Tyler Cowen co-authors Marginal Revolution with Alex Tabarrok - it is a fantastic blog; I read it every day. In a recent interview, Tyler said that one of America’s biggest problems is a lack of economic mobility. People are stuck in their economic stratum because they don’t have access to better schools, particularly in their K-12 (primary & secondary) years. Sure excellent people will succeed no matter their background or school, but the vast majority are immobile because the only education available to them is not good enough to help them rise.

They’ve also written that the US government’s approach to stimulating the economy (spend $trillions) is ineffective. I agree, and think it’s for the same reason - immobility.

Effectively executing the latter, might also give us the answer to the former:

When an economy falters, we must increase the flow of money -- get people and businesses to spend, this creates monetary mobility. That movement of money causes goods to flow, inventories to be replenished, and people to be hired. It’s not just about increasing the money supply, the added money must actually do work -- if it is put in the bank or invested, the effect is diluted or eliminated. So, who is most likely to very quickly spend every penny they get? What also is the most efficient approach - where there is little or NO leakage of funds to bureaucracy or other interests?

First who: In a shrinking economy, businesses will lower operating costs (layoffs, other efficiencies), grow profits through savings, and ONLY spend if they see sustained proof that customers are buying. They will not (and should not) create capacity when there is no demand. The result is profitability growing much faster than employment. Companies are NOT spending. They will only act when people buy. So not business.

People? If you already earn enough to meet your needs, any incremental income may not all get spent - you might save, pay down debt, or invest it instead. The richer you are, the less likely it is that a new dollar is spent. This money is least mobile. Poor people on the other hand, can’t afford to save money; they will spend whatever they have to subsist, if they get a bit more, it means they can afford to buy more necessities, not save more. There is also no overhead to their spending; they don't commission research, or conduct needs analyses, or consult McKinsey, they just buy food or clothing or whatever.

A thousand dollar bonus to someone earning $20K or less represents at least a 5% increase in income. If this person were the sole breadwinner of a family of four, they would still be $1,350 below the 2011 poverty line, and every cent would be spent. At that income, savings is not an option. There are 82.6 million people in the USA who earn $20K or less; giving each of them a $1K bonus would require a stimulus of $82.6 Billion.

When the lowest wage earners are spending money, their inertia creates a ripple effect that accelerates money flow, drives capacity creation and reinvestment, and thankfully (!) also enables the not-so-poor to buy new cars and drink mojitos in the Hamptons.

Then, how: Fighting the urge to form a task force, hold 735 meetings over three years, and create a 3,000-page manual, filled with absurd crap, let's just issue a $1,000 check to everyone who whose total W2 income (box #1) was less then or equal to $20,000.

In a commitment to failure, Presidents Bush and Obama chose and continue to choose a trickle-down approach with their stimuli, believing that giving $$$ to bigger companies will cause them to invest to create more infrastructure (manufacturing and service capacity), and in turn employ more of the middle/lower class.

Why? Perhaps because America doesn't like the idea of giving people a handout (though we have food stamps, welfare, jails, etc.). It is more palatable to give a business money because that feels less like charity.

But I don't think of this as charity as much as low-overhead-high-efficiency investment.This same view applies to education - the goal is simple, but instead of acting, we analyze; instead of inspiring students, we measure them; instead of empowering teachers, we oppress them.

This is not an argument against business, or the rich, or for charity; it is instead a plea for us to learn from nature, which teachers that the nimblest, most efficient, and most directly-aimed things prevail, ...and perpetuate.

flaunting the third rail

The third rail in many railway systems (tubes, subways, metros, etc.) is electrically charged, and fatal if touched; unless you’re contemplating suicide, stay away from it.

In American politics the third rail is Social Security (SS). The people most affected are the fastest growing segment of the population (older people); they have very strong lobbies (AARP); a lot of sympathy (we’re all planning to get old + Congress’ average age is 57); and they turn out in droves and vote in both primaries and general elections.

After reading Monique Morrissey’s testimony before Congress and talking to a few people I thought SS was a sustainable program, needing only minor rate increases, and that Governor Rick Perry’s Ponzi claim was specious. But...

SS beneficiaries receive significantly more than they + their matching employers invest; to make this sustainable, the system counts on a reasonable return on invested capital, a certain mortality rate, and more people contributing than consuming (i.e. disproportionately younger, income-earning population).

This is similar in design to a Ponzi Scheme, so it is reasonable for Gov. Perry to make his claim. Plus here’s Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution quoting three Noble Laureates who agree with Perry, and argue that people are having fewer babies and living longer (= more older people, fewer SS contributors), and economic growth has slowed (a lot); all of which affirms that Social Security as-is is no longer sustainable and in a literal sense, fraudulent, especially to younger contributors.

The "fix" strategy is to pare things back a little - increase the contribution percentage, implement a means test, delay eligibility, and significantly reduce the amount of benefit paid. Does this make the return worth it for seniors? Can they live on this reduced benefit? Are Republicans right that it should be self-managed? Can the public do better on its own? I say, "Yes."

The President is fumbling the ball all over the place, has a largely vision-free and uninspired record thus far, and could very well lose the 2012 election. This is no time to be timid or take half measures. He could overcome his legislative impotence and take a bold step to redefine entitlement - he could propose that we face reality and sunset Social Security.

The first question in all of our minds - how will this affect me? Well, if you're:

1. Over 50: Three changes - increase in contribution percentage (+2%), a means test for recipients, and an increase in the retirement age (+1 year). You keep paying in, and you will receive what was promised until you die.
2. Over 35: You stop paying into the plan, and you get the current value of your historical contributions back in a locked, tax-deferred US Treasury Bond that you can access upon retirement. All your very important future contributions into this nest egg are tax deferred.
3. Under 35: Sorry, and thank you - your contributions will go towards your parents’ and grandparents’ retirements. You are encouraged to contribute towards your own retirement with tax-deferred deductions of up to 15% of your annual salary. You have the option of buying the same US T-Bonds, or a number of other tax-deferred instruments.
   
4. Federal employee: The same (#1-3) formula will apply to federal employees for their pensions - we will increase salaries slightly to compensate for this, but per the scheme above, times are tough, and we can't afford this benefit anymore.
5. Elected official: Historically, the President, Vice President, Congress, etc. received pensions to discourage, well... bribery. We will continue to offer this pension to elected officials as long as it is their ONLY source of income.
   

This is a long sunset - it will take about 40 years for those who are now 50 to die, at which point Social Security dies with them.

Advantages:

1. Take the government out of the pension business.
2. Screw everyone a little bit - spread the pain.
3. Create a palatable, self-managed savings scheme for American workers.
4. Offer tax-deferred T-bonds as a secure retirement investment, that are also a way for the Feds to raise money, put more of America’s debt in the hands of Americans, who have the greatest vested interest in ensuring its repayment.

This is a dramatic step to be sure, but real leaders face issues head on; they don’t patch things up and leave them for future generations to deal with. Will this be the only step in the “face and deal” process? Nope - MMO (Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare) also needs to be rationalized, consolidated, and made available as a basic service to all Americans in a way that encourages well-being and good health vs. the current system which funds visits and procedures and tests, but that’s for another post :).

If President Obama has a hope of not just winning, but winning a decisive mandate, he must LEAD. He should not marry this to taxes for jet plane owners or any other silly ploy. He should set the precedent for proposing simple, clean legislation that deals with our most important problems one at a time.

Start with entitlements, show that you're bold enough to go where others have feared to tread, and that you have our nation's best interests at heart, with no fear of the political consequences.

feckless

Tony Karon argued yesterday that Israel's 'Diplomatic Tsunami' has arrived, I think he’s right, and it got me thinking about America’s foreign policy.

From Wikipedia, “a country's foreign policy... consists of self-interest strategies chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to achieve its goals within international relations milieu.”

For almost a century, America has been the world’s cop, the world’s strongest economy, and even the world’s authority on morality. From protecting Korea and Taiwan in Asia, to helping Japan and Germany with their post-war economic recoveries, to leading the world in communications and high tech and entertainment, to being Israel’s doting uncle, America has been a (really “the”) dominant force in shaping the world’s behavior.

America, the President of the United States, and the American Congress were regarded, respected, and feared as the pinnacle of freedom, integrity, power, and achievement.

When “powerful” is your norm, you assume infallibility and righteousness are forever yours. The most brazen example of this is the Bush Doctrine (aka National Security Strategy of the United States) wherein the American government empowered itself to preemptively strike any entity or sovereign state that it deemed threatening.

American foreign policy is/was not so much a diplomatic process as thuggery; using either the threat of, or the actual act of military or economic retribution to impose its wishes.

Wielding brute force will go to your head; when you have this kind of power, why bother with subtlety? Why waste time on nuance and wit when you own the most powerful one-two punch (US Military, US Dollar) in history? Sure it's dominant now, but time isn’t kind to those that drink too much of their own Kool-Aid; Davids are able to find slingshots, Goliaths are vanquished.

Ten years ago today, America was the victim of a horrible and criminal act, and it reacted with force and anger, some of which was directed against its own citizens, making us a lot less free than we’ve ever been. America is a more intrusive place to live today than it was on September 10, 2001.

That same act also robbed America of its integrity, as evidenced by three words - Guantanamo, Rendition, and Torture.

The American military is without equal in “traditional” warfare; the last time they were asked to fight one of those was 21 years and 40 days ago, and they were victorious. Since then, the “enemy” has been replaced with individuals and small groups of criminals who are inhuman, without honor, and lack any national affiliation. This is a law enforcement problem, not a military one.

Using the military to counter terrorism is like using a gun to kill a mosquito. You make a fool of the weapon, create a ton of random damage, and help the foe look agile and effective. Case in point - Afghanistan, ironically the same place where Americans helped the “locals” defeat the Soviet Union. American power does exist in reality, but in the eyes of the rest of the world, it is no longer mighty, nor is it feared. The thug mind assumed that every problem could be solved with the same weapon, and that delusion made a mockery of both the thug and the weapon.

Can we at least rest on achievement?

Going back to Karon’s article, taking its cue from Uncle Sam, Israel assumed that a powerful military and self-righteousness are all that’s required to maintain the status quo; but they didn’t count on the agility and effectiveness of the mosquito, which took the form of individuals and their desire for personal freedom and justice.

They did count on Uncle S to stand with them and “prevail” on the Turks, Egyptians, and even the Palestinians to respect and honor the integrity of Israel; and of course America did stand with its favorite nephew, but regrettably, with little effect. Nations (and worse, individuals) that once cowered are no longer bowed. They listened politely, but then followed their own beliefs rather than US "advice."

Why? Because today even America’s ability to get it done is suspect - the military will leave its last two theaters of operation without victory; the economy is weak and depleted; the government prefers ideology over strategy.

What was once a majestic and imposing and relentless is tired and fading. The “assets” that America has held dear for so long, it’s military and the all-mighty dollar remain, and remain strong, but only according to the definitions of the last millennium.

While the world moved on, America chose laurels and rest.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’
Bob Dylan - The Times They Are A-Changin’

These are harsh words on this sad day; but this is also a day of reflection, when we contemplate not just what was lost, but how we've changed, and what we've become. Reflection must encompass the whole image in the mirror, not just the convenient illusion. Humility always prevails over hubris.

demoPrats

Nope - it’s not a typo - a prat is an incompetent fool; and looking at the Party of Donkeys, I see a whole lot of those in their midst.

The DemoPrats have accomplished little to nothing since 2006, during which they’ve had control of the House (‘06-10), Senate (‘08-) and White House (‘08-); their leadership is inept and toothless, and they lack the ability to lead.

The Republicans are dogmatic bullies under the dual (and bizarre) thumbs of the Tea Party and Grover Norquist. But they are masterful at focusing their message in a way that is instantly resonant. Their platform in my words:

1. Taxes are evil - We must curb government excess and put Americans to work.
2. Life is sacrosanct - We must protect innocent unborn children from those who would kill them.
3. Peace through might - We must ensure America’s freedom and safety with a powerful military and border security that deters all our enemies.

To any Democrats that might read this post - can you in as succinct a way articulate your Party’s position?

...

Yeah - it’s a problem isn’t it? In the absence of a compelling message, you allow the Rs to define you as Anti-Jobs, Anti-Life, and Anti-Freedom.

...DemoPrats

From the President down to the petulant Reid/Pelosi dullards, no-one has been able to effectively challenge the Republicans. This is after all the party favored by most of the media, almost all of Hollywood, and some of the brightest minds in the country, and yet, they are bumfuzzled.

1. Taxes create jobs. Capitalism is greed - if your net revenue/employee is positive, you will hire more people because you will make more money. If your taxes go up, you’re still greedy and you’ll hire even more people to make back the tax money - remember employees are a tax deduction. There’s a ton of data to back this up.
2. Life doesn’t end at birth. Every life must be protected; a healthy birth is the beginning - we must ensure a healthy life for every child - that includes an excellent education and guaranteed healthcare. Healthy, well-educated children are net contributors to our economy - they do honest work, and pay their taxes. In fact, they give back more than we spend on them. The Bible says we must protect life, and we couldn’t agree more - the healthier our nation, the wealthier we are, the more jobs we create, and the less debt we incur.
3. America first. We have a lot of problems to fix here at home, and a lot of enemies wishing to attack us in our own backyard. Let us bring our troops back from abroad, and defend our own cities and towns. We don't need to be the world's cop anymore.

This is just an off-the-cuff (one hour of thinking) response written by an immigrant marketing guy.

The Dems could easily de-Prat themselves if they were to utilize the full capacity of the talent on their side; they just need to focus on connecting to their audience, and not on trying to be smart, something in which all DemoPrats revel.

Effective communication is not when the speaker does a good job, but when the audience hears what they need, in the way they need it.

To be clear, this is only a way to engage the voters politically, and win an election. It does not change the DemoPrats' ineptitude in government.

I think there is a possible fix. President Obama needs to replace Vice President Biden with someone who will run the entire Domestic portfolio. He must be able to wrangle Congress, and know how to streamline our government and catalyze job creation. He must be confrontational, decisive and impolite, but most of all, he needs to totally resonate with "regular people."

I think that person is Ross Perot.

kill skills

It's easy to get caught in a rut - the greater the risk or threat of change, the taller the walls become, the harder it is to accept new things, and worst of all, the less aware you are of your self-imposed exile.

When change occurs in a team, or they are asked to rethink their business given new market conditions, rutted people will produce a PowerPoint presentation that references new market research, extensive analysis of Twitter feeds, and select customer quotes that proving that strategy X is exactly what's needed to achieve success.

X is of course the current mission restated with a new team name, new logo, renamed programs, and one or two tweaks that come with incremental budget requests - PowerPoint lipstick on the status quo pig. They will also revamp their "scorecard" with additional rows to reflect the tweaks, and of course the team leader will require a business manager to manage the growing "burden" of command.

Does this sound familiar? Have you looked back after a couple of years of genuinely hard work to see what was really accomplished? There will have been a TON of "busy" results that can be documented in scorecards and spreadsheets (thanks to the now entrenched business manager), but how have you helped the business?

In consulting with organizations, the first question I ask is, "What is your why?" Once we are clear on why you exist, figuring out how you will get there and what you will do are easy. This is a difficult discussion because even CEOs are in a rut of busy work that is assumed to be of value, but rarely mapped back to the why. I wrote a few weeks ago about an organization I knew with ~90,000 employees, and my belief that they could achieve the same results with 30,000 people. One reason is this organization has misplaced its why; there are many brilliant people who are accomplishing amazing things that have little or no contribution to the business and have nothing to do with their why. In fact, I bet fewer than 30,000 could accurately state their why.

The reason clients resist the why discussion is because it leads to evaluating every investment (the whats) vis-à-vis its contribution to why. Many of the investments were created for good reason, but do those reasons exist today? If the what is still meaningful, then its contribution to why must be clear; if it isn't, then why are we still doing it?

Whenever something new comes along (especially in large organizations), if there is an openness to try it, it will never come at the expense of something old. "Without incremental resources or funds, fugedaboutit!"

What just happened? The organization chose NOT to make a difficult decision. "This new what is great, it can and will help us achieve our why. Which of our current what(s) should we kill to do this?" The text in red creates tension, angst, the killing of sacred cows, and a lot of hand wringing and unhappiness, and that is always difficult.

The reason organizations fall into ruts, the greatest impediment to good business is an inability and unwillingness to confront every (existing and new) what with why? Rationalizing ruts is easy; making difficult trade-offs is not. The more you rationalize, the more ingrained your siege mentality; this mistrust makes you think you can't be dependent on "them," thus justifying redundant what's in your portfolio. This balloons rapidly - contributing to the 60,000 excess employees in the example above.

Leadership is not just about the salary, stock options and the big office. If you can't make tough decisions, you are not a leader; the skill to kill investments that don't contribute enough to the why is a fundamental criterion of leadership.

leap of faith

Education's goal is to prepare students to succeed in life. What skills will help kids be healthy, independent and even happy?

Most schools choose English, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and "World" Languages as core skills. Missing is anything that helps students bridge concepts across subjects, or become independent thinkers and learners. Also missing is anything that looks at the whole student, their hopes and emotions (as they go through puberty), how they will live and work within our society, and how they become ...a person.

Research shows that employers are looking for broad, creative thinkers who can work in varied settings and in teams to solve complex, multi-disciplinary problems. In other words, people who know how to learn and have the confidence and wherewithal to get things done in ambiguous and unpredictable settings.

There are schools whose mission is to graduate students like this. Two that I know are Seattle Girls' School and High Tech High. They are amazing.

Both schools incorporate an integrated curriculum in which students actually become entrepreneurs, engineers, doctors, activists, writers and artists. They also focus on the person before them, treating them not like a widget in a factory but a human being with feelings, fears, interests and lives outside school.

Tangentially, the US Department of Education is investing $4 Billion to fix the 1,000 poorest-performing schools in America. The primary approach is a complete reboot, including a complete staff overhaul. Cynics predict a 1% success rate, or 10 good schools, and $3.96 billion wasted. I think they'll do better, and I'm willing to bet that the successful schools will have principals who are focused on the whole student, who aren't pitting teachers against each other, and who recognize that an integrated and experiential curriculum is not only what the kids need, but how best to engage them in the magic of learning.

Leaders like this are what made Seattle Girls' and High Tech High successful, and what's needed not just in the worst of our schools, but all of our schools. These aren't easy people to find, so we need better resources to help the less-brilliant leaders.

I recently suggested an approach that leads to integrated learning by inverting the classroom, turning lectures into homework, and what was homework into teacher-facilitated classwork. This ought to be a part of the academic solution, but it doesn't address a problem most poor schools face - that the students have a tough, tough life (poverty, violence, drugs, etc.) outside school; and with that occupying their minds, can hardly be expected to care about math or grammar.

Of course a school can't fix problems at home, but is it possible for them to help children cope with these issues, and in doing that enable them focus on school? Yes. Are there examples of this in action? Also yes.

John Gilmour founded four LEAP Science and Maths Schools, in townships (where the black people were forced to live during Apartheid and continue to live now) in Cape Town and Johannesburg. I had the opportunity to visit one school last year and was amazed. Each class spends one hour/day in Life Orientation, where an Occupational Therapist helps students listen, feel, understand and express what is inside them, and learn how to interact with each other.

The result is a remarkable awakening of children who might otherwise have lived lives of crime, poverty and disaffection, but instead are successful, empowered contributors to society. Gilmour has made this work with students who are immersed in the worst circumstances, and created graduates whose brightness and brilliance easily matches that of any American private school student.

Are inverted classrooms and Life Orientation a panacea? No. Are they worth exploring? Absolutely. What holds us back? They're different and not invented by the "establishment."

There is a fear of trying anything new or "radical" even though America is only graduating 70% of its students, of which most are unprepared for college (1/3 drop out after their first year, and 1/2 never graduate). Shouldn't some of the $4 Billion from the Dept of Ed go towards proving these approaches in American schools?

The traditional approaches are failing; radical is our only choice.

tech in ed - epic failure

Education today is designed to meet the needs of 19th century Industrial Revolution employer - “We need millions of assembly line workers, who are all similarly-skilled, and able to work for a simple wage.”

But children today want more, they have broader needs and expectations from their school - not the least of which is to be treated as individuals and to be engaged based on their unique aspirations and abilities. This is not possible if the least interactive and differentiated part of learning in today’s schools is the lecture, and the most interactive part is the homework. We are not only wasting the most valuable asset in the room - the teacher - but also flaunting the idea that you can create creative, critical thinkers in a one-way, generic teaching system. Real learning is a curated experience; humans - teachers - must be involved, but in an interactive and personalized way.

Technology’s role is NOT to mechanize, but to humanize. The most humane technology interventions in history are characterized by a simple truth - the target audience naturally consumed them. The telephone, television and browser are examples of this.

Sadly, a generation of school leaders, administrators, teachers and parents are now conditioned to view technology in the blandest way; from the slate to the blackboard to the whiteboard to PowerPoint to the SmartBoard, the ONLY improvement is mechanization. Teaching and learning NEVER changed. To-date the use of technology in learning has been a waste.

Successful teaching can’t be an act of oppression, it can’t be “pushed,” it needs to be “pulled” - the student must want. Talk to any teacher and they will say that student engagement is fundamental to success. Combine the best teacher with the smartest but disengaged student, and learning will NOT occur. But if the students are engaged, and if the teacher can meet them where they each are and work with them, any student can be successful.

This is our challenge, but in a system this complex (USA: 50 million students, 3 million teachers, 15,000 school districts, $600B/year), it must be done correctly.

The answer is not rocket-science. In fact, it's right in front of our noses. Look at children at play - watch them engage and interact in mediums of their own choosing - they have already know how they see, learn, play, and enjoy. My favorite example is Pokemon. Excerpt from student teaching?:

Most Pokemon aficionados that I know mastered the game in about six months. Mastery implies a full understanding of the Pokemon vocabulary, ecosystem, evolutionary paths, strengths and weaknesses of each character and appropriate strategies with which to select the right Pokemon and win battles, etc.

Moreover, each child also learns to interact with their peers, learn tricks and techniques from each other, and of course battling to achieve supremacy in the game.

Finally, for particularly tough battles, students need to also do research online to uncover cheats that they can use to achieve status.

How often do you see average students achieve this level of skill this quickly in Algebra, Grammar or even simple Fractions, forget Organic Chemistry, Biology, or a foreign language? Animated cartoons, simple re-playable simulations, pervasive, easy-to-use, child-friendly, long-battery-life devices are the basis for Pokemon's success.

This can be translated into mainstream learning. Technology can inspire children to want to learn.

We can't ignore the role of the teacher - they are essential to connecting with students based on their specific interests, abilities, and learning needs; and to being the human connection that all Brain Science tells us is crucial to effective learning.

Technology should liberate teachers from the burden of generic lectures and enable them do what they're best at, what they came to do in the first place - engage students. But we have to do this practically, knowing that they have 30 students and 50 minutes per class.

What if we took the current education standards in a given school system and created short (< 10 mins), animated lectures of each concept(s) with a simple assignment to test comprehension? The teacher could assign these lectures to students as homework, have them "play" their homework and complete their assignments, and automatically receive "reports" on how each student did, and what they understood before class started. In class, the teacher would group the students based on their comprehension, and work directly to inspire, and bridge their learning gaps.

Of course there is much more to this approach; but in the end, it helps accomplish three things:

1. Recognizing and accommodating the way children naturally think, learn and play.
2. Empowering the teacher to directly engage students and help them learn.
3. Eliminating the child abuse of forcing young children to shoulder 20lb (10kg) backpacks filled with dated textbooks.

It can be done at a substantially lower cost - American public schools spend more than $5 billion/year on text books - this approach would cost much less, if for no other reason than most kids already have the devices (smartphones, MP3 and game players), and that all learning content should be open-source.

He who learns but does not think, is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. ~Confucius. Bold school districts and teachers unions need to step up and lead our children into safety.

pro child-labor

What's the return on investment of education? Why bother? Why especially in poor communities? Just because I/you/we believe education is a silver bullet doesn't mean it is. As a skeptic, I can find many examples of education shooting blanks or even causing harm.

If I'm a parent of a family living in one room in a shanty town or village, why should I bother wasting my kids on education? How is grammar going to feed us? How are fractions going to heal my sick baby? How is history going to clothe us? I need none of this; it's a waste of my children's time and life. Go away.

Today UNESCO released The Hidden Crisis: Armed Conflict and Education, which states that: "Armed conflict is robbing 28 million children of an education by exposing them to widespread rape and other sexual violence, targeted attacks on schools and other human rights abuses."

Their agenda for change includes: "tougher action against human rights violations, an overhaul of global aid priorities, strengthened rights for displaced people and more attention to the ways education failures can increase the risk of conflict."

UNESCO is asking for US$2 billion to cover current budgetary shortfalls, and changing the proportion of humanitarian aid that goes to education (currently only 2%). All worthwhile goals, aimed at giving "them" what we have. But as Einstein famously said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, and expecting a different result.

Yes - 28 million children aged 5-12 are not in school, yes this is a crime, and yes it will result in bad things (disease, starvation, rape, war...). BUT - building more schools isn't the complete answer, nor is training more teachers or distributing textbooks or laptops.

Philanthropy is the least effective way to affect change. The best way is for the community itself to change because it values that change over existing subsistence priorities. This is the crux of sustainable transformation.

To get kids into schools, the parents need to be convinced that it is the right thing to do. Not "right" based on some abstract morality, but right based on what they care about, they need, and they value. This is what matters most; what we believe is irrelevant.

Parents will compel their kids to go to school if it enables survival of the family. If you can't directly and immediately connect to that, parents will choose other subsistence (food, shelter...) needs over education - you would, I would. Moreover, the "ROI" of education happens after graduation - that's at least a decade out! If you're starving now, that kind of future is meaningless.

We in the wealthy world delude ourselves into believing "if you build schools, they will come," or "it's so obvious - why don't they understand it?"

Ironically, we're clothing our ignorance in empathy, and believing that empathy will save the wretched from their ignorance!

We must give parents something they need now in exchange for their children's attendance:

1. School as a farm. The students will learn innovative farming techniques; they will plant and harvest crops; they will be required to work the farms in exchange for being fed and bringing food home for their families.
2. School as a factory. The students will learn innovative production techniques; they will create and produce goods that we will sell; they will be required to learn factory-work, in exchange for being fed and bringing goods home for their families.
3. School as a clinic. The students will learn about health care; they will assist in providing services to the injured and sick; they will be required to clean and cook and feed patients; in exchange for being fed and bringing food and medicines home for their families.

Yep - this is putting 5-year old kids to work. CHILD LABOR - get used to the term; learn to like it.

Children are not in school because their parents value subsistence over education. "In exchange" for being fed and bringing food home every day, these children will also happen to learn literacy and numeracy + skills that can help improve their family's health and standard of living. BUT if they don't get fed and bring food home, they will not have reduced the family burden sufficiently to warrant their parents' commitment.

We suffer from the desire to assuage our own guilt and feed our intellectual egos by over-engineering things. The issue is not education, it is survival. Education is nowhere near the top of Maslow's hierarchy for a reason. It's not important enough when you and your kids live on 500 calories/day, with dysentery and AIDS.

This feels dastardly - railing against child abuse/sweatshops/etc. is ingrained in us - but we're wrong.

If UNESCO is serious about getting 28 million kids in school, they need to first employ them, and then educate them. Let's spend money on that.

in the best interests

Are you familiar with the Butterfly Effect? It states that a small change in one part of a system can dramatically affect outcomes in another part of the system, or more poetically, a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can set off a tornado in Texas.

A look into the roots of recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt reveals that some of their inspiration came from far-away sources like American Gene Sharp, and the Optor in Serbia. They were bolstered by a history of civilian uprisings against authority - from Kent State in May, 1970, where students reacted violently to President Nixon's announcement that the US had invaded Cambodia, to the African National Congress and people like Steve Biko rising up against Apartheid in South Africa, the list goes on.

Lives have been sacrificed and countries have been shaped through civil disobedience, but sadly, humanity is not yet civilized enough to claim that this phase of our "development" is over. Recent events in Bahrain eerily echo what happened at Kent State 40 years ago. We are at least consistent...

Our hackles are raised when our sense of what's right is shaken; we feel righteous indignation when what we know to be fair and just is violated; indignation turns to anger when the perpetrators are those entrusted with authority and expected to represent the will of the people (their victims).

What about those on the "other" side of these actions?? I think/hope most are acting in what they believe to be the best interests of the people, that they are doing what they know in their hearts and minds to be the correct response given the situation and available information.

Look at President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction, and how we see that the information he believed to be true and verified was a lie. Look at the actions of the British Empire, who for centuries believed that they were "civilizing" the Colonies. It's easy to fault their actions in hindsight, but in that moment, in their moment, I can't honestly say what I would have done, given what was known to be "true" at the time.

In their minds, they were doing what they felt to be "right." If any of you are or were children, were you ever "subjugated" by your parents for doing or wanting to do something you thought was OK? Did you swear that you'd never do that if you had kids, then when you became parents, you put the screws to your kids in much the same way??

Context matters. Our judgment about the best interests of those in our charge is at best complex, and infrequently based on pure, unbiased reason.

Parenting is different from politics - in politics transparency matters, due process matters, and the voice of the people matters. In the politics of a democracy, these are sacrosanct, aren't they?

Texas Governor Rick Perry believes that abstinence is the only way to teach sex education, and he has invested more than any other state on promoting virginity before marriage. Texas has one of the worst-performing public school systems in America, the 3rd highest teen pregnancy rate, and more sexually-active high school students (52.9% June/08) than the national average (47.8%), when recently questioned about his decision cut education budgets, close schools, lay off teachers, etc., but maintain abstinence funding, he responded: “I’m just going to tell you from my own personal life. Abstinence works.”

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has decided to arbitrarily rewrite the rules governing public service employment in his State. His legislature will vote to ratify this despite strong opposition from the people of Wisconsin. His rationale - we can't afford to do what we were doing, we must live within our means, and this is the only answer - I/we know what's right.

Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak have always acted in what they believed to be the best interests of Tunisia and Egypt respectively. King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa has always acted in what he believes to be the best interests of Bahrain. Each of these leaders' assumptions have been challenged over the last weeks.

We in the West have looked on these events with some feeling of superiority, sanguine in the belief that at least we live in nations with government[s] of the people, by the people, for the people.

I wonder - are there butterflies in Tunisia or Egypt or Bahrain?

awakening

The recent uprising in Tunisia was sparked (sorry) by the act of one person, it (very) rapidly expanded into a national uprising that resulted in the ousting of a long time President whose resounding electoral victories (he won his fifth election in 2009 with his lowest mandate - 89%) were always suspicious. Despite his close call in 2009, it was not until January 13 of this year that he announced that he would not seek reelection in 2014, and then realizing this was not enough, fled the country the next day. I'm willing to bet that in the 29 days following Bouazizi's immolation, former President Ben Ali had NO idea that that one seemingly inconsequential event would so quickly evaporate his once-powerful stranglehold on Tunisia.

That one man's desperate act would have gone unnoticed without the amazing communication capabilities, which even the poorest among us now enjoy, is a powerful testament to the world we now live in.

President Hosni Mubarak is reeling from roughly the same kick in the groin, and wondering, "what the hell just happened?" Emboldened by these acts, the oppressed from Morocco to Pakistan are rising against their leaders; leaders who until very recently lived under a wonderful shelter of power, wealth, and comfort without accountability. These regimes (even the faux-democracies) have wielded power over their citizens (many of whom live in poverty) for generations without repercussions. How will things change?

I think there are three lessons to be learned - first, politics or leadership is a delicate balance between the application of power and serving the citizens. Second, the right (and ability) for people to assemble may not be pervasive, but it is unstoppable. Third, be careful what you wish for, lest it come true.

Politics - citizens expect that leaders will be somewhat heavy-handed; they also expect public safety, employment, the opportunity to feed, clothe and shelter their families, and in most places, education and health care. We are all willing to suffer, but there is a breaking point. The Middle East reached it recently; we saw it in Sudan with their referendum; it affected the dissolution of the Soviet Union; and caused America to declare her independence from Britain.

Are Western states immune? Nope - the Wars on Terror + the Patriot Act combined with severe domestic belt-tightening have created unrest across America and Western Europe. The difference in the West is that politicians give away more than they should to win, where in the East, they suppress the populace more than they should to remain in power. But either way, in the end, the people suffer.

I think sustainable leadership requires adherence to three absolutes - Integrity, Transparency, and Accountability. There can be no compromise. Once you cross this delicate line, you are either perceived as insipid (President Jimmy Carter) and lose respect, or as despotic (almost every other example of government gone bad) and subject to revolt. Most governments will use misdirection (Wars, etc.) to keep their citizens in line and resistance at bay, until they get found out.

Assembly - the Communication Revolution is upon us and there is no turning back. Anyone has the capacity to create and share and associate, though its implications are not fully grasped by all. Even the American government was caught off guard by the speed with which things progressed in Tunisia and then spread to other countries. Birds of a feather are able to find like-minded people, convene and create movements in ways that were not possible even five years ago. Once tightly-held secrets (Wikileaks) are also fair game. Governments simply can't keep up.

Wishes - the Egyptians want Mubarak ousted - he is why they live in poverty, suffer high unemployment, and a high cost of living, etc. They want free and fair elections to choose their next government, believing that once Mubarak is gone, Egypt will once again flourish and all will be better. I feel sorry for the eventual winner of the elections - the world markets are in crisis, oil and grain (and hence most food) will be more expensive due weather, this turmoil and the economy; and let's face it - the situation in Egypt (or anywhere else) is not caused solely by its leader - most of the contributing factors that caused these problems still remain, and are very difficult to fix. The next leader may not fare any better.

The world is holding its breath to see what happens in the Middle East - from economics to diplomacy to war, changes of this magnitude to the status quo will have gigantic repercussions. Bouazizi may have ended up doing a huge favor to the Ben Alis and Mubaraks of the world - they will leave (with $$ tucked away in offshore accounts), their successors will inherit the messes they presided over, and the citizens will need to start over.

But there is something to celebrate - rising against despotism is a good thing. Self-determination is a good thing. I hope the citizens of these countries will look inwardly to realize that they are now responsible for their destinies, that they can no longer blame "the man," and that they alone have the ability to create viable economies, and ensure the health, safety and well-being of their families.

deFUDdle

Back when I worked at IBM, if we didn't have the "winning" solution, our strategy was simple - we used FUD. It was brilliant, and worked more often than you might think. FUD = Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. The idea was to push the customer's emotional buttons, poke holes, create scary what-ifs, do whatever it took to force a delay, redefine the problem, or whatever so that we were in a more favorable position.

The Republicans FUD skills are renowned. They are able to create a sense of tension in the electorate in ways that routinely befuddle Democrats. Take health care - they did a brilliant job of associating the reform bill with "bad for the economy" and "a perilous step towards socialism" - fantastic! First, I'm willing to bet that most of us don't even know the definition - according to Webster, socialism is a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property; b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

Is there any real risk that America turns into a socialist country through health care reform? Hardly. There is no correlation between the government providing a service and the elimination of all private ownership, but it's a fabulous way to create FUD. The first people to oppose socialism are our much-vaunted Congress, who let's face it, enjoy private ownership of a lot of stuff, some of which was funded by special interests and the tax payers(!); they will do everything in their power to preserve the fruits of their avarice. So - socialism is an absurdity.

What about "bad for the economy"? Again - there are many ways to make numbers mean what you want. You only have to look at this NY Times article about law schools using misleading data to shore up their performance numbers (graduate employment rates, etc.) to help improve their rankings, and you can see how universities ("reputable" universities) will lie.

When it comes to the economy, there are two things that matter most - I want a good job, and I want to take home more money than I am now. But then here's one pretty diabolical piece of FUD: taxes are bad. Well... I don't think it's that simple. How much tax do you want to pay? As little as possible - right? Me too. Thus the resonance with the Republican push on lower taxes. It makes total sense - or does it?

Do my taxes really matter or is there more to this?? Put another way, the real question in my mind is: how do I maximize my net earnings? What I really care about is how much I take home at the end of the day, the nature of the deductions from my earnings are less important than the value I get for those deductions and whether the net amount I'm taking home is going up. <-- Does that make sense?

If it does, then it's not really about taxes is it? Why not make it about personal profitability? Profits being what you get to keep in your wallet after all your expenses are paid. So if there is a change to our economic system that costs me more in tax but lowers or eliminates another (bigger) salary deduction, and after all that I end up ahead, why should I care?

According to this (well worth a read), the American health care system is the most expensive in the world; in 2006, we spent more than $6,700 per person on health care, compared ~$3,500 for most Western nations. The cost is actually higher since every other Western country has universal health care, and about 10% of Americans don't have any coverage at all, so the $6,700 is actually closer to $7,500 per person.

Digging a bit deeper, 70% of Canadian health care costs are borne by the government vs. 46% in the US; the Canadian system costs about $3,700 per person (just about half of the US cost), and yet Canadians live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate - these are the two primary measures of national health care effectiveness.

Bottom line: Canadians spend $3,800 less per person for better health care. If you're American, you might think - yeah but my employer pays my share - what do I care? Well - if personal profitability is your goal, then you will know that you are paying EVERY penny of your medical insurance costs, whether it is in taxes, payroll deductions, a lower salary, or lower prices at the store. No matter how you cut it, the $3,800 difference DOES come from your wallet, and means those of us who live in the USA earn that much less every year, and die earlier to boot.

Even if the US decided to spend $4,500 per person (for every person), that's still a savings of $2,200 for each of us plus the knowledge that no-one gets left behind. Every person in this country gets access. Every person also gets to pad their wallets a bit, and rarely is that a bad thing!

But how to communicate this? It's a pretty complex analysis, and given the state of education in America, I'm not convinced that every voter is going to understand it. Think back to the last person that had a tough economic message to share with the populace - President Ronald Reagan in is first address to the nation from the Oval Office in 1981 - a brilliant speech.

If President Obama had addressed the nation in just this way - not talking to politicians and special interests as he did in his attempts, but talking to the American people, sitting in his office, and not standing in the House; if he had applied simple metaphors as Reagan did, perhaps each of us might have been able to look forward to an extra $2-3,000 in our wallets in 2011.

curativity

Being charitable is an essential part of humanity. The definition of society is a community formed to (among other things) help those who can't help themselves. Humans are inherently giving beings.

According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, as of August 2010, there are 980,000 nonprofits (that filed IRS returns; there are 1.6 million registered .orgs) in the United States alone; they earned $1.74 TRILLION, and have $3.89 TRILLION in assets. That's an average of $1.78 million in annual revenue, and $3.98 million in assets per organization.

Obviously the "big" foundations skew these numbers with their $multi-billion endowments, but still - $5,637 per American resident was donated in this last (economically tough) year. Impressive.

About a year ago, I received an email from Paul about giving - what's the motivation, why do people do it, etc.? Most people give money to relieve guilt or to (as Paul put it) "make a spectacle of themselves." You only have to look at how philanthropic organizations solicit money - guilt is the essential ingredient in .org marketing. Almost every advertisement or solicitation you see will in some way make you think, "there but for the grace of God go I."

In good times, this works well - those who have respond, and help those that don't. Tough times are often (sadly) also marked with major disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc.), and in these times, people will rally in support of these causes, taking money away from their normal nonprofits, and their beneficiaries can be left with nothing.

Back to the numbers, I'm most shocked by the almost one million nonprofit organizations - surely there aren't this many societal issues that Americans alone wish to address? Surely there aren't a million Americans who are skilled at managing philanthropic organizations? And ...surely there aren't a million+ people/potential employees skilled at eliminating societal problems??

Most nonprofit founders have either personally experienced, or observed a "problem" first hand, and are now compelled to do something about it. This is a great thing - the motivation to help others not suffer as much as you did or saw is truly heartwarming.

But as an old friend once said, in business as in life, you must put the right tool in the hands of the right person. The wrong tool in the hands of the wrong person creates unwanted results: if you give a dentist a jackhammer, dentistry will not occur (!).

We give because we care; we give because we feel guilty; we give because we can. But how do we know the ones to whom we are giving "can"??? What's the assurance that these 980,000 nonprofits have the ability to not just make a symptomatic difference in the moment (palliative care), but actually do work that creates real and sustainable improvement, that eventually eliminates the need for that nonprofit altogether?

There is no assurance - this is the problem. Rarely do the people that form nonprofits have the skills and experience to solve the problem. They may not even have the skills or aptitude to effectively operate a nonprofit. More often than not, their core skills are empathy and fund raising. These are both important, but not enough to get the job done. This is where the whole point of giving is at risk.

You might be asking yourself "what's wrong with hiring the people that can do the job?" Nothing! Except - most people who have the expertise/talent/experience to contribute to the solution and can afford to work for a pittance are already trying to set up their own .orgs! Hence the almost one million separate organizations! Irony abounds.

To Paul's question, I think this is why people make their giving visible - they recognize that motivating others to give is the only real difference they can make.

To the question of how you fix it - how to make giving curative and not palliative? I suggest two acts - first - raise the bar so that actually setting up a nonprofit is incredibly difficult. Second - the big foundations should use their marketing muscle to showcase successful interventions (ones that create sustainable improvement); and then show givers how they can contribute their time and money to helping proven interventions scale through the existing channels vs. setting up their own .orgs. "This is working - here's proof - help make this work in more places!"

Happy New Year everyone - here's to a curative 2011!

the america moment

President Obama recently called the US education crisis our Sputnik moment; this because there are significant challenges:

1. Education budgets around the country facing even more dramatic cuts.
2. The incoming Republican Congress intending even deeper budget cuts.
3. PISA scores (OECD global student achievement testing) place America near the middle of the world, sandwiched between Iceland and Liechtenstein, well below the leaders.
4. The belief that to be successful, America must follow "the leaders."

Dennis Pierce talks about this in today's eSchool News, and ends his editorial with: If we don’t spend more on our schools, our children’s future will suffer.

Here's the data (knowing that things have changed a bit since 2008): Education America spent $10,259 per student that year (=$593 billion total), this total has shrunk some in the last couple of years but I guarantee most what I point out in the link are still true:

1. Student populations are declining year over year.
2. The proportion of the overall payroll going to teachers is declining year over year.
3. There are still almost 15,000 school districts in this country, each requiring its own infrastructure, budget, and politicians.
4. Education leaders are stuck in a rut and think the only path to success is more spending.

Dennis Pierce and President Obama couldn't be more wrong. Increasing the budget for education will NOT fix things. It is true that we must improve the situation in our schools, but more money is NOT the answer.

America is afraid of everything right now - Homeland Security has declared a war on Americans (TSA, etc.); the Pentagon has declared a war on disaffected people labeled as terrorists, but who live in poverty in some of the worst places on Earth; the Republicans are afraid of China taking over the American economy; and the Democrats are afraid of Finland, Poland, and Estonia because their students are smarter.

But America is forgetting some fundamental truths. (Perhaps I see this more clearly because I was born in the Third World looking from the outside into countries like the US.)

1. America didn't become America by following in other countries' footsteps. It became America because it charted its own path and believed that success will come to those who work the hardest and choose to break molds, vs. to those who copy and conform.
2. Corruption is human nature - the more money you throw at a problem, the less likely you are to find a solution, and the more assured you are of creating an even bigger mess. The data clearly shows that the more we spend, the fewer we graduate, and worse, the weaker the graduates.
3. ONLY in the minds of bureaucrats has education EVER been about test scores or single subject proficiency.

Rather than being America's Sputnik moment, this should be the world's America Moment. The rest of the planet needs to look at what the US is doing and despair. Leadership requires others to look to you, not vice versa. That's the challenge I expect a President, Congress, and Edu-cognizanti to proclaim! Where is your gumption people???

America went from being an average country to a superpower in less than a generation. A defining moment in this transition happened in 1940, when President Franklin Roosevelt went to Congress asking that America go from the 12th largest Air Force to the LARGEST Air Force, that she build the most advanced planes ever, and that her production capacity should increase at least five-fold.

The essential America Moment happend when despite his using these numbers metaphorically, the country took him literally. America not only achieved what everyone said was impossible, but doubled it (100,000 planes/year vs. the 50,000 in FDR's speech)! She created a industrial force that innovated in design, engineering, and production at levels never before seen; and in ways that put the fear of Uncle Sam in every other country's heart.

The President (and the rest of the Edu-Cognizanti) should find their inner FDR and demand that: "American students deserve an education system the likes of which has never before been seen. One where each student is able to find and develop their greatest selves; where every teacher is passionate, committed and excellent; and where all schools are filled with joy and achievement.

The graduates of Education America 2.0 will be equipped to not just survive, but adapt and thrive no matter what future unfolds. They will be the engine that drives America into the 22nd century as the country that is not only the best place to live, but the only one that all others look to achieve similar greatness."

America is neither Finland nor Korea - the people, their aspirations, their very natures are different. We need an education system that is of the people, by the people, for the people - uniquely and bespokenly American. It is possible to create a clear and simple plan that Republicans, Democrats, the Unions, parents and most school leaders) will wholeheartedly support - we just haven't tried.

Stand up people - our time has come.

bumfuzzled

There's been a lot of furor lately about WikiLeaks and the US State Department documents they published (vs. stole). The United States Congress is seeking to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange; Senator Joe Lieberman in a recent Fox News interview stated that Assange (an Australian) should be tried for American treason! He is also contemplating charges against the New York Times for bad citizenship! Do Senators now get to fabricate their own laws? Next he'll outlaw literate people - oh wait - that was Pol Pot.

Every government/police system in the world wishes to prosecute Assange for his part in publishing these documents. I bet if they had their way, the US Congress, Interpol, etc. would also want to prosecute everyone who tweets or blogs, and possibly everyone who's under the age of 25 just on principle.

According to www.senate.gov, the average age of this, the 110th Congress is 57 years (55.9 House, 61.7 Senate). This is one of the OLDEST Congresses ever. The average Congressperson was born in 1953, when TVs had two channels, no remotes, and black & white pictures; they were teenagers before it was even possible to send telexes. They graduated from university five years before CNN was created, a decade before personal computers became commercially available, fifteen years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and almost a quarter of a century before mobile phones were broadly available. The world's population has almost tripled since they were born.

Sadly for them, we are in the midst of the Communication Revolution. Going from the Industrial Revolution (their world) to the Information Revolution to this, the Communication Revolution, we have shifted from standardization (Ford Model T) to discoverability (Internet/Google) to transparency & immediacy. While foreign to these relicsleaders (many of whom have never even read email), the need to be transparent and expect to have anything be immediately exposed for all to see is today's reality. Keeping secrets like you did during the age of Leave it to Beaver, in a time where the latency between information capture and global distribution is measured in seconds is absurd.

Congresspeople: the good old days are over. The RIAA faced this with online music, the MPA is facing it with online films, and you are now facing it with pervasive (and unfettered) access to information. The systems you employed to safeguard your secrets are antiquated and designed for the Cold Warriors, not today's average 12-year-old. But like your much-vaunted HUAC and Senator McCarthy's demagogic anti-communist investigations, you have charged decrepit freaks like Lieberman to persecute these modern "evil-doers" in the name of National Security. Bravo.

History will judge you as it did McCarthy and HUAC - as a Congress unable to fathom a changing world, using its power in desperate ways to impose order, and putting its energy into holding on to the past vs. leading your country towards a brighter future.

Punctuating the 2010 US Government's reaction to this leak is their edict to all government employees instructing them NOT to read any of the WikiLeaks documents. Quoting MSNBC, the Department of Homeland Security sent out a strongly worded memo to all employees and contractors telling them that not only may they not “download or attempt to download” any of the classified WikiLeaks memos onto their computers, they also may not “discuss the content” of such “potentially classified” documents “with persons who would not otherwise be authorized access,” according to a copy of a Dec. 3 memo from the department’s Office of Chief Information Officer. NASA and the Library of Congress have blocked the WikiLeaks site from their employees.

As a Homeland Security employee put it, "So, my grandmother would be allowed to access the cables, but not me."

Remember - these same government leaders have publicly decried the Chinese Government for impeding free information flow to her citizens.

The modern world has left the aging US Congress and various government Ministries bumfuzzled.

How does one de-fuzzle? I don't think it's possible - with apologies to canines everywhere, you can't teach old dogs like Lieberman/Pelosi/etc. new tricks - they're simply too withered, and sadly too entrenched.

Giving them some credit, they do understand that the WikiLeaks episode portends an even more dangerous future - one where no secrets are safe, no back-room dealings are kept in the back room, and what happens in Vegas becomes a TV movie that everyone can watch. Their strategy is to delay that future as long as possible, not realizing that their very acts (which only serve to extend the story) are actually helping seal their fate.

That this is news to Congress is not surprising given their agedness, but it is surprising that one of the youngest (and most tech-savvy) presidents in history is behaving so much like his septuagenarian colleagues.

Or is it that the very act of joining the government not only bumfuzzles but also calcifies?

endurance

Is "good" an absolute or does it change over time? We are creatures of habit and tradition; in general what was true yesterday is true today and will be true tomorrow. This especially applies to the things we value, and while most "goods" do and should endure, there are some that don't, and some that shouldn't.

Often these "goods" are benchmarks or measures that say things should be done tomorrow the way they were done yesterday. But is "good" good enough this time? For example:

1. We expect medical interns to work extended hours because the doctors that came before did. This despite studies in the New England Journal of Medicine, and other publications that prove that this does not improve learning or develop skills, and worse, actually harms patients!
2. We want our kids to do as much or more homework than we did, despite studies that show that it does not lead to meaningful learning. We believe in measuring student performance in the same way we did a generation ago, despite the data that shows that the ability to do well in a test has no correlation to success in the world or to personal achievement or happiness.
3. We base current business models on the past despite the fact that the (business) world has changed fundamentally, what worked yesterday is absolutely not guaranteed to work today, and that the world tomorrow will be different yet again.

We fear tomorrow but know and understand yesterday, so by measuring tomorrow based on yesterday, we are admitting that tomorrow matters less than yesterday. This is not leadership; it is instead a classic example of traditional MBA thinking - administer micro events based on historical trends, and assume the bigger picture will take care of itself.

Leaders who think this way should neither lead nor think.

What happens when a business model comes along that is fundamentally different from what came before? Google's model was brilliant - they turned the end user into the product and the advertiser into the customer. Microsoft turned the application developer into value-added "pull" for their products, and used these external "solution developers" as the sales machine that just dragged Microsoft along. The "establishment" scoffed at these two companies, as they did at Southwest Airlines, PayPal, Skype, Napster, ...and even the once radical notion of using ball-point pens in schools. Forsooth!

But the establishment (teeming with MBAs) does a bit more than just scoff at these upstarts; they actively subvert them by portraying them as untenable, wrong, evil, unproven, charlatans, etc.; they lobby against them through governments, press, and public. This is how incumbents attempt to hold on - by suppressing competitors vs. improving themselves. Just read this article to see that even the market-watchers (supposed innovators) get into the game of decrying those who are challenging the status quo.

A couple of weeks ago, Steve Wozniak said that Google's Android will become the most pervasive smartphone operating system. EVERYONE (media, competitors, Apple-haters) jumped on this assuming he meant that Apple's iOS will lose, and the iPhone is doomed. They compared this to Apple's "loss" to Microsoft in the personal computer marketplace (Windows still enjoys a ~90% market share vs. Mac/OSX and others).

Really? What is the basis for measuring "win" and "loss"?? Narrow minds define winners based on market share - and it's true, from that point of view, Android is more likely to win, because it's free to the manufacturers and they're not limiting the design criteria all that much. But is that really winning? Is Mac/OSX a loser in the PC market because it has less share than Windows? What computer are you using right now? What do you wish you had?

Outside of sports there are very few places where "winning" is clear-cut. In war - the "winning" side does get to write history the way they want, but let's face it, no-one would call America's invasion of Iraq a "victory" despite the fact that they technically won. Take Windows and PCs - it's fair to say that Microsoft "won" and continues to win the PC war but at what cost? Their success put them in the cross-hairs of a number of governments who feared their market share and pervasiveness as threats to competition. This cost Microsoft $billions, and even worse, altered the very nature of the company and its approach to doing business. This is not a "win," but this is the fate of share "winners." Hmmm...

Now let's look at the "loser." Apple seems to have done ...adequately despite their "poor" market share. Looking at their stock price, market cap, share of PR voice, future prospects, etc., I don't know about you, but they seem quite viable for a loser. How do their competitors look?

Perhaps NOT having a dominant market share was the best thing for them? It allowed them to diversify their efforts beyond the PCs, into music players, music services, and other consumer devices. Not being committed to one category or product-type let them be open to cannibalizing their own products, be innovative, creative and driven. When your market share is very high, your tendency is to preserve it vs. usurp it - you only have to look at the music industry to see how well this plays out.

I'm not saying they had a master plan and things turned out exactly as intended, but I am saying that Apple approaches the world differently than its peers, and stays true to its intention despite market pressure/ perception/ etc. This is a mark of leadership and vision. I don't believe for a second that they want to be the most sold phone in the market - I think they want to be the best phone, the best experience, and the most fun. Rather than volume, their obsession is impact or effect.

Are there absolute performance characteristics that will always be "good"? How about:

1. Are you competing on price or value?
2. Do your customers choose you in the face of cheaper alternatives?
3. Are your products more important than your ethos/values ...your "why"?

Arbitrarily deciding that X is good just because it worked a generation ago or even yesterday is naive and doomed. Absolute measures of "good" should be about who you are, and why you are. These are the enduring "goods."

tax refunds

When money is exchanged for a good or service, the buyer and seller enter a contract where the product offered will meet expectations and achieve advertised results; and if it doesn't, some form of restitution/refund is expected.

In a market economy, providers of goods or services that do not operate with integrity should as a matter of course lose customers and go under. This behavior is enforced in America by the Federal Trade Commission. With all of this, one would think that the American consumer is well taken care of... but no.

In 2008, Americans spent almost $600 billion (via income taxes alone) on public education (or well over $10,000 per student per year). That's a lot of money. Where is the consumer protection? If a student doesn't successfully complete high school, fails to get accepted to college, or fails to get a job, shouldn't the "buyers" be entitled to a refund? What if the school doesn't do enough to educate a child? What then? How does one get restitution?

If we look at Education America as a business (EA.com), who are its customers? What is the product (how do they create value)? What does the model look like?

1. EA.com creates value by taking raw materials (students age 5) and machines (curriculum, exams, standards) them within its factories (schools) and with its workers (teachers) into theoretically actualized, independent, and contributing members of society (students age 18-ish) 13 years later.
2. A company's customers are the ones that pay for the good or service, or in this case, the American taxpayer. The customers are the ones that have already passed through the system, not the ones currently in the system. Their stake is in the "future value" of EA's product and not in the process. This is a pretty significant nuance, and rather convenient for EA.com as its customers are unable to judge the quality of the product until well after the product has left the factory, and the payments have been collected.
3. The model is brilliant - get paid to crank out widgets according to an external specification (curriculum) and measured based on an antiquated (standardized tests) assessment, which has no connection to the graduate's ability or likelihood to succeed per the customers' requirements (blue text in #1 above).

By the time you realize the education you bought your child didn't meet expectations, it's already too late 'cause they've already graduated. And since there are no refunds, EA.com is counting on the fact that you will recognize there is no value to airing your very legitimate grievance, and just give up.

This can't be allowed to go on. Since a bad-education-refund is not possible, what can we do??? Where is our Fair Education Commission???

In the spirit of my last post, to create change, we must identify the most influential constituency, pick the most provocative issue, and pour some Tabasco into that wound.

The only way to truly and sustainably change Education America is to mobilize most if not all citizens to vigilantly ensure #1 above for every child. Adults aren't doing this today because it's in their past, and they don't correlate it to their future. We need to reposition Education and make it much, much more viscerally relevant to everyone.

Education America is funded by American taxpayers, all of whom are current or future retirees. Every one of whom expects to receive Social Security and Medicare until they die. Social Security and Medicare (SS&M) are the political third rail - the one place where all political parties fear to tread. This is because both are at risk of bankruptcy, and more taxpayers are closer to retirement than ever before (i.e. they are going bankrupt faster). 

SS&M were designed on the premise that there will always be more employees than retirees (bizarrely, no-one counted on people being healthier, living longer, having less kids) and that the current employees' taxes keep the system afloat (unemployment = bad). So if I'm retiring in the next 10-20 years, I want to make damned sure that today's students are VERY employable and will pay a ton of taxes, otherwise all I've done is fund my parents' retirement, and I'm left holding the bag.

Strategy: Make SS&M the wound, a poor education the Tabasco, and push the masses to personally focus on improving Education America to ensure their retirement benefits.

Let's take a look at the "biggest" education change agent in America - the Gates Foundation. They are investing a TON of money (my guess: $1-3billion/year), but that's less than 0.5% of the total education budget - a relative pittance. They can't make a big enough impact with that - they need a bigger lever.

Rather than creating programs, they should stand squarely on the third rail (since they're not political), and use their $Billions to create a fervor among Democrats and Republicans alike. If the citizens of America want to ensure SS&M access for their own retirement, they need to make sure that EVERY student graduates and is very GAINfully employed very soon after. The Foundation should produce a clear, simple list of three things that the voters must expect from Education America in the upcoming election (step 1). In the following election round, they should specify the next three things that voters must focus on (step 2), and so on.

We can't get a refund on the misspent $600 billion - let's at least make sure all future money is spent well.

community v ambition

First, it's been quite a while since my last post. A lot's been going on over the last months, and as a result, I prioritized other things over ~synthesis~, but I intend to amend that from now on! I thank all of you who sent me emails and were concerned about my well-being - that was surprising and sincerely appreciated - a thousand times thank you.

Second, I've decided to leave Microsoft - my employer of many years - and embark on a new journey in the world of education and start-ups. The next weeks and months will be spent refining the vision, finalizing the business plan, and of course, securing the funding to make it happen. I may do some consulting work in the interim, but hope to devote most of my energy to creating this new future with the goal of making a difference.

Community v ambition: I was visiting with a friend recently and we got to talking about her recent adventure in India, and then about some of the differences in the way people approach life (broadly speaking) in "developing" vs. "developed" worlds. Out of this came this idea that there are two extremes in how we approach life - community and ambition.

For most of our existence on this planet, community has been fundamental to survival. As competition grew and threats increased, people coalesced into communities where roles were defined, and they took care of each other. For example, in a true community, there are people who will hunt, grow, prepare food, build shelters, heal, and defend the community; more often than not, the children will inherit their parents' roles as they grow older. Similarly, you won't see daycare or convalescence or retirement homes - the young, the recovering and the aged are cared for within the community. The very idea of saving for retirement doesn't occur or exist.

The community can and does sustain itself with relatively lower stress - certain issues that individuals face simply don't arise; and others (will there be enough food today, what if bad weather damages our homes) are dealt with more easily because the burden is shared by the entire community, and there is comfort in that. People never go it alone. The community creates a sense of belonging, a sense of purpose, and a sense of beholdenness.

At the other end is ambition. It argues that the individual prevails over everything, that we each go it alone, and that success is self-created, and self-enjoyed. "Ambitious" parents expect their kids to leave the home after secondary school, go on to university (in another town) and then the working world, happily leaving them in the bliss of an "empty nest" - this concept simply doesn't exist in the community.

Ambition is also a zero-sum game - there are winners and losers in everything - and that's how "keep score" and gauge your progress. It's a bit weird that ambition requires us to prevail over fellow humans - a rather counter-to-Darwin strategy.

To and "outsider," community is an oddly stagnant thing - "don't they want/expect/desire more than the status quo?" I am an outsider (ambitious) - but I wonder where happiness lays, where less strain and stress, fulfillment lie, and whether individual outcomes are on an equal footing with community outcomes.

The recent election in the United States was largely a celebration of individual ambition over community impact. Most if not all of the issues in play asked why the one should pay for the many. Incumbents were vanquished because they supported legislation that required individuals to spend their money in support of others. While there is a party line, most members of the party only agree on one thing - that the other party must be stopped. Outside of that, their perspective is largely individual.

Most large corporations believe success comes by pitting individuals (their own employees) against each other (in a zero-sum performance management scheme) in an effort to achieve greater team performance. BUT because success comes comparatively, many of their own employees (presumably rigorously-selected and trained, etc.) must "fail" in order for some of their employees to succeed, and theoretically for the company to succeed. Hmmm... "For us to be a great company a proportion of our employees must be failures - we have therefore designed our system and set our expectations to achieve this."

Does that compute?

It is fair to argue that the community forsakes the individual - the "communistic" view requires each of us to sublimate our desire for the broader good; the innate artist must be a hunter; or the budding mathematician must be a seamstress because those are the things the community requires. They must forgo their uniqueness.

In my family - we often wonder at the fact that the only times we get together is for weddings and funerals, that as much as we say "we must do this more often," actions speak louder than words, and the next reunion is when someone else bites the dust.

Is there a happy medium where the individual is celebrated, and yet a vital and contributing, and nurtured member of the community? Or does the one implicitly pollute the other? Is individuality inherently a corruptive agent in the community? Is there a limit to the amount of corruption that a community can withstand before it evaporates? Does community suppress innovation? Does community perpetuate stagnation?

Over the last ~3 years, I've had the honor to be a part of an amazing community - those that are passionate and committed to improving education around the world. It is vibrant and passionate and energetic and able; but are we really a community or are we just ambitious individuals who share a common goal?

Is there a pendulum effect? Will Western society move back to a community base at some point? I was in Cape Town a couple of weeks ago, and saw community power first hand; but I fear that progress trumps stagnation, and while I appreciated what they have, inside me is the desire for it/them to be more...

clarity

Our governments (especially elected ones) are mired in the never-ending cycle of getting reelected. This leads to the never-ending cycle of creating polarizing issues that place candidates on the side of a cash-rich and moron-filled fringe who will donate $$$ to the campaign; and even more insidious, the never-ending cycle of creating ever more pointless laws, oversight, and pandering to feign congressional value-add.

Lest this be a rant on the depths to which politicians have sunk, let us take another tack. How does one help government be less ...pendulous?

Why not reboot the country every century or so to eliminate incumbency, any laws written by Congress, the tax code, all departments, etc.? Let us revolt and create a new system with a clean slate!

Whether we like it or not, some governments are already there with bankruptcies, and others are close behind. If the US national debt continues to grow by more than $4 billion per day, it's seems pretty certain that a reboot is impending.

I would design the next government around very clear and specific boundaries; being explicit about what government will and won't do for its citizenry. Here are the five things my government would do (and NO more):

1. Education - Free, and starting at age zero (yes, zero), to where the student has completed their undergraduate certificate (2-year/4-year), or until about age 22.

   You start organized education at birth because we know it makes a HUGE impact on a child's development. You also do this to ensure that every child is well cared for and nurtured. The fruits of this are more independent (economically, physiologically, and psychologically) children/adults; less youth crime and hopefully less adult crime; healthier kids ('cause they'll learn about health, eat better food in school, etc.); and hopefully things like less teen pregnancies, gang activity, etc.

   This will require more teachers, more classrooms, etc. It will also require an education system that imparts knowledge in practical facets of life (how to prepare for and participate in a job interview, communication skills for the workplace, diet, fitness, banking, parenting, birth control, etc.) - these must all be mandatory for every student. It is through these last that we make the rest of the system less expensive.

2. Healthcare - full coverage for all residents from pre-natal to death, including medicines.

   Prioritizing diet, preventative care, and a mindset of quality service for all is fundamental. The system should be completely free to all residents of the country (IMO it should be free to anyone that needs it, irrespective of status), and include medical, vision, dental, prescriptions, etc. Elective work for purely cosmetic reasons will not be covered. This implies there will no longer be a health insurance industry, physicians, nurses, etc. will likely make less money as most will be federal employees.

3. Security - from creating laws, to enforcing laws, to civil and national defense.

   First - the primary motivation for Congress should NOT be to create new laws, but rather to ensure that the existing Code be well-adhered to, and that the citizenry be incented to better behavior. There should be one law-enforcement body in the country spanning local, regional, transportation, organized crime, etc. There will be an emergency response system that includes fire departments, ambulances/paramedics, nature-related calamities (weather, volcano, earthquake, etc.), and any other type of civil support. All of these capabilities will be linked and operate as one unit.

   National defense will focus on protecting the nation from others, not proactively engaging any nation in armed conflict. Since the system is rebooting, there will no longer be mandatory minimums, or idiotic wars (drugs, etc.) on anything.

4. Civil Service - core professional/infrastructural services plus employment for those that aren't easily employed in the private sector.

   This is the most complex organization, and one most at risk of untamed growth. It delivers all national services to the country, including infrastructure (roads, rail, , airports, ports, etc.); utilities (energy, water, etc.); foreign and economic policy; and things like election systems. It also includes an employment machine aimed at those unemployable in the private sector; the work done will span a variety of public service/peace-corps/disaster relief-type services. If you wish to earn a living, you must contribute. There will be no welfare system.

   Limits on the size and scope of this organization will be one of the most critical and contentious pieces of legislation that the new government will write. The core set of services performed will be enumerated in the new Constitution, along with a mechanism to control budget and organizational size. Amendments to this part of the Constitution will require a mega-majority (at least 75% of Congress).

5. Taxation+ - a simplified (progressive flat income tax mechanism to cover the costs of #1-4, basic government operations, and a bit extra for an emergency fund. There should be no sales tax, state tax, or local tax - just a simple income tax. The "+" connotes other forms of economic oversight like the SEC.

Yes, these are expensive and complex undertakings. Fundamental to this is a Constitution that rewards government (and government officials) for being as small as reasonable and no smaller.

To help rein things in, the government is NOT allowed to give money away (bailouts, unemployment benefits, social security, welfare, etc.), it is also not allowed to pay for things like food and shelter. It encourages a simpler service delivery model - one police force across the country; one school system; one healthcare system, etc.

Human nature is such that when a thing is given, it is expected (entitlement); and when you get one thing, you also expect related things. For example - if you get food stamps, you aren't as desperate to work because you know it's available; then you wonder why there aren't "home stamps" so that you can "afford" better accommodation. Thus begins the dependency-cycle.

A system where people willingly abdicate responsibility to society is not acceptable.

If you've read this blog at all, you know I believe a fundamental precept of society is to care for those that can't. But every parent knows that you also have to teach your children certain lessons; they have to fend for themselves, not always look to others to bring them food from the kitchen, or walk them to school, or whatever. At some point, they must be pushed out of the nest and allowed to fly on their own. This is also a form of caring for those that can't. It is more difficult to do, so society instead throws money at it. Wrong.

People need to take responsibility for themselves and their destinies; if you're living hand-to-mouth now, why bring a child into the world? Why not heed what you were taught about family planning and contraception, and take advantage of the healthcare system (free contraception) to prevent bringing one more child into your already difficult reality? Today you might want to have children because Social Services is more likely to care for you - that's the wrong incentive.

Similarly, if you have a job and are worried about how a disability might prevent you from keeping food on the table and a roof over your head, invest in insurance to reduce your risk. If you wish to change careers and need training and some help tiding you over, save or borrow what you need - it's not the government's role to help you with that.

Systems that promise everything for everyone are not sustainable. Almost every government on the planet is facing a significant budget squeeze; whether we like it or not, a reboot is in order. Let's not repeat the same mistakes in the next cycle.

If there is absolute clarity about what government will and won't do, people will use what's given (education, healthcare, security) and find other means bridge any gaps - this too is in our nature.

reinforcement

How do we regard and celebrate good behavior? What are our expectations of people and how do we help reinforce what we want?

What would have happened during the 1992 Democratic Primary if Bill Clinton had said: "You know, while I'm devoted to my wife, I view sex as something altogether different. My wife and I have an arrangement, I do and will have other women in my life, but that in no way compromises my leadership."?

He would not have won the Democratic Primary, he would not have been President, but he would have been truthful (something we presumably value). Clinton is not the only politician to have ever strayed; one might argue that faithful politicians are the outliers. Do voters want to know about these affairs? Or would they prefer to assume goodness, hope the infidelity stays hidden, and then be self-righteous if it comes to light.

Of course infidelity is not particular to politics; it happens in sports, religion, business, and in everyday life. Despite this, "customers" - fans, congregants, employees, media, partners, friends, etc. - are always shocked at the behavior, wonder what mysterious and diabolical circumstances contrived to make it so, and wonder why these people are unable to "control" themselves?

What's more, by turning a blind eye to any one "bad" behavior, are we not tacitly sanctioning them all? Having "gotten away" with the fidelity lie, is it any wonder that President Clinton claimed not to have inhaled? Sure eyes rolled at that, but in the end, there was no accountability for either smoking pot (not that that really matters) or lying about it. There are many other peccadilloes that human nature says are within us, yet we persist in expecting people to transcend their genes.

Taking this to the next step, if we expect and forgive lies, surely we can't expect the lies to be limited to meaningless acts like smoking pot or having an Oval Office "O"? What else might a dishonest President lie about??? Are we ready to accept that?

In the business world, a smart company will under-promise and over-deliver. They do this knowing the value of setting clear expectations and the cost of failing to meet them. If the company develops a reputation for always achieving or exceeding expectations, they know that that currency is worth something - it could be a premium at the point of purchase or market value or even more critical, customer retention and loyalty. Equally, a smart company will not make a promise it can't keep. They will not set an expectation knowing that they can't meet it. This is good business. In both cases, the rewards are clear and the company benefits in the long run.

Facing your truth and setting the right expectations is what we should all aim to do; but our society doesn't want this; it prefers the illusion over reality. Look at Enron or Bernie Madoff or every too-good-to-be-true diet program, and the fact that people will flock to the next Enron or Madoff or diet pill to know that we prefer to gamble on goodness or outlandish promises despite the history or the massive odds against success, believing that this time we will buck the odds and find the one honest politician, or win the lottery. Either way, we mostly end up disappointed. And because we keep coming back for more, there is no shortage of predators creating "disappointment opportunities."

I think this phenomenon contributes to the downward morals/ethics/behavioral spiral. In the old days, we lived in (and were known within) communities. The community - your neighbors and friends and family helped ensure a broader ethos using both active and passive reinforcement; we don't have that today.

Instead the precepts of society and the canon of law expect us to fail; they spend all their energy anticipating and policing these (potential) failures, and publicly "recognizing" the miscreants with trials and the like. So what behavior is modeled for impressionable minds???

Are there societal examples where good behavior is rewarded (i.e. "Congratulations!! You get a free petrol/gas coupon because you adhered to the speed limits!")? I can think of two - first where good students or talented athletes (or both) are able to get scholarships to reduce higher education costs, and second, reduced prison sentences for good behavior.

So other than helping convicted felons reenter society early (a rather ironic incentive), when does society actively reward positive behavior? I did a quick search to see what I could find, take a look for yourself - it's not pretty.

Isn't it a shame that there's so little we do to reward ourselves when we've achieved more than expected? If human nature is so filled with "vices," why shouldn't Clinton have gotten some kind of reward for being honest and admitting that he's a horny old man, but still a good leader?

Instinctively, most parents (or pet owners) know that positive reinforcement leads to better (and more sustained) behavior in children or young animals than negative reinforcement. Why do we flip that as we become adults? Science tells us there is a big difference between telling someone "Don't forget to pay the rent" and "Remember to pay the rent." The parts in bold are the most likely outcome.

It is this simple - we must expect more of ourselves, and we must encourage others to do the same; we can do this by taking the energy we invest in finding and showcasing failure, and putting it into rewarding success.

googlets

How do you measure success? How does your employer? Three measures a commercial company might use are revenue, share price and market capitalization. The three are connected, but the first guides the other two.

Initially, revenue or the promise of revenue sets the company's value; if they achieve success and cash flow, the name of the game is growth. Once established, year-on-year improvement becomes that much harder, and share price growth comes with ever increasing market scrutiny.

Few companies achieve a position of market dominance - but those that do face an even steeper slope. The toughest part is the transition from underdog to leader - people will now root for the other guy, governments will keep a closer eye on you, and all the while, you've got to keep up that year-over-year performance (despite a growing denominator) and remain compelling to the markets.

When the company is starting out, there is pressure on the employees to build the product, close the first sale, make payroll, pay off debts, etc. It's a productive pressure, everyone is in it together, and while the risk of failure is ever-present, you knew it would be like this when you joined.

When the company first achieves consistent growth, the pressure changes, it's a much better place to work. Progress is visible and customers are enchanted; sure everyone is working hard, but it doesn't feel like it - there is an energy of vindication, of growth, and of optimism - you've made it over that hump, and things are looking good.

Then seemingly out of the blue, success changes from a happy surprise to an expected duty; people want to see you fail; what was passion is now work; what was energetic is now draining; what was once a team is now a group of competitors fighting over an HR-imposed compensation scheme - some call this maturity, others just say it sucks. At all levels, the company is, well, less happy.

I've read a number of articles (1,2,3) about Google recently, and it feels to me like they're now just about out of the happy phase; their behavior is that of a mature company.

In phase 2, you want to win on your merits; confident about your product, you simply want an even playing field and the opportunity to participate. You know how good you are, and damn it, they just need to see it so that they can catch the fever as well!

In phase 3, growth is harder, more doors are open to you, but winning is tougher, the competition is fiercer, and expectations are much higher; so you grasp at other kinds of straws. You ship products before they're ready, make poor decisions, and use other (not merit-based) means to win.

Google is doing all of these things.

But why?

They are incredibly successful in their core business; they have dominant market share, their margins are unheard of, their reputation is solid, and they still have perhaps the most talented workforce ever assembled.

But their mission has shifted - they've gone from wanting to get better every day to wanting to grow bigger every day. Their success is no longer in their control (you own your improvement, you don't own customer preference), nor is it particularly inspiring.

Why have they allowed themselves to get this way? Is it greed? Ego? The fear of being a one-trick pony?

I think it's all three. Besides recent product mishaps (Wave), complaining publicly when they're at risk of losing deals, the abysmal policy choices (Net Neutrality with Verizon), and even the opening of a think tank (isn't this function the very essence of Google?), I think one of the most telling reasons for their current state is their recently-published code of conduct.

I admit, I started reading it and got bored. This is not the sign of an energetic, passionate company, it smacks of lawyers and HR departments, a company gone "corporate."

ASIDE: The best and most easily remembered set of principles I've ever read (IBM):

Respect for the individual, customer service, excellence.

"Don't be evil" (Google's motto) is an admonishment. When I first heard it, I wondered: "Why? Are you afraid you actually are evil and need to keep reminding yourself not to be?" Why not "Be Great"??

I admire and respect Google, I think they have helped shape a completely new landscape for people and business everywhere. I say this not to kowtow to them, but to recognize that brilliance in some areas does not equal brilliance in all areas. I think Google will continue to be successful, but I believe their leadership is preventing them from achieving quantum success.

Could they have avoided their recent pitfalls? Yes. They should (given their incredibly talented workforce) have realized that growth and winning do not equal success.

Burdening one success with the creation of others is not always the best strategy.

Instead of trying to accumulate all sorts of new products and businesses under one roof, they might have been better off spinning things like Gmail, or Google Apps, or Blogger or YouTube off into little independent Googlets, each free to evolve, grow, and achieve without being beholden to, or held back by the mother ship.

Of course they can "help" each other, and cross-pollinate, but that doesn't require them to be in the same organization. It can be easier for a new entrant to ride the giant's coattails, but that comes with rules and constraints, some of which can prevent sustainability or confine the addressable market. Google's quest to amass size is failing them.

There is strength in being one great thing; there is wisdom in seeking to build other great things; and there is wit in being the one to eventually replace your one great thing.

Google has an amazing talent pool, a powerful market presence, and a big wallet. The Googlets can take advantage of all three from the outside; they can create value and impact, and even help revitalize the workforce.

Size does matter. A business has a right size; it takes a real leader to understand that and to stay true to it. The stock market has never been a good judge of greatness and achievement; it knows so little about you or your business - why allow them to prescribe your path to happiness?

collar blues

Arbitrage is defined as "attempting to profit by exploiting price differences of identical or similar financial instruments, on different markets or in different forms."

A simple example is the buying of a currency in one market and selling it in another for a slightly higher price; success is knowing the prices in various markets and having buyers and sellers therein. Arbitrage thrived when communication was limited and it was difficult to know what each market was doing. As time and space have shrunk, arbitrage has had to evolve.

As one form of arbitrage was threatened, others grew. It began with the ability to safely and economically ship goods across oceans, combined with countries with predictable governments, cheaper workers, and easy access to ports - thus was formed outsourcing 1.0 - manufacturing. Improved telecommunications then lead to outsourcing 2.0 - services, which prevailed in countries with forward-thinking governments and cheaper, better-educated workers.

We all know that countries with lower costs of living were able to provide help desks, call centers, etc. to countries with higher costs, and both sides won. Western companies lowered expenses, reduced payrolls, and returned more to their shareholders, and "Eastern" companies created markets, employed people, raised local standards of living and returned more to their shareholders.

But... The East is able to provide these services to the West because they have a large, well-educated (better-educated, really) workforce who is used to getting paid much less than their Western counterparts. As communication opened up the possibility of outsourcing, it also opened the East to the salaries and lifestyles of the West, and as their "tide" of awareness and achievement lifted, so did their "boat" of expectations.

Thus people costs in the East are rising, margins are falling, and with the recent recession, the people costs in the West are falling and margins are rising. I'm not saying that the arbitrage opportunity is lost; I'm just saying the margins are shrinking, and growth in BPO (Business Process Outsourcing) is slowing.

I was having lunch with Pierre de Vries a few days ago, and among other things, our conversation went to a question that has been bugging me of late - whether a more educated society is more advantaged [more on this in future posts], and whether "white-collar" jobs add more value than "blue-collar" jobs.

Before we get to that, I'm sure you've noticed a trend over the last couple of generations. It used to be that goods manufactured in the East were of inferior quality, and their only buyers were those with no other choice. That changed very quickly - today goods made in Japan or Korea are considered to be of better quality and reliability vs. what you get in the West. The same thing happened with BPO - initially, you hated it when the call was answered by someone with an Indian accent because you weren't getting the same experience as with a Western call center; but now, their ability and capability have improved to the point where it's not as big an issue, and eventually, the outsourced call center will be preferred to the Western one.

As we have gotten used to the idea of some business processes provisioned "over there," the East is looking for new sources of growth - about 5-7 years ago, medical services began to be outsourced; today outsourced legal services are the new vogue; this in addition to successful outsourcing of software engineering, accounting/tax preparation, and design services to name but three. Outsourcing 3.0 is pure white-collar, and the acceptance of these services by the West is less and less an issue, which opens the door to even more white-collar provisioning.

A commodity is created "when a product becomes indistinguishable from others like it and consumers buy on price alone." From clothing to appliances to cars to help desks to accountants to radiologists to lawyers to ophthalmologists to... you?

When something becomes a commodity, the cost per unit drops, and the price per unit drops - that good or service is valued less, and those that do it are therefore valued less.

Doctors, lawyers, accountants.. What is more precious today? Having someone do your taxes, or knowing a really good, trusted contractor who will help make sure your house stays standing and in good repair? What is more valuable? The car or a great, trusted mechanic?

A successful economy requires sustained value creation combined with growth in unit value. If the worth of the thing being created is declining, the economy declines. A successful economy also requires that most of its constituents (citizens) be sources of value and not merely consumers of social services. For generations we've been led to believe that a doctor was "better" than a plumber. Our parents may even have discouraged us from pursuing these "lesser" vocations in favor of the "desk" job.

Can you have a purely white-collar economy? No. Consumers consume things - those things need to be created and provisioned. Let's go a bit further - you only have to start with lawyers to see that many white-collar jobs are actually self-fulfilling prophecies. As they become commodities, their value will diminish, and (hopefully), their role in society will diminish (speaking specifically of lawyers and tax accountants :-)).

There's a theory that white-collar jobs have more "leverage" than blue-collar jobs - that they earn more, create move value, etc. Doesn't that also mean that disproportionately more white-collar jobs implies greater unemployment?

Might we see less and less white collar jobs in the West and more and more blue-collar jobs over the coming generation? Is it likely that we will want to outsource white-collar jobs???

The extreme conclusion (of course this won't happen) would be that America (for example) becomes the agriculture and manufacturing capital of the world, and India and China become the white-collar services capitals. Each consumes the other's products, and needs the other to survive, but power resides in control of scarcity, which will depend on what is more commoditizable. Now this can't happen because it's not practical for someone in Beijing to wait for a plumber from Buffalo. But you get the picture.

I believe our value mechanism needs to shift to the point where we recognize what so many already know - white or blue, economic success resides in the scarcity of what you do, and not whether you need to clean your fingernails at the end of the day.

lunch

"If someone is going to eat our lunch, it may as well be us." This is an oft-quoted phrase in the business world. Its meaning is simple - we have a successful product in the market, the competition is after us; rather than allowing them to usurp our position in the market, we should do it ourselves with our own newer/better or altogether different products. Or put another way, better to cannibalize our own revenue streams and hold on to them vs. letting others take them from us.

However you say it, this sentence points me to one, very powerful truth: be more defined by what you will do than what you have done.

I'm not saying forget your past (though that's sometimes a huge temptation!), but rather that we can only control our future actions, that embracing paradigms that got us to a place may only serve to hold us back, and not allow progress.

Andy Zaky wrote a great post on the irrelevance of the iPod to Apple's future. In it, he includes two graphs - one showing the decline in iPod as a percentage of Apple revenue, and the other showing Apple's overall revenue growth.

The lesson - while the iPod was HUGE in resurrecting Apple (at its peak representing 55% of all Apple revenue, vs. 8% in the last quarter), and while it remains a significant contributor to revenue (and margins), Apple has moved on. They no longer count on the iPod as a growth engine, indeed, much of the decline in iPod sales is the direct result of the success of newer Apple products (iPhone, iPad). This is why new announcements from Apple are so well attended - people want to be connected to the next new thing, knowing that instantly the last (now old) new thing will be utterly outmoded and boring.

Of course there are many organizations that don't take this approach, and sometimes for good reason. If you have a cash cow that's amazingly productive, why stop milking it? Why not get every last drop out, especially when the latter "drops" are so much more profitable than the former. After all - new products are always risky, and may never come close to the potential of existing. Whilst these companies might not have the "innovation aura" that Apple has, they can be just fine, enjoying steady and predictable revenues and plodding growth.

It is possible though for this approach to lead to a state of strategic entrenchment, where an organization is so committed to a past formula for success, that it loses sight not just of future opportunity, but also present and future threats.

This behavior isn't confined to corporations; it also applies to other industries, education and government to name but two.

In education proposed change must be proven and peer-reviewed before it is accepted; we can't afford to do something untested to our children - a reasonable concern. (The problem of course is that you can't test innovation at scale without implementing it.) Consider for a moment how the current system was established - there was very little analysis, brain science didn't exist, and of course there was no research at the time that said learning was best accomplished in an authoritative, homogeneous, teacher-in-front, instructivist system. They just decided to do it that way.

I can understand not wanting to change if things are working really well (much like strategically-entrenched companies), but let's face it, education in America is not a success - dropouts are on the rise, and those that do graduate aren't learning nearly enough to be competitive with the rest of the world.

In education "historical success" is also something of a tautology - the "successful" graduates happen to be running the current system, and by definition, since it got them to this place, their education and the system they had was successful. Therefore innovation is less of a priority vs. "back to the old ways," and therefore there is very little open-mindedness to change. Sure they're willing to tweak things slightly, but real change ...no. There's no external motivation either because the parents are a product of the same old system, and there's no competition that is anywhere near the scale of the American public school system.

Change is therefore unlikely or even worse, impossible.

Governments face the exact opposite problem. Politicians measure success through action (at least that's how they promote themselves to the voters). Action = creating laws or setting up commissions, or I suppose, going on "fact-finding" tours. But because their goal is not a better society, but rather to get re-elected, success is merely passing laws, not passing good laws, or indeed enforcing existing laws; commissions only needed to happen, not resolve or repair anything.

I'm reminded of a West Wing episode where, among other things, the discussion is about the Republican vs. Democratic view on laws. Here's an exchange between Sam Seaborn and Ainsley Hayes (with my emphasis):

AINSLEY: I'm a Republican ...I believe that every time the Federal Government hands down a new law, it leaves for the rest of us a little less freedom. So I say let's stick to the ones we absolutely need in order to have water come out of the faucet and our cars not stolen. That is my problem with passing a redundant law.

SAM: You know, you insist that government is depraved for not legislating against what we can see on the newsstands or what we can see in an art exhibit or what we can burn in protest or which sex we're allowed to have sex with or a woman's right to choose. But don't you dare try to regulate this deadly weapon I have concealed on me for that would encroach against my freedom.

AINSLEY: And Democrats believe in freedom of speech unless you want to pray while you're standing in school. And you believe in the freedom of information act except if you want to find out if your 14 year old has had an abortion.

SAM: We believe in the ERA. ... How can you have an objection...

AINSLEY: Because it's humiliating. A new amendment we vote on declaring that I am equal under the law to a man? I'm mortified to discover there's reason to believe I wasn't before. I'm a citizen of this country. I'm not a special subset in need of your protection. I do not have to have my rights handed down to me by a bunch of old white men. The same Article 14 that protects you protects me. And I went to law school just to make sure.

So like the commercial and education sectors, politicians can't resist the "tried and true approach" to governing. They will therefore make spurious, ill-conceived laws to try and look good to naive and frankly stupid voters. Like education, government has no competition, they know that most new politicians are just as dumb as they are, and follow the same traditions; they know this because enough of them will get reelected to ensure continuity. Yet again there is no sufficiently credible perceived competition to create a change in behavior.

Most corporations, school systems and governments are afraid to do something new or interesting; they are afraid to go beyond their self-imposed limits, and will therefore diminish whatever is connected to them. Is it any wonder so many parts of the American fabric are in decline?

Competition is crucial; it creates pressure and the urgency to outperform. When there is no competition (or perceived competition), you rest on your laurels and stagnate. This is less important for corporations - you only risk money; but when the stakes are as high as they are with education and government how can we afford to be sloths? There is competition in the tall grass, and it's not lazy.

We must seek to be defined by what we will do and not what we've done.

standard deviance

"The idea that you are a faceless cog in a benevolent system that cares about you and can't tell particularly whether you are worth a day's pay or not, is, like it or not, over." So wrote Seth Godin a few days ago.

There's a lot in this - and not just about work. We are, each and every one of us, unique. The way we look, the way we think, the way we dress, the way we work, the way we play - we are unique.

At first, I wondered if this was something that we did to ourselves - do we each need the comfort of being a cog because standing out makes us uneasy? Or are there other forces at play? (And if there are, how long have they been "playing" with us?)

In my limited experience, most parents of young children look to correlate their child's progress to published norms. They want to make sure s/he is at the right percentile physically, behaviorally, and intellectually. They may want their child to be at the "upper" end of the scale, but "normal" is just fine. Even the doctor's goal is to map every child to an expected norm.

Once in school, the measures become more tangible since we explicitly assess performance vs. set of pre-defined standards/expectations. We should of course note that these standards most closely resemble the management structure that Henry Ford implemented to build his Model T with one notable and evil addition.

Success for Ford was setting a standard of consistent, prolific production - millions of cars, all identical in quality, capability and performance. At that same time, kids were "institutionalized" to both manage the child labor problem and create lots of future factory workers. The schools adopted a similar approach to standards, with the shared goal of burping out millions of children, all identical and drone-like in knowledge and skill.

As factories have become a smaller and smaller part of the employment base, the need for hoards of similarly-skilled workers has also fallen. Whilst "they" do pay lip service to the idea that each child is unique and must be treated in accordance with their specific needs, capabilities and potential, actions speak louder than words. And just as in the 19th century, schools continue to have one standard, one set of assessments, one curriculum, and one teaching approach.

Even the latest "innovations" in learning embrace this idea of normed achievement. You might know that Common Core Standards were published on June 1 (2010), and have been heralded as a tremendous step forward for American education. As ever, success according to "them" is about burping out hoards of like-minded and like-abled drones. The only thing that's changed is type of drone. How sad.

The evil addition? The Bell Curve. In an attempt to patch the genericness, many schools (still) grade on a curve so they can normalize the results and create an achievement blend (say 20% great, 70% average, 10% poor).

In essence, we're assuming that everyone contributes (and must contribute) in an equal way - that there is only one meaningful measure of attainment as a student, and that nothing else matters. If a student doesn't measure up, it's the student's failing, and like at Henry Ford's plant, those cars don't graduate to the showroom. But unlike Ford (and this is the evil part), the curve implies that we can only have so much greatness; the rest of you are (whether you are or not), normal or failing.

Ironically, this implicitly limits a school's ability to graduate more than the specified number of great students, or less than the specified number of failing students!

As Seth pointed out, norming doesn't end when students graduate. The world of work is also normed - from recruiting to training ("on-boarding") to performance management - most organizations operate on the basis that all employees in a given level or role stratum are essentially equal; their contribution should be compared relatively, and they should be graded on a curve (a zero-sum game).

In each instance, we've bizarrely ignored our real and true instincts. When a child is born, it is (and forever will be) the most beautiful person their parents know. Their light will shine above all others, and remain brightest ...forever. When a parent looks at their child in school, some part of them has to want them to be the best, perhaps not the best of all, but certainly the best of themselves.

Surely every teacher, every principal, every minister of education wishes their education system to be the best, that it not be limited by any norm, but rather perform with excellence and graduate brilliant students. Surely there's no such thing as a good (and successful) business leader who aspires to not suck, or to not lose, or to be average, or not rise above the fray?

So if these leaders all expect the best of themselves and their organizations, how do they justify embracing standards that require the people they serve or the people they employ to be merely average? Seth is urging us to rebel against the system, to proclaim individuality in the face of facelessness. 

Bravo.

head games

Are you open to trying something new? Are you open to learning something new? Are you open to a new idea, or to overturning a closely-held belief? Before change is possible, a society must be able to say "yes" to these questions, otherwise enacting change is like pushing a rope uphill.

I attended the Games for Learning day of the Games for Change Festival at NYU last week. Brilliant people spoke on the role of games in learning, approaches to assessing efficacy, and how to build great learning games. It was hosted by Ken Perlin and Jan Plass, who are the co-directors of the Games for Learning Institute. There is a lot happening, I learned a ton, and was privileged to meet and hang out with some very cool people.

One facet that wasn't a focus at the Festival is how to ingrain games more deeply within mainstream education. This is a tough, tough challenge, one that will take some careful thought, mostly because the deck is so stacked against change in education.

I recently had lunch with a ~29 year old mother of a 5-year old boy (both were born and raised in the Seattle area). She believes strongly in the authoritarian approach to education, where the teacher is in front, the students listen quietly, write down what the teacher says, do their homework and pass their tests. This is what she wants for her son. I wonder how much of the population she represents?

I've also been talking to a friend about intellectual divides; she sent me two links that shouldn't have surprised me, but did. First, Charles Pearce's treatise on the a segment of America that disdains "smart" - one payoff quote comes from Pastor Ray Mummert of Dover, Pennsylvania, a leader in Intelligent Design community: "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." That says it all, doesn't it?

But there's more! The second link is to a survey in National Geographic measuring the relative belief in evolution in Western Countries. Just 14% of Americans believe that evolution is "definitely true"; over the last 20 years, uncertainty about evolution has grown from 7% to 20%; and now fully 1/3 of Americans (more than 110 million people) outright reject evolution. Less than 50% of Americans can provide even a basic explanation of DNA. This ranks America #31 out of 32.

These stories illustrate something of the current state of education in America, how science is regarded, and how deeply-held the idea of "old school" and "traditional" education might be in this country.

I have no data to back this up, but my guess is that the people more likely to believe in creationism are also likely to support "traditional" education approaches. I'm also guessing that a direct "innovation" message will NOT resonate with this audience or help affect change.

How then is something as "radical" as the use of games in learning going to achieve broad use across the American public school system?

Socio-politically, there are two ways to achieve (relatively) rapid, widespread change - brute force (e.g. 9-11/terrorism and security; or H1N1 and the obsession with hand-sanitizer), and guile (e.g. the $billions America spends fruitlessly on dieting).

How is this guile? Most diet-related advertising says something like: "try our new quick, easy and safe approach to losing tonnage without sacrificing the foods you love." The people who buy the product or service keep buying and buying and buying, always seeking that quick, easy fix. The $$ spent on trying to get thin keep increasing despite the fact that the number of obese people in the country is also increasing. People are relentlessly gullible.

Call it guile or preying on stupidity - either way, the lose-weight industry is literally and figuratively making a killing.

I believe that transforming education will require the same mercenary, exploitative approach that the weight-reduction industry has perfected. If we want to see pervasive change, we have to create a marketing groundswell that preys on the gullibility and quick, easy fix-obsessed nature of Americans. The message has to come from a united front - the Department of Education, (some) universities, and foundations, all of whom must be willing to put their money where their mouth is.

I would also focus my "magic pill" on lower grades - say Kindergarten through Grade 3, prioritizing core skills like literacy, numeracy and the sciences. Parents tend to get less involved in school as their kids get older; to make them an effective change agent, they must be at their most passionate, most susceptible to external influence, and most able to influence their school board/district.

Once you have achieved success in the lower grades, you train these same parents to expect and demand innovation as their children grow. If all goes well, you do the same thing with the next generation of K-3 parents, because by then, whatever we're changed will now be the new "old school."

To teach in a changing world, we must ourselves be ever-open to change; today it's games, tomorrow - who knows.

revelations

I found this fascinating animation of the history of religion across the globe (click "Play" below). Hinduism began 5,000 years ago, followed by Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity and then Islam, which came into being in 570AD.

Some observations:

1. Five major religions cover the globe, the youngest of which is fifteen centuries old.
2. Despite all "modern" claims of "Internet time," etc., no new religions have spawned or spread for quite a while.
3. The two most populous and fastest-growing nations on the planet essentially have their own religions, but neither of their religions is bent on "evangelical expansion."
4. The smallest (by population and geography) is Judaism, and the largest is Christianity.

Historically, the spread of religion occurred through conquest and evangelism/missionary work. During this time, some of the religions competed (and combated) with each other to win followers, but at some point it seems a detente of sorts was achieved, creating a relatively steady state. (This is not to say that peace broke out, but that the geographic distribution has remained largely the same.)

In 888 (a fortuitous year!), block printing was invented; movable (clay) type arrived in 1041; and then Gutenberg came along in the 1440s. By the end of that century (1499), an estimated 15 million (mostly religious) books had been printed. The most famous of these of course is the Gutenberg Bible, which among other religious texts (like the Koran), helped promote and proliferate Christianity and Islam through the centuries that followed.

Four hundred years later, communication changed - beginning with the telegraph, followed 30 years later by the telephone, and eventually with wireless telephony and the Internet. Despite this increase in publishing capacity and reach, the big five have remained relatively static. Until now. I believe the next decade will see the rise of an altogether new type of religion, one more connected to the e-world.

Atheism is not a religion (by definition); they would say that their "faith" is science and logic, and that they are not evangelical. Today most Atheists are individuals without affiliation; but with the likes of Richard Dawkins, I believe a movement is forming, and its leaders (will) wish to establish a widespread sociopolitical force with structure, membership, meeting venues, corporate sponsorship, etc.

They could choose a political approach. While compelling, I don't believe the ROI is interesting - too much work for relatively little gain. I think they will instead choose the non-political tack, and like the big 5, use the strength and size of their base as clout to affect social and political change. Does this make them a "religion"? I think so - here's a paragraph from Wikipedia's article on religion (I've highlighted in blue the text that I believe applies to Atheism the religion):

Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance.

New religions have historically formed in "space," gaining traction among those who had not yet encountered religion. Today fundamentalists in Christianity (American religious right, Tea Party, etc.) and Islam (Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc.) are a polarizing force; there is enough concern about this in the minds of their moderates (and especially the younger generations), that Atheism could be a viable alternative. Differences on issues like personal freedom, selective accountability, abortion, gay rights, women's rights, the use of violence, etc. just might be enough to tip the balance in favor of "defection."

The ideal for Atheism is morality and integrity founded on science and logic. Atheists will shirk terms like "believer" - instead I imagine them using a tag line like: "We don't believe; we are." But they will also struggle with the same issues that beset other religions or large organizations - how to create an effective and deserving leadership hierarchy, how to impose or enforce rules, and how to deliver value. Traditional religions deliver value in the form of answers to these three questions:

1. Why am I here?
2. What happens when I die?
3. Whom do I blame (corollary - who will absolve me?)?

Atheism does not view these questions the same way, so a new approach to value-creation will be needed, one that centers on the attributes above - morality, integrity, science and logic, but also one that gives those that are seeking an alternative a place to belong, where they can feel at home. If the leaders of Atheism can find this, I believe the next decade will host a new religion, and one that achieved critical mass by filling a void that the other five didn't realize was there.

intellectual divides

Have you encountered the phrase "digital divide"? I imagine more than once. What does it mean to you? Is it expanding, contracting or the same as it was? What's on either side, and how do you know where you are? If you do only do email on a PC, are you on one side (which side?); if you only use SMS where are you? It's not clear cut anymore, and it also depends on your point of view.

eSchool News published A look at the technology culture divide recently, the author made a bizarre assumption - that the "have" side of the digital divide is static. According to this, the "digital divide" came into the mainstream in the mid-1990s via speeches by then President Bill Clinton and Vice President (and self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet) Al Gore.

Do you think someone who was on the "digital" side of the divide in 1996 is still on that side today? At that time, being "digital" would have meant owning a computer with access to the Internet (via a modem connected to a land line). Say that was me, and that I'm still using the same or similar equipment today; how do I compare (my PC + internet access, living in Seattle) to three 15 year old brothers I met recently in Angola who have smart phones with data plans but don't really use PCs? Is it clear who has the advantage?

Now take a look at this article also in eSchool News about the excessive proliferation of hardware in learning. This author suggests it's not about more hardware (I agree), but that we need the right software packages (he enumerates four requirements); once we have these, no more change is needed, and our now "futurized" school system can happily live in this new steady state.

Education is not about social networks, mastery of existing assessments, or basic reading; it is about preparing every child to discover and become their greatest selves, and to prepare every child to survive (and hopefully thrive) in whatever future lies ahead. All we know about the future is that it will come; to create a static system that is based on today's state of the art (just because we can't grasp a more advanced or changed future) is naive at best, and assured to NOT prepare children for their future.

These authors are like Al Gore when he proclaimed Internet paternity - they're trying to lay claim to ideas that they don't fully grasp, and making absolute that which is always changing. As Seth points out, it's very easy to be manipulated - all you need to do is string together the right kitsch phrases, and prey on people's fears or avarice. It's a sure-fire way to win followers and influence people, but it is devoid of integrity.

Rather than railing about the digital divide, we need to bemoan the intellectual divide that has made adults in our society gullible enough to believe this kind of propaganda.

For those who wish we could go back a generation to the time when our education system was wonderful, and when we graduated the best and the brightest on this planet, I would point out the following: more adults in America are illiterate vs. the top 20 economies on Earth. More than half of Americans adults are unable to identify the precise location of Washington DC or New York or Los Angeles on a blank map (forget naming the capital of Canada or pointing to its location). More Americans bought mortgages beyond their means, believe they can healthily lose weight via diet pills, and believe the Earth is flat than any other nation in the OECD top 20.

I'm exaggerating to make a point, but it's important to realize that many of the people making decisions about our children's education are both victims of their own (potentially weak) education, and susceptible to the random and ill-informed rhetoric of others. Rather than trusting education to people whose only qualification is electability (by these same ill-informed crowds), shouldn't we put it in the hands of the best and brightest and most successful among us?

It's time to get our collective heads in the game...

open accreditation services

Is learning is undergoing a transformation? From this article in the NY Times on the profusion of lectures available online, its implications on learning, and how that's changing the way students learn; to 21st Century Learning proponents, who claim that learning in this century is like no other, that students are actually different, and that institutions need to evolve their curriculum to match, you might think so.

I don't think the turn of a calendar's page changes the way the brain works, but what (if anything) is really different about education in this century?

It's not enough to say we have new technology today vs. yesterday, because yesterday they had new technology vs. the day before. It's not enough to say that we expect more from our students today than ever before (ibid).

What about this - could this be the century in which the business model of education changes? Is this the point where accreditation as we know it goes away? This isn't new in the history of learning, but it's something that hasn't happened in perhaps the last 150 years.

The mainstream public education system on this planet is authoritarian, discriminatory, built to make life easier for adults and regulators, and seemingly not even designed to make children great. The rules in most schools are all about what you CAN'T do. Oppression doesn't seem to be a good way to engage students and improve learning outcomes - does it?

How does the system become so authoritarian? Simple - they own the ticket to employment. I wrote recently about the tertiary education is becoming commoditized; I think things are getting even worse now. The most tangible benefit of staying in school and graduating is the piece of paper you get that says you attended, graduated, and are now employment-worthy.

If you have something hammer-like (the ticket), then it is easy to be lazy and use that hammer to assert power vs. truly engaging students - think of most country's border guards; they should be tourism advocates, but instead let their power get in the way. This is not universal, but it is pervasive.

Change in this case won't come from within. These days, more and more employers look beyond the accreditation to the person to assess whether they'd be a good hire. Ask any recruiter, hiring manager, employment consultant or counselor and they will confirm that where you went to school only helps if it's one of the top ten (or where the hiring manager went); otherwise it's more about the rest of you - who you are, what you've done, and how you did it that counts - take a look at your own resume - is education at the top or near the bottom?

Admittedly, most employers (today) won't let you in the door without the proper accreditation - that's still the first filter. But I believe this is changing. The number of "accreditation-free" people that get hired is growing rapidly, and the approach these hiring managers take and the quality of these hires will be the biggest determinant of the "value" of a formal education.

As these "alternate" candidates prove their worth in the market (likely at lower starting salaries as well), I think there will be a groundswell at both ends - hiring managers/recruiters becoming more open-minded, and students becoming more savvy.

Students are already skeptical about school; when the approach that these hiring managers use to select candidates becomes better known, it could begin to shape students' process for building a resume, the way they demonstrate knowledge, ability and experience, and the criticality of a diploma.

Imagine if you could describe your job-worthiness not in terms of a certificate, but as say a balanced scorecard, or as Seth put it, as your own quilt. It would not only be a huge help to hiring managers, but also allow much more of the candidate's broader value to be demonstrated.

Just as Open Education Resources (OER) is altering the nature of curriculum and teaching materials, I think we're about 10 years away from an Open Accreditation Service that enables students to score or quilt all of their achievements across the board.

The next revolution in learning then, is the outmoding of the existing business model. And as with the music, video, and print/TV advertising industries, education will try and hold on to the past, but at some point face reality, and focus on earning the opportunity to teach your child. I can't wait.

aVOIDance

Lao Tzu was a brilliant, brilliant man - in Tao Te Ching, he wrote this:

We put thirty spokes together and call it a wheel;

But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the wheel depends.

We turn clay to make a vessel;

But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the vessel depends.

We pierce doors and windows to make a house;

And it is on these spaces where there is nothing that the usefulness of the house depends.

Therefore just as we take advantage of what is, we should recognize the usefulness of what is not.

This should be tattooed on the foreheads of every leader and politician so that they can read it every time they look in the mirror (I presume mirror-looking is a frequent act). Governing (or leading in that rare case) is as much about what you do as what you don't do; it is as much (more) about the things you help happen as it is about the things you prevent from happening. It is indeed as much about the usefulness of what is not as it is about the structure we create. But most critically, governing is about creating a space in which the people it serves are allowed to be great, and to be happy.

I do believe the gentlemen that wrote the Declaration of Independence were aware of Lao Tzu and others, and were themselves brilliant and well-thinking men. Here's a bit of their work:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Read this a couple of times to see how in a mere 202 words so many powerful ideas were collected; how so much power and possibility were granted to both the citizenry and its government. Knowing that this was written to set up the throwing off of one "such Government" is powerful. This document is one of the most eloquent demonstrations of creating a container; knowing full well that the value lies not in the shape or structure of the container, but the power of what it holds, and the potential that creates.

When you read of today's political machinations, you can't help but wonder why our politicians (I can't call them leaders) are bent on creating ever more walls. It's like saying that everything that could possibly happen needs a law to "manage" it.

But we fail to realize that humans are innately skilled at finding the 11th door out of a 10-door room. Every new wall we create invites (nay, demands) loophole seekers, makes it harder to find "miscreants" because the very walls obscure things, and forces us to waste energy policing existing walls.

We also ignore the very purpose of government - to secure their citizens' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others. Today the purpose seems to be to enumerate and prevent misdeeds.

How sad that we're defined by what we mustn't do.

We are voidphobes. Whether it is a lull in conversation, or a lull in behavior, or a lull in regulation - we are much more comfortable when cocooned (straitjacketed?) in structure and "no."

Consider our schools and what we impose on children from the first moment of "institutionalization" - rules, constraints, expectations, examinations. I wonder if this is one reason we have so many more "atypical" children in schools today than ever before? Our definition of "normal" is compliance, living within walls, and accommodating adult expectations. We resist, as Seth put it, exposing ourselves. This might be the worst thing adults can do in service of human evolution, and caring for our young.

A free society, a free people, a free nation are powerful, powerful ideas. They live only when what is celebrated is not the walls around us, but the vast, possibility-filled spaces we inhabit.

Our future may well hinge on our ability to resist avoiding voids.

spastic knees

Humans are competitive. We can't help it, it's a genetic and certainly Darwinian response to our environment. We compete for damn-near everything, and imbue this spirit in many things we create, including the businesses we build. Even non-profits compete with each other.

There are many schools of thought on "how to win" - most favor forceful and immediate action. "Shock and awe" is a phrase I hear all too often in the corporate setting. The belief is that a perceived threat should be squashed immediately, before it grows stronger and becomes harder to overcome. This is true in medicine, sports, business, politics, warfare, etc.

Is shoot first and ask questions later always the best way to go? If time heals all wounds, does it also heal conflicts? Does patience mitigate threats? Does looking at the whole chess board help you decide the best move, or is it better to just focus on the pawn that's being attacked?

Seth Godin's Rights and Responsibilities post makes a great case for stopping and thinking about your ultimate goal and sustained success vs. the short-term preservation of status quo, or worse, a knee-jerk and ultra-myopic negative reaction to what is really an opportunity.

Seth's story about how corporations react is classic, and typical of micro thinking - something that, yep you guessed it, I attribute to the profusion of MBAs, PR people and lawyers. Enough said.

But there is another example of jerky (or spastic) knees that has been prominent this week, and for many months now - the Republican Party. I was happy when Barak Obama was elected President, but was worried about what would happen, because the Democrats also won majorities in the House and Senate. I was worried because the Democrats are horribly inept and factional - they have a proven inability to get things done; from the outset, rather than focusing on governing effectively and with dignity, they strutted and preened like unattractive peacocks.

What should the Republicans have done in response to an overwhelming loss and a bunch of preening Dems? If you combine the thinking of Machiavelli (my interpretation: power through cunning and guile) and Aikido (my interpretation: convert negative energy into something that is a conflict-free, positive outcome for both), what do you get that might be worthwhile?

Rather than form a strategy (be smart, focus on serving the citizens of the country (your employers), and think about crafting a situation that would demonstrate your mettle and leadership, and allow the others to inevitably screw up), the Republican Party chose to pout. Rather than govern, they chose to obstruct, and follow Vince Lombardi's "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing." I can imagine a conversation like this among the leadership: "we only measure success in one way, in this game, at this hour, with this play. We will start now, and we can only win by thoroughly destroying those godless Democrats - damn the collateral damage. Let's go!!"

Lao Tzu once said: "Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear? Can you remain unmoving till the right action arises by itself?”

Western companies and certainly the political parties have never read this, or hear of Lao Tzu - more's the shame.

As the mud settled they should have realized that to win, they needed to transcend their very conservative base and win back Reagan Democrats (or perhaps in that moment, Obama Republicans). They needed to look at history and their knowledge of those on the other side of the aisle to know that the Dems are simply incapable of being one team and working effectively. Instead, they chose and continue to choose to focus solely on vilifying those rightfully elected to govern, obstructing any kind of governing, further polarizing the country, and moving relentlessly to the right.

It eludes me - they made themselves look just as bad.

And if you watched any of the recent Southern Republican Leadership Conference, did you hear anything about what a Republican leader would do if they were in charge? All I heard (and have heard for months) is how evil the "other side" is (again - these are not terrorists or drug lords or even Communists, but fellow Americans), and how they intend to do everything to stop them on behalf of all that's righteous in America. There is no plan other than "stop them." Not what we will do, but what they mustn't do.

For America (and Americans) to be successful in this century, her leaders must forsake their primal desire to win. Her leaders must be able to think clearly and deliberately, and take on the mantle of responsibility to the citizens of this country (ALL the citizens, not just the ones that voted for them).

Stop and think about how many times you've swung at a pitch in the dirt (knee-jerk reaction to someone doing something perceptually bad to do you or yours), and regretted it.

Think about stopping for a moment, taking a deep breath, and then doing the right thing.