~synthesis~

the war on peace

One of our (Americans in particular) most powerful motivators is winning. From its inception, America has had to fight for what she believed, and keep fighting to achieve progress. More often than not, America won - the economy grew, its role on the world stage grew, its contribution to the sciences and entertainment grew, its ego grew, etc. It is therefore clear why this competitive instinct is so deeply-rooted in the American "system," and how it is fundamental to her approach to life, the universe and everything.

From birth to school to work to love to death, Americans view life as a zero-sum game. At birth we're competing for cutest baby, baby closest to the XXth percentile of development, etc.; next it's getting in the right schools; then the best jobs; the best girl/guy; etc. In every instance, keeping score is about besting someone else - the pie is only so big, and for us to win, others need to lose.

The competitive instinct can sometimes lead one astray - there have been many American declarations against rather unlikely foes. Some of these "Wars" include: Poverty (Johnson, 1964 - winner: poverty); Drugs (Nixon, 1969 - winner: drugs); Terror (Bush, 2001 - winner: terror); Greed (US Congress 2008/9 - winner: greed); ...

Even corporations have gotten into it - one recently declared War on Cost. If they actually win, price = free; success = bankruptcy. Not sure the shareholders will approve.

It is pretty hard to spot(!), but did you notice a trend among all these wars? Each has cost a ton of money, wasted a ton of lives, burned a ton of energy, and in every case, resulted in more of the "bad" thing than before the "war" was declared.

Hmmm...

"My fellow Americans there is a cancer among us, it is evil, it is insidious, and it is fomented by those will not stop until they have found the best in every one of us. I call upon every red-blooded American to stand with me, and in the spirit of our founding fathers who prevailed against a superior foe armed only with the power of their ideals, rise as one to combat what is surely the most diabolical axis of evil that has beset our glorious nation.

My fellow Americans - I stand before you today with pride and purpose to declare War on Peace. Peace is the most powerful foe America has ever faced, but I am confident that our relentless pursuit of failure will once again restore our faith and ensure our prosperity.

This is just the beginning - lead by Peace, this axis of evil contains two other collaborators that must also be quelled. Immediately upon losing to Peace, and in the spirit of all that is great, we will first declare War on Wellness, and then War on Education.

Thank you, God bless each and every one of you, and God bless America."

Yes we can!

overclocked

Have you noticed how much e-stuff you have? How much you depend on all that e-stuff? How much the e-stuff dictates your behavior?

I was giving a speech recently and among other things, talked about how significantly electronicization has altered power consumption. There was this article I read in 2003 that said the average freshman at the University of Miami needed 18 power outlets in their dorm room! As part of a renovation of residences, the University actually had to add new power substations to accommodate the students' hunger!

I'm guessing today's student may need less plugs but more power - if it were me, I'd need 6 - iMac (music, video, work), external speakers, laptop, iPhone/iPod (shared), headset, oh and my toothbrush.

Overclocking is the equivalent of giving your computer steroids to increase its throughput. If you go too far, you can harm the circuitry, and potentially trash the PC. What's the human equivalent?

You know you're overclocked when you're wishing you had your phone so you can check email or play a game while waiting in line, or at the gas station filling up your car. You know you're overclocked when you have to check texts and emails when you're having a drink with a friend and they've popped off to the bathroom. You know you're overclocked when you dim your phone so you can play without disturbing others while watching a movie.

I admit to the first two, but not the third :-).

Are our bodies able to cope with the increased electro-magnetic radiation? What about our minds? We now have many (too many) business processes but not enough time to process things. There is value to reflection - it is how we change minds, grasp concepts, and create a shared vision. Reflection is also how we question things; it is how we are able to look at things from alternate perspectives; it is how we move from reacting instinctively (which is all you can do when you don't have time) to reacting purposefully, to changing outcomes ...profoundly.

We intentionally create pressure situations - in the corporate world they call these "forcing functions" - creating faux crises that require rapid response. The result has no choice but to be evolutionary, gradual if any improvement and largely the same old thing in a new PowerPoint template - because there's no time for anything profound. Without the time to change minds, new ideas can't gel, be socialized and convince others.

There is absolutely a place for rapid-fire reactions and quick decision-making - this is a big part of getting things done. BUT you can't expect every decision to be made this way. Briefly overclocking a business is good when reacting to a crisis or capitalizing on an opportunity, but like any computer that's treated this way, the longer you do it, the greater the risk of burnout.

The obvious damage is falling ever deeper in a rut and ironically losing that very competitive edge; the collateral damage is people burnout - you only have to look articles like this or this to see that the American worker is overclocked - they're afraid of being viewed as redundant so they don't take vacations; they don't have time to reflect and be energized so they can't conceive to catalyze revolutions (or even evolutions); and worst of all, they make big decisions rashly, and end up paying the piper at some point in the future. Constraining broad thinking (or as Seth Godin put it, getting meta) is what prevents us from really grasping a situation and doing something about it.

In the end though, I think the e-stuff is a red herring; we've overclocked ourselves in response to a ...desperation to get things done, to build and sell more widgets, and to own more crap. This ideal is not ideal. It is impales us in a self-imposed rat race, and removes us from the social, reflective, connected (dare I say actualized) world in which we ought to live. We've lost our ability to exercise a modicum of control over our own actions, and achieved an inability to exercise the instinctive urge to sit back and think...

affect magic

I tend to think in threes. Driving home this evening, the concept of experiences was bouncing around my head, and I saw three aspects - those that create, those that watch, and those that curate.

I was marveling earlier at my good fortune to have such great friends. Two of my dearest hosted an impromptu celebration tonight for a collection of fellows that were all three of these aspects of creation. They are artists one and all - their inspiration comes from everywhere, anywhere, and everything in between. It is filled with passion, intellect, sensuality, brutality... It is life.

Creators of experience use authorship, performance, story-telling, and many other -ships to enliven. Their ability to interpret the world and then reveal it is astounding to me.  The watchers (perhaps voyeurs is a better word) are people like me, who (I must admit) are all about the vicarious moment. Being a part of conversations in this home reminded me of how passion and art create boldness. How they bring to people the strength and fierceness to not just do it, but to do it in a unique, magical and affecting way.

As an observer, I got to revel in their energy, and to be ever-more inspired to create my own thing - for that I thank them.

Curators are many things - they are of course creator and observer, but that's not enough. They are also collector (like the creator they must consume, digest and interpret but they also have to get others to give). The are able to do this because they honor without judgment. They like to watch, but their eyes are filters that aim to reveal insides. In the processing is a special mechanism that formulates that most conveyable aspect that when combined with other such aspects, achieves a gestalt that we as voyeurs will experience and say "wow."

Tonight I was at a celebration for A Wink and a Smile. It is a brilliant and wonderful film whose director Deirdre Timmons is the quintessential curator. She and her producer-husband Jack Timmons are creatures who have that ability to find, nurture, honor and convey expression in a way that simply affects magic.

Driving home, I got to thinking about other brilliant curators - the first that came to mind is another good friend - Larry Rosenstock. As the leader of High Tech High, Larry like Deirdre created an environment in which his actors (teachers) are able to create and express and inspire and provoke with the trust and freedom that becomes the magic that is High Tech High.

It's one of those ineffable "we know it when we see it" qualities that is able to affect magic. If there were more magic affectors like Deirdre and Larry, we'd have more brilliant films, more brilliant schools, and more brilliant ...brilliance.

simplicity

Have you noticed that the more America cares about something, the more she screws it up?

From education to healthcare to crime to terrorism to disaster relief to taxation to foreign policy to whatever; anything that the politicians get their paws on is sure to take a turn for the worse. Moreover, the longer they hold on to it, the more harm they do. The media doesn't help with it's hype-obsessed approach, but that's a separate story.

Education has been at the forefront of political debate for as long as I can remember, but this year 7,200 American students will drop out on every school day. Look at America's foreign policy history of "anointing" leaders (just in the Middle East: Saddam Hussein, Hamid Karzai, the Taliban, etc.); or how Hurricane Katrina was handled; or how many people in this country die of preventable diseases; or the "war" on drugs; or crime-prevention efforts that result in more crimes and more criminals in jail year on year.

The list is endless, as is the complexity of each of these programs. It seems that everything this country cares about must be huge, intricate, nuanced, and over-manned. If it isn't we don't care enough. If we don't throw enough money at it, we're not really committed. Therein lies the rub, the fallacy, and our failure.

What can be done to create a more productive system? Whatever it is, it's for sure not as simple as I'm about to make it. Or is it? Is that our problem? We like complexity? It's much easier to hide (or hide things) in a tree/bush/shrub/etc.-ridden forest than in a less-cluttered place like an empty parking lot. Ask people in the government and they will affirm that it's an incredibly complex and nuanced thing - this is why the 2008 Federal Budget numbered 2,200 pages.

Warren Buffet once said that "business schools reward difficult complex behavior more than simple behavior, but simple behavior is more effective." Most corporations and governments are rife with business school graduates. Maybe not such a good thing... We should not take this idea that complexity is good, inevitable, and to be cherished as truth or acceptable.

What if three things were to change:

1. Spend well - most budgets are funded based on LOBA (lower of budget or actual), which is fine when you have a ton of money and no accountability. It favors those who spend, not those who do. What if this changed - budgets are now zero-based (start from scratch), and funded based on outcomes. There will be multi-year projects that need to maintain funding, but they should be assessed based on what got done in the current year and whether it's time to increase, reduce, or cut the investment. The goal should be (for the 1st year) a budget that is 10% the size of the current one - 220 pages.
2. Rewarding completion - why don't things stop in government? So many projects (largely due to #1) go on and on and on, just because departments measure success based on funding; and cutting things admits a need for less money. We should reward good completion - it could be as simple as a bonus (to the government employees, not the contractors) for finishing a project on time, on budget, and closing up that shop. Those people should be first in line for the next cool thing to happen, because they got it done the last time. I'm not sure what the real goal should be, but my gut says 80% of programs 20 years or older should be cut, and 20% of programs younger than 20 years should be cut - every year.
3. Being accountable for less - this is big. I've never seen any successful project get done when it had more than three objectives. In fact, the most successful ones have just one. When you try and do everything for everyone, you end up doing nothing for anyone. We must only fund programs that have a clear, singular, time-limited objective. It's true that some things are not time-limited - defense or social security come to mind - and that's fine, they should be the exceptions. The goal should be for every project to have a clear, specific and timely outcome. If it doesn't, it doesn't get funded.

I know I've focused solely on money, but look at how things get done in government, it boils down to he who has the $$ has the power. Let's temper that power a bit...

inversions

There was an article in the NY Times recently about a research study that found that students who study online outperform those that study in the classroom. But according to an email Prof. Kathy Gill at U Washington sent to a listserv, the causative factor was not on/off line, but time on task

So it wasn't the medium, it wasn't the message, it was the participation level that made the difference. It makes sense doesn't it? You could be in the most beautiful place with the most beautiful people looking at the most beautiful things, but if you weren't engaged, it was all for naught.

One thing this study does show is that listening to lectures online does work - students can and do pay attention; insight is conveyed, and gained.

Have you heard of Professor Glenn Platt at Miami University? He along with Prof. Maureen Lage invented the concept of "The Inverted Classroom." This is Einstein-like (so simple and yet no-one's ever thought of it before) brilliance.

From the students' point of view (and let's face it, they're the customers!), the lecture is the least interactive part of a learning experience; the assignments/homework are the most interactive.

So why not flip things around and make the lectures homework, and the assignments class work? The teachers should actively facilitate the interactive experience, and expect the students to "attend" the static part out of class.

The lecture is information with some insight (students sit, listen, take notes). The homework and assignments are where you're meant to internalize the concepts, be able to extend them to related areas, and demonstrate your knowledge by submitting solutions to problems you've been assigned (student reviews, infers, works, and documents understanding).

Think back to when you were doing homework - did you collaborate with your peers to solve a particularly difficult problem? If so, you had to arrange for an "out of class" meeting, to connect and then brainstorm, argue, share, and hopefully solve. There are many studies that show that the best way to know is to teach - getting together with your mates was the first step in teaching (or co-teaching), and understanding.

Platt/Lage published this idea nine years ago (in 2000) - shocking that this hasn't been more broadly explored.

Why hasn't it taken hold? IMO - there are three reasons for this:

1. Ability to record and disseminate lectures - requires video recording tools, a portal with video streaming services, the disk space and bandwidth to assure a good experience. This is being done in many places today - my traditional favorite is MIT Open Courseware, but Curtis Wong at Microsoft Research has created a rather ground-breaking project called Tuva - well worth a visit, especially if you share my appreciation for Richard Feynman. I don't think this is as expensive as everyone makes it out to be. Plus there are many organizations that would happily lend assistance to school systems that wished to implement this.
2. Capacity for all students to receive and consume lectures at home - this is more contentious. Throwing out the trust issue (kids won't do the work), which I believe is spurious and can be overcome, this is also the expensive part. Every student will require their own device to access lectures (could be as simple as a mobile phone), and the bandwidth to download them. Again - this is not a complex problem, but merely a costly one. I've talked about an adult equivalent of this here, I think the opportunity and impact is even greater for children.
3. Incumbents' willingness to change - there are four players involved (besides the students) and each is a big hairy issue. Are teachers and administrators willing to change? Are their unions open to encouraging this type of approach? Will parents (voters) agree to this idea? Does anyone have the cojones to pilot this for a whole school system?

Does it affect pedagogy? Yes. Does it require a new set of teaching skills? Hopefully not - my presumption is that teachers sought this scenario when they chose the profession. Does curriculum need to change? It could - for example, rather than streaming full 50-minute lectures, try ~10 minute "lecturelets" that are aggregated into lessons. One advantage of the inverted model is that the teacher and the lecturer don't have to be the same person. If your state had a standard curriculum, you could record the 4-5 best lecturers in your state, and then have that "best of the best" set of lectures be your streaming library; this library could be updated every two or three years to keep it fresh. The in-class teachers' role becomes more guide on the side.

The other advantage of this lecture/lecturelet model is that students can replay them to clarify understanding and review prior to exams. It allows them to learn in a much more self-directed way.

The issue with this model - will all students actually watch the lectures? No. But how is this different from today? I have observed a number of primary and secondary school classes, and can say with certainty that despite physically being in the room, not every student was really in the room. Moreover, not every student actually did their homework. Bet you're surprised to read that!

One other thing - when surveyed most teachers say that keeping students engaged while in the class is difficult. That doesn't surprise me given that most of the time is spent lecturing. This approach changes that - it puts the teacher in the role of actually working with the students to together internalize, understand and demonstrate the material. And I bet engaged students are more likely to watch lectures at home too.

I would change the approach to assignments - it's not about kids being head's down, answering questions, but rather about a discussion with problem solving, team exercises, lab work, etc. I'm not sure if assessments would need to change (they might), but I think the grading breakdown should - class participation and activity must now be at least 50% of the student's grade.

The data shows that time-on-task helps performance, that it is possible to learn from steaming lectures, and that keeping students engaged is a challenge for teachers. Inverted classrooms could be an answer.

I would really like to see a sizable school district or maybe a whole State give inverted classrooms a try. I think it has incredible potential, and might actually transform learning in a way we've never seen before. Perhaps this is what President Obama and Secretary Duncan should provoke with their Race to the Top program.

is free free?

How do you make money and still sell things for free?? Inquiring minds want to know!

I'm fascinated by these business models - one approach is to lower the price and make it up in volume (examples include SouthWest Airlines, Walmart, Costco, etc.). Google zeroed the price altogether by turning the end user into the product and the advertiser into the customer - this was the first real step towards free at scale. Now free is expected, and if you're not ad-funded, it makes it hard to turn a profit... or does it?

Seth Godin wrote about righteous indignation and avalanche opportunities this week, and Krishna asked sure free is for users, but what about publishers? All three blogs apply to business models, how you can optimize your opportunities, create scale (which requires very broad reach), and make money.

While Seth was talking about customer service in the first, I see a different kind of righteousness - "I deserve to get paid, and I'm damned if I let someone take my stuff for free!!" As Krishna argued, it costs money to sell stuff for free; it's easy to understand why people feel indignant about it. Read Seth's second post (avalanche), and you learn that your boss *really* pays attention when you can demonstrate significant reach, outcomes, growth, etc., and you begin to think - the only way for me to break through and get customers to pay attention is to sell it for free.

Do you have to overcome the mentality of expecting to get paid for what you value most? Surely its what the customer values that counts! Not everything has to be for free - people will pay for some things - but what?

If I were an artist you liked and were to offer you my music CD for free, would you begrudge me charging you $4.95 for shipping (even if it only cost $1.25 to ship)??

If I were a chef you liked and offered you appetizers for free provided you bought the main course, would you "buy" (even though you know the main dish prices include the other costs)?

If I were to give you a car for free but charge you $10/gallon for the special fuel it needed, would you "buy" the car (even though you know you'll end up paying for the car in the end)?

Is Free *really* Free?

We all *really* know that deals like this are not truly free, they're just packaging. At the end of the day, any of these organizations needs to earn money in order to pay its employees, cover operating costs, etc. We recognize and respect this because we hopefully do, and want to keep getting paid ourselves.

What about Google? When you happily use their service, you might do so because they're a great company, have a great product and try not to be evil; but have you thought about how economically successful they are? Google employs more than 19,000 employees, earns more than $20 billion/year and achieves more than $4 billion in net profits. These are amazing numbers!

Lots of people had to pay Google cash so that they could be so profitable. These same people had to get paid to be able to afford to pay Google, and you and I (end users) had to have paid them to start this process.

Free isn't free - it's just damned good marketing. Or in Google's case, a brilliant business strategy of turning the customer into the product and selling it to someone else.

Where is the next "avalanche"?? I'm thinking it has something to do with aspects of reCAPTCHA and massively multi-player games. These are both brilliant innovations that are just scratching the surface of new paradigms of commerce.

Resourceful, Fearless, Passionate

Education in America is one of the most maligned institutions around. Everyone believes they have the silver bullet that will fix education once and for all. Off the top of my head and in no particular order, here are ten panaceas (by the way - how can "panacea" have a plural form??):

1. Class size
2. 21st century skills
3. STEM
4. Constructivism
5. Desegregation
6. Standards
7. Instructivism
8. Integrated curriculum
9. 1:1 laptops
10. Increased budgets

The thing Edu-America has done most consistently in the last century is wholeheartedly embrace fads - but like diet cures, with a dismal success rate. I couldn't come up with one example of when any of these has worked over time (sustained success) and at scale. Can you? As with diets, there is no miracle pill that takes no effort, has no side effects and maintains ideal and guilt-free health and fitness.

Ideas like "21st Century learning" freak me out. The nature of life is that things change - today's internet is yesterday's library or bookstore; today's cell phone is yesterday's letter (the kind you mail); today's podcast is yesterday's correspondence course... The only truth is that tomorrow will not be like yesterday. What "21st century" skill would not have been useful in the 18th century when this country was formed?

Mainstream schools today seem like the worst kind of sweatshops. If anyone in the education system needed a union, it's the students. When you find a school whose leadership is the strongest advocate for the students, you find a pretty good place to learn. They don't come at it with isms - that's not the path to greatness.

So what should a student be? How can school contribute to the graduate being more than the freshman?

If I had a child there are three things I'd want them to be - resourceful (find things, learn things, get things done), fearless (never let someone else's lack of imagination or inhibition stop you), and passionate (care about things, and share your ideas). Above these three, I'd want them to be filled with joy.

Shouldn't a school be able to contribute to this, be the place where creativity and exploration happen? Don't you want to be these three things as well?

Deciding what change a school system needs doesn't IMHO begin with standards or curricula or tests (and certainly not isms) - it begins by first describing what we want ourselves to be - making that our mission statement and building something that manifests that destiny. If you start with, say "we need more nerds," you're destined to fail as we've proven time and time again.

you had me at hello

This line (title) from Jerry Maguire is the holy grail of marketing. Seth Godin's blog about attention surplus made me ask myself: marketing tries to create awareness and consideration; but if people are exposed to increasing more messages, how do you break through - how do you get them at hello?

As Seth points out, there are a ton of free content channels out there, and bad marketers flood these outlets with generic "spray-marketing" content that likely yields much lower returns than traditional direct mail or advertising. People do it because it's perceived to be free, so what the hell. But, it's not free - it costs money to produce, it costs money to support and it costs money to respond to potentially spurious customers in the hopes of finding the real spenders. But there's an even higher cost - if you do it badly, there is a risk that your poor execution will be visible to millions, just like all those videos of dumb things people or companies do.

Treating your public "face" casually is never a good thing, and speaks volumes about your organization, its attitudes, and its commitment to its customers.

Seth talked about the attention drought. In the old days, there were very few channels to reach the individual consumer; if you had a successful one (really popular TV show, magazine, etc.), you were able to command a premium for advertising because people couldn't avoid the ads (Tivo + no remote controls), and you were much more likely (with a good ad) to create broad awareness. The market was hungry for it and would pay attention. Creativity trumped insight.

Today three things work against you - profusion of content, proliferation of channels, and easy tools to avoid consuming advertising. Add search engines to refine surfing and (if you're like me) the ability to ignore web ads, and most "traditional" marketing campaigns will struggle.

If in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, then in the land of the sighted, the one-eyed marketer is lost.

To get me at hello is to give me what I want when I want it and how I want it. Google and other search engines have tried this, and initially I think it worked really well because it was new, there weren't that many advertisers, people devoted a little (not a lot) space to it on their pages, and it was a novelty (just like TV ads in the 50s). But now there's too many ads, it's obvious where they are on the page, and they're easy to ignore.

Great marketing is about really (really) understanding your audience, what they need and care about, and then providing them what they want with ideas, words, and images that mean something to them. A very smart communications consultant told me that more often than not, people communicate in ways that are meaningful to them but not their audiences. He said that great communicators care not at all about how it looks to the speaker, but rather whether the listener/reader/watcher got what they wanted out of it.

The Internet and search engines have made the Long Tail real; they've led to people being able to very precisely state their need and find what they want. I fear that marketers are still mistakenly led by traditional approaches and metrics that applied in the old days when BIG reach was key. They ignore the real hard work of precisely identifying, segmenting and understanding your target audience, being able to craft a message and offer in a way that implicitly resonates with that audience, and then finding the ideal medium with which to reach them.

Find them, know them, care about them, and they will care about you. That's how you get them at hello.

nerd-up!

There's a conversation happening between luminaries in American industry, major players in the American philanthropic scene, leaders in the American education system, and some very senior and "in-the-know" people in the state and federal governments to figure out ways to grow the number of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)-skilled graduates in the United States. Specifically, there aren't enough students in elementary and high school with an interest in STEM and there aren't enough university graduates in STEM to fill current and future open positions.

Let me start by saying that I don't believe in isolating any one (or one set of) disciplines - good learning must be holistic and serve the complete child. I can't learn science well and sacrifice communications skills (reading, writing, speaking, etc.); I can't learn engineering well and sacrifice creativity (music, sculpting, painting, etc.); I can't learn any STEM discipline without a good (really good) sense of art and crafts (carpentry, etc.).

Making this about one and not the other creates a bifurcation of the education system that is wrong and unfair. My good friend Larry has decided he'll focus his schools on STEAM for this very reason (science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics) - I could agree more + I love the idea of steAm:-)!!!

How about this:

Overarching goal: every student must achieve their greatest academic potential.

STEM-focused goal: America will double the number of American-educated, successful STEM employees by 2020.

Situation:

• The forecast for STEM jobs in ten years is almost double the current population of STEM employees (i.e. at least 80% growth in jobs in 10 years)
• American junior and high school students drop out of STEM disciplines at alarming rates
• Graduates in general are weak in STEM basics irrespective of major
• Students are daunted by the sciences, and aren't captivated by how interesting (and well-paid) jobs in the sciences can be; it's also noteworthy that students normally decide (explicitly or implicitly) an interest in STEM before they reach grade 7
• Employers have done an abysmal job of engaging students and compelling them with opportunities in their organizations
• Philanthropy alone cannot sustain any major social (or other) change (it's incredible at sparking things, but it's not forever)
• In the rest of the world, families and institutions value STEM graduates tremendously; students are encouraged by their peers, families, employers, etc. to get in that game, and get some of that coin; and the results in these countries (like Korea for example) are outstanding, and at a lower cost-per-student than America

Truths:

• Employers are motivated by the following: making money, hiring the best talent, looking good (image) - let's not waste time on any other incentives - help them with these three and you win, everything else is crap
• Students are motivated by the following: getting laid, making money, looking good - let's not waste time on any other incentives - help them with these three and you win - everything else is crap
• Parents are motivated by the following: getting the kids gainfully-employed, becoming burden-free empty-nesters, being financially solvent - ibid
• Teachers & Administrators are motivated by the following: being employed, teaching students, preserving status quo - ibid
• Governments are motivated by the following: getting elected, being perceived as doing good, getting re-elected - ibid

If we want all schools to improve their curriculum and performance, the most sustainable way to do this, is to get the parents (voters) to demand it and expect it. If you want scale and sustainability, this is the ONLY way to do it. If you can achieve this, the governing bodies who seek reelection will find a way to make it happen, and I argue, make it happen without additional funds.

This is a marketing problem - if the demand is created, and elected stakeholders start feeling it from their constituents, outcomes will occur.

Some might think this trivializes the problem, but I've never heard of organized ingenuity (seems like an oxymoron), or broad, sustained, grassroots change (outside of declarations of war or the like) happening just because one person (irrespective of how charismatic, powerful or visible they are) said it should.

The real goal is to make STEM sexy (dare I say: "STEAMy" = Science + Technology + Engineering + Art + Math = yeah baby!).

Sustained, societal change requires a broad from the bottom-up movement that changes culture and expectations.

Solution:

I think we need to create a whole new concept and movement in America - I'm calling it "MInternship" - a combination of mentoring and internships.

Today, most American STEM firms get R&D tax credits for doing all that nerd stuff. I want to change the rule for getting the tax credits. From now on (beginning with the 2010 tax year), in order to qualify for any R&D tax credits, 100% of your R&D staff must mentor a student in grades 6-12. Each mentee must also intern in your organization for at least one week during the school year (not in one go, plus it counts as community service for the student), and optionally for an additional two weeks during the summer break - paid experience.

But please let's not make this exclusive to STEM - why not open this up to all industries - if you want your R&D or operating tax credits, this is the new cost of doing business - involve the future in the present.

It is an amazing opportunity for employers to reach out, identify and nurture stars, eventually hire them, and of course get those tax credits. It's huge for students because they get to be engaged in reality, identify with people who are doing great work, learn, and realize that this could be their vocation.

We marry this with a marketing campaign where we showcase and applaud nerds (Iron Man and Hulk are two pretty cool nerds, and both got laid (well Hulk almost did)!), with creative uses of media - targeting both parents and students. This campaign is a myth-busters campaign - we want everyone to know that nerd-smarts are absolutely attainable irrespective of gender, demographics, whatever; and we especially want everyone to know that nerds get paid really well, and better on average than other professions.

This marketing campaign has to show parents how important it is for them to focus on their children's academic time as an investment in independence, and how a great education is the key to being a successful empty-nester.

Result:

It will take some time - say 5-6 years, but if done right, this is a sustained and totally scalable approach to growing the American nerd (and otherwise) population - by creating a desire in the American ethos for a better education that is more closely connected to employment. We are also addressing the needs of each of the audiences identified above.

The problem with it is that it doesn't fit well with bureaucrats and politicians because it doesn't demonstrate direct and substantive results in the first year. (Though I'd challenge you to name five government programs that have.) But the key is to find answers that will be pervasive and live for a long time.

It will also be daunting because it's whacky, there were no committees formed, we didn't hire expensive consultants, and there were no 500-page PowerPoint presentations developed that demonstrated blah, blah, blah.

Let's hope that that group of people above will come to a dramatic and divergent conclusion, rather than live up to a most primo nerd (Einstein)'s definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

actually, "gov"-up

Creating a converged government is controversial, some of the comments I received (like J.R.'s) made me ask myself, "what if we could do a full tear-down and start over, what would the new house look like?" But before I get into that, as d.eris pointed out, the result would no longer be a federation, so instead of a federal government, there would be a national government, or just a government:-).

So... here goes - this is mostly about the process of getting elected, some of the political accountability and it touches on a couple of other aspects like taxation and some core national services. This is by no means exhaustive. Hopefully it provokes a debate about how things could be in iAmerica (i=imaginary;-).

Elections

There are only two kinds of elected officials - the President/VP and the 435 members of Congress; there is no Senate, nor of course are there any local officials. The President can run for one six-year term. Congresspeople can run for up to two four-year terms, and they overlap - so half the House is reelected every two years.

Campaign Financing

Actual or prospective government employees may not accept any kind of gift - public or private, cash or otherwise. To become a candidate, you must be nominated by 1% of your district's citizens, or 10,000 voters, whichever is less. Once nominated, you are entitled to $0.50 per voter in your district, or approximately $250,000 in government funds for your campaign. The presidential candidate follows roughly the same process, and is likewise constrained to $0.50/voter of national funding.

Voting

Voting is mandatory and fully electronic. The penalty for not voting is harsh - your tax bracket is raised to the next level until your vote is recorded (i.e. skip two elections and you're in a higher tax bracket for four years).

During the election (one month every two years), candidates must speak not only about their national interests, but also their local/district commitments. Each candidate must declare their ten most critical local priorities, which forms the basis of their "local" platform and part of the framework for their accountability to their voters.

Voting is a three-step process:

1. Indicate your top ten local issues/priorities based on the published list of each candidate's top ten (so if there are three candidates, you pick your hot issues based on the aggregated (30 or less, since some issues will overlap) candidates' list).
2. Vote for your Congressperson (you will also see how each candidate matches up to your top ten; if there is an incumbent, you see how they performed in support of your top ten issues).
3. Select your presidential candidate (potentially with a similar prioritization model).

By first being asked to prioritize the local issues you care about, we create a sensitivity to local needs for the eventual winner, plus the voter is now able to clearly see which candidate(s)' priorities are most closely aligned. It doesn't force you to vote for the best match, but at least you are making a more informed choice. Moreover, it is in the candidates' best interests to understand their voters' issues up-front and focus on the things at top of mind in their platform to create the most matches on voting day.

Reach

A mandatory electronic voting process includes the provision that the government provide every citizen with the means to do this. As you probably know, every wireless device in the world (phone or PC or whatever) has a unique (MAC or IMEI) address. The government must provide each citizen with a basic device (that is registered to their social security number; if the citizen chooses, they can purchase their own device, but each citizen must have a "registered" device).

This device will be provisioned with basic, free wireless access to deliver government services (voting, emergency services, information, potentially health care records (in a health vault of some kind), financial information (e-wallet), etc.). Each citizen will therefore be able to "connect" and vote wherever they are on Election Day. Since the incentive is quite powerful (see above), it is expected that turnout will be virtually 100%, ensuring that every individual's voice is heard.

Further, the system will capture local priorities (this could also be extended to national priorities), aggregated by district to ensure local needs are met, and when mapped to voting records, actual outcomes, etc., will create a powerful accountability model. I would imagine getting a quarterly report card on how my Congressperson is doing vis-à-vis the aggregated priorities of the district, and the ones I outlined.

This might create the perception of a more big-brother-ish society, but I think with the right regulatory safeguards, it actually creates the opportunity for a leaner, more accessible government, and a better-served citizenry.

Once Elected

The three branches of government remain intact, though Congress does have additional responsibilities.

Congresspeople are required to spend two-thirds (67%) of their time in their district, overseeing national agency focus and prioritization based on the local top ten issues, etc.; and one-third (33%) in Washington on national issues (education, health care, security, infrastructure, defense, etc.).

The local responsibility is much greater than in today's Congress. In this regard, Congresspeople act more like governors of their district. This will require a larger local staff, a deeper understanding of local needs and issues, as well as the ability and accountability for all of the constituents' governing needs.

Since the penalty for accepting private or commercial funds is termination, lobbyists will have a harder time creating influence. Congresspeople will also be judged based on their track record versus the priorities their district set out during the election; this will create a more powerful accountability dynamic, and given that they are required to "govern" their district as well, build a deeper appreciation and focus on the needs and challenges facing their constituents.

When in Washington D.C., Congresspeople will focus on national issues alongside the President. This process operates similarly to the current House, but with the dynamic of a multi-party system (vs. the two that currently dominate). As we've discussed here and here, I think a 3+-party system offers a better representation of the people's wishes, creates more moderated governance, and provides a stronger checks/balances model than we have now.

Checks and Balances

While in principle the federal/state/local model is a check/balance model, I don't believe it works in reality. Look at how much power the Feds wield during crises (9-11, Katrina, etc.), but more importantly, when you follow the money it's very clear that in the end, federal dollars are worth way more than local dollars. You only have to look as far as No Child Left Behind - the Feds account for only 9% of the total national education budget, and yet through NCLB, they basically defined an education model that dramatically altered every state's approach to education.

But if you want more evidence of this, ask any state or local official that you know how much time they have spent (as a percentage) trying to figure out how to maximize their access to federal funds (TARP, stimulus, or otherwise). It's now common for a city to have a stimulus package lobbyist in DC!

When a municipality or state is beholden to the Federal government for handouts, the checks and balances have evaporated. 

I therefore feel that the Congressional accountability model, change in their job descriptions, constraints to financing rules, and the multi-party approach, combined with the current Separation of Powers are enough to ensure an improved government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Taxation

There is only one form of taxation allowed in the country - a simple and progressive income tax. We would start from scratch and create a simpler tax policy for the country that achieved three things - enough income to operate the country (no deficit financing); the ability to set aside some funding as a national reserve; ideally operated so that the poorest third (or higher) of the population paid no taxes. Note that if you didn't vote in an election but were in the lower third of income earners, you would now be subject to taxation per the penalties of not voting.

National Standards

There will be national standards for things like education, health care, infrastructure (roads, air/marine traffic, etc.) and domestic and national security. These standards will ensure equal access to all resources for all people and across the country. Every school for example will operate under the same guidelines and expectations, much like this. In the same way, all roads, railways, airports, ports, etc. should be managed equitably.

Health care... that's a whole separate kettle of fish - I may write a separate post on this, but in the mean time, suffice it to say that today Americans are not the healthiest people in the world, and much work is needed to get them closer to good health. Defense - I believe this is a matter of foreign policy vs. global policy, where in almost every case, economic acts trump military acts.

As I began to write this, it became clear how expansive and complex this is. It raised to a higher notch my respect and admiration for the gentlemen that wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It made me realize how much they were able to accomplish with so few words. They were quite something.

In a related vein, I think these next-generation Congresspersons have an incredibly difficult job. In this new world, I think it might actually be the place where true impact is created, and where leadership and the qualities of being a great leader are tested and honed.

necessity and invention

I've been reading a lot about increased funding and expanded budgets for "innovation" in education lately. America spends a lot of money (among the highest) per student on public education; most people are unsatisfied with the results, and yet the prevailing strategy to improve things is to throw more money at the same system.

The Numbers:

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the 2005-2006 (the most complete data I could find) school year for public K-12 schools:

1. Total number of students: 49,113,000
2. Total number of teachers: 3,143,000
3. Spending per pupil: $9,154
4. Total operating budget: $449.6billion
   • Instruction $274.2billion - 60.98%
   • Support Services $157.1billion - 34.95%
   • Food $17.3billion - 3.84%
   • Enterprise Operations $1.0billion - 0.23%
5. Total budget: $528.7billion (#4 + $7.4b other current expenses, $57.4b capital outlays, $14.4b interest on loans)

ASIDE: According to the US Census Bureau's Public Education Finances report, of the $274.2b for Instruction, 89.8% or $246.2b goes towards teacher salaries and benefits ($78,334 per teacher). That's a pretty good wage these days, but as I've said before, I believe that teachers should be better-paid, and respected as peers to doctors, lawyers and engineers. Regarding this last point, I wonder then if it's time for teachers to secede from their unions? Most lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. are not union members; I wonder if being union members creates the impression of not being on an equal footing with those professions, and actually diminishes teachers?

I'm not judging whether the level of funding above is too much or too little for America. Let's say it's just right. Now combine this with the graph to the left, and it's pretty clear that the budget is big, and has and continues to grow very rapidly.

I don't know enough about the public sector, but in business when growth like this occurs, it is likely that bad habits form. People get lazy, money is not spent wisely, and consultants get hired to do what employees should be doing, or to provide management with a CYA safety net. Management gets in the rut of preserving the status quo/gravy train. Most organizations that survive past the rapid growth phase have to go back to the drawing board and rethink their whole business. They must develop a strategy re-defining success, specifying new resource allocation models, and advocating entirely new business processes and approaches in order to achieve their goals.

With the kind of funding growth education has enjoyed, I wonder if the administrators have simply been adding more $$ to existing line items - taking the easy way out?

Have they taken the time to form a strategy that establishes where the puck will be, enumerates and prioritizes their current resources, and defines a plan for how to get there? If the current budget won't get to the puck, they should first look inward, make trade-offs, and then demonstrate exactly how additional funding results in specific outcomes that other stakeholders want and would fund.

I've written before about how organizations can get waylaid by their own success, and the effect of size on performance. While both blogs were about commercial companies, I wonder if some of the same principles might apply to education?

At one time, the American education system was among the best in the world, and it appears that the formula from that era remains in force today despite many changes to the world around us. Why is that? Despite all the lip service paid to edu-evolution, except for very small pockets, the system appears to be just the same as it was two or three generations ago. It feels like Education is trying as hard as it can to live up to this Peter Drucker quote.

Can education achieve innovation when increased funding is not a part of the picture? If necessity is the mother of invention, is it possible that the constant increases in funding have resulted in precisely the wrong (zero-innovation) outcome?

Humans tend to think most creatively when their backs are against the wall, and they have to adapt or die. If put in that situation, would the American education system find a completely new and innovative way to achieve its goals? I think it's possible.

It takes leadership to achieve this, but I don't see the present administration (President Obama or Secretary Duncan) taking this on. We remain in desperate need of an education sensei to lead us.

tinkering

My good friend Larry pointed me to a fantastic presentation by John Seely Brown on tinkering. The ten minutes you invest in listening to John is well worth it.

Where to begin. First - I think back to times I'd spend with my father, fixing his car, or an appliance, or building something (he is a tinkerer:-)), and how I osmotically learned about machinery or design, and most importantly, how I learned to decompose a problem and then solve it bit by bit until it was complete.

This approach also taught me to be bold. I can't overstate this - when you are working on a problem beside someone whom you trust and who knows more, you are more likely to try things because you know s/he is there to help/rescue/fix you if something goes wrong. When you're learning alone or in a typical classroom setting this type of "support" might not be available for two reasons - creativity and exploration is generally discouraged (a crime IMO), and often the teacher or tutor is dealing with too many students to actually be there at the precise time the one child is at the point of trying something.

As I've gotten older, I'm emboldened (because I learned how to "fix on the fly") to the point where I can now explore, experiment and create, and actually enjoy it! This is how we will build the leaders of tomorrow, by giving them the ability and confidence to do things, to try things, and to seek the joy of learning, and sharing.

"Playing with Knowledge"

I love this phrase. The idea of create, reflect and share is very familiar. About a month ago, this same "Larry" and I had breakfast together and talked about many things, including the failure of standards in learning. During that conversation, he described his view of learning - observation, reflection, documentation, exhibition. I know that Larry and John are two peas in a pod on this:)! The share/exhibition aspect can't be overlooked, whether it is in a gallery, a school hallway, or teaching another student (as John suggests), learning is cemented during this process - yet, the education system today rarely offers students this opportunity, favoring regurgitation instead (another crime IMO).

This process of continuous learning and teaching is crucial. When Einstein (thanks Larry:)) spoke these words, he was talking about discovery, which I see as implicit and tied into the learning process above, and brought to life through exhibition.

Exhibition has another aspect - it requires creation - often physical and tangible creation. The creation process enables us to evolve to not just a way of learning and teaching, but also a way of improving. When work in progress is shared (as my father did with me), we were both able to improve it, I as the observer might have had an idea that my father as constructor didn't and after some discussion and experimentation, who knows, maybe together, we created something better, just because we shared.

But we did more than share, we critiqued each others efforts as well, not maliciously or judgmentally, but productively. Building the skill to do that and having the strength to accept it is so fundamental in school, because let's face it, it's certainly there (positive and negative) in real life.

I wish our public school system were bold enough to embrace this approach. The possibilities for its graduates would be limitless.

This blog is one way in which I tinker - it results from my observations of the world; how I reflect (and synthesize) what I see; an articulation; and then my favorite part - the exhibition, where when shared, I have the pleasure of learning from others (you) through their (your) willingness to share.

Thank you.

thirds

First, sorry for the lapse in writing - I've been in Japan since just after the fourth, and in Kyoto for the first time - what a wonderful city!

It is election season in Japan, and I learned some interesting things about their process. First, the election laws in Japan are old and quite arcane - according to the BBC and Newsweek, once an election starts, you may not create new websites or update existing ones; you can only distribute so many posters or leaflets to a very small percentage (less than 5%) of your constituency; there are many others. Second, there is no interest on the part of the politicians to change the system! The politicians (I should say incumbent politicians) want to make it as difficult as possible, to impede opponents/upstarts from gaining ground.

This surprised me: only 95% of Japanese in their 20s surf the web, and only a third of them vote. The Japanese think that makes sense: "Young people shouldn't be involved, ...because they're not serious enough or they don't have the education." What's more, most of the politicians are in their 70s like Senator McCain, and recognize that their online savvy isn't comparable to their grand children's. Again the incumbent party (LDP) is old, entrenched and knows that 79% of Internet users in Japan would vote for the DPJ, so they've impeded it.

We've had a great conversation on this blog about the viability of a third party in the American political system. There's a lot of theoretical argument against it, d.eris (here and on his blog) and Dale Shelton have both mentioned Duverger's Law, and the nature of the American politic which impedes a multi-party system.

But in Canada they've shown that multi-party systems can survive, often beginning regionally (for example the Bloc Québécois is a totally regional party, but still a national force, while the New Democratic Party began in Western Canada, but is now a fully-national party). Canada, like the US has a system where only one party or candidate can win in a given district, and yet critical mass can and has occurred; multiple parties are flourishing.

I think the American system has the same "mentality" as the Japanese LDP. It believes it's OK to disenfranchise whomever it wants to as long as the incumbents prevail (can you say "redistricting"?). Perhaps American politicians will take a lesson from the citizens of Iran, who have demonstrated that when they're pushed far enough, they will rise up and insist that their voices are heard.

Further to what I wrote in threeway anyone? - this is the first time in history that it is possibly to directly reach practically every voter in the United States - all you need is their mobile phone number. Moreover, because of the technology proficiency gap between the contemporaries of most of today's politicians and the 18-29 year-old demographic, it is fair to assume that the 18-29 year-olds are actually more reachable and more interconnected than any other demographic in history.

This convinces me that it is possible to organize a national party or at a minimum a strong regional party (both coasts + cities like Chicago, Austin, other university towns, etc.) that would dramatically alter the political landscape and balance of power in Congress. I don't think it'll take something as dramatic as recent events in Iran to create a groundswell, it might be much simpler - perhaps the next mortgage-the-future spending proposal by the President or Congress?

233

Eleven score and thirteen years ago, a document was signed - it demanded greatness from a people and a place. The principles were simple - we must honor and respect everyone, and celebrate each person's right and opportunity to achieve their best. It set the stage for incredible achievements on so many fronts.

A tradition of success can be fraught - generations grow up expecting results, expecting preeminence, and expecting the ride to be easy. The mindset of being owed outcomes creates complacency. The reality of sure and steady economic growth creates a sense of entitlement. When this happens, I think beginnings and ends are most overlooked - beginnings = education, ends = retirement - because people are most focused on the middle. A good social safety net also gets ignored because prosperity seems so attainable for anyone.

But when times do get tough as they are now, these three are most tested. Today we recognize that each has much room for improvement. In the spirit of America's history, we need revolutions in education, retirement and social safety nets to reach or restore greatness.

Revolutions are of course not a foreign concept in America, nor is heroism, creativity or leadership. Two months ago, I wrote something about a path towards peace that I felt was worth repeating:

Last week I wrote about a new diplomatic approach to the Middle East that began with an apology; achieving this won't be easy - people have emailed me saying that this is too high a price to pay, and too difficult a task for America to achieve. But today I was watching part 2 of the 20 Hours in America episode of the West Wing, and President Bartlet's speech that closes with a reference to a terrorist incident at a school.

...restoring abundance amid an economic shortfall, securing peace in a time of global conflict, sustaining hope in this winter of anxiety and fear. More than any time in recent history, America's destiny is not of our own choosing. We did not seek nor did we provoke an assault on our freedom and our way of life. We did not expect nor did we invite a confrontation with evil. Yet the true measure of a people's strength is how they rise to master that moment when it does arrive. 44 people were killed a couple of hours ago at Kennison State University. Three swimmers from the men's team were killed and two others are in critical condition. When, after having heard the explosion from their practice facility, they ran into the fire to help get people out. Ran into the fire. The streets of heaven are too crowded with angels tonight. They're our students and our teachers and our parents and our friends. The streets of heaven are too crowded with angels, but every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we're reminded that that capacity may well be limitless. this is a time for American heroes. We will do what is hard We will achieve what is great. This is a time for American heroes and we reach for the stars. God bless their memory, God bless you and God bless the United State of America. Thank you. Source.

The emphasis above is mine. I am not American but I live in the United States. Living with, working with, and knowing the people who live where I now do, I am convinced that even if the people in that practice facility were known to be Middle Eastern Muslims, the swimmers from the men's team would have run into the fire without a second thought.

This speech always touches me, it fills me with pride and purpose, and it brings a tear to my eye. It convinces me that I'm right to be optimistic, despite sorry being the hardest word.

Education, Retirement and a Social Safety Net are difficult, difficult problems, but if America opens its mind to new ideas and creates a sense of urgency, I know it can spark the revolution that will create greatness.

Happy 233rd.

free at last?

Chris Anderson has sparked quite the debate with his latest book, Free (MSRP: $26.99(!)). Malcolm Gladwell wrote Priced to Sell, expressing skepticism about the book, Seth Godin responded with Malcolm is wrong, and Marc Cuban went on to draw the distinction between Free vs. Freely Distributed.

Chris, Malcolm, Seth and Marc are all brilliant and accomplished; as Seth pointed out, it's an amazing expression of "free" that we're able to read their words for free (except the actual book:-). We must celebrate that people like C, M, S & M freely share their ideas and more than that, actively engage in debate. This is a testament to one kind of free.

Evolving Business Models

Free (truly free) is rare. Unlike commoditization which is altogether common. For me, it centers on the business model. In high-tech it began with IBM - their model was superior customer service and sales. They prioritized the customer (mostly big, big organizations), were fully intimate with their priorities, industry, politics and people. There was truth in the statement "you never get fired for buying IBM." They always stood with you. They priced hardware steeply, but wrapped it in a cushion of service and support that was unequaled and highly valued.

Then came Microsoft - they prioritized the product and the channel. The built a partner community like no other, paid attention to independent application developers, who understood their end customer and built great applications that dragged Microsoft's "platform" technology along. Microsoft commoditized hardware - their platform software ran on a bunch of different gear, which meant that the customer could shop around for the best price, knowing that the "value" lay above the hardware in the software. This forced IBM to change its business model from hardware-biased to service focused.

Now we have Google - they turned the game on its ear brilliantly. Why make the customer pay at all? Let's make the end user the product, and sell access to it. Google's advertising approach turned both hardware and software into commodities (doesn't matter what kind of computer or browser or whatever is "underneath"). This is powerful, and why many hardware and traditional application or platform software companies are struggling.

It's ironic that success (to be pervasive and set the standard) leads to others copying you, the bar rising, a loss of differentiation, and a new addition to the ranks of commodity.

The big question is - what will commoditize Google?? In its heyday no-one believed IBM would be usurped. Similarly for Microsoft. It's not clear what follows Google - but you'd better believe someone will, yet again changing the game. IBM's model lasted for a couple of generations, Microsoft's for barely a generation; the pace is accelerating.

Mired in Paradigms

Sadly, each organization is/was so entrenched in their model that they dismissed the new entrant as spurious. Even when the new model had taken hold, the incumbents persisted in staying the course to extract every last drop of milk out of their cash cow. Despite being repeatedly kicked in the head, they still believed they were right and should not abandon what got them there.

What will threaten Google? Is it possible to commoditize or replace the ad-clicking consumer? Is there a new kind of channel? Will Google buck the trend and be the author of the change that out-modes their current model?

According to yesterday's Harvard's Daily Stat, the "Internet" (US numbers only) employs 1.2m people = $118 billion in wages and it drives $175 billion in direct transactions ($20b advertising + $85b retail txns + $70b to Internet service providers). 11% of the Internet business is advertising, a full 40% is for Internet access, and the balance (about half) is web-fronted purchases. While big, advertising is not #1. The massive majority (89%) is the consumer buying things.

The Next Model

Google's genius was finding a way to transfer the direct payment obligation away from the end consumer and putting it in the hands of the advertiser (consumers do pay for advertising, it's just hidden). What would happen if people stopped clicking on ads? What would happen if advertisers found the ROI of web-based ads to be lower than alternate channels? Would that be the end of "free"??

I will pay for something I value. I might take it if it's free, but it has "free value" vs. real value to me. If I had to pay, I probably wouldn't take it.

In his article, Gladwell referenced consumers choosing a 15cent chocolate vs. the 1cent alternative; when they lowered both prices by a penny, they chose the now free chocolate. Is that more about convenience than value? Since you have to open your wallet anyway, the price becomes less of an issue, and you may as well get what you really want, provided you think it's worth it. Could this be the crux of the "next" thing? Making buying easy?

Apple, Amazon and others make this somewhat possible with iTunes/AppStore/One-Click-Shopping, or Starbucks charging your credit card with no need to sign - just swipe and done. I think people increasingly expect to get knowledge and insight (news, books, articles, etc.) for free; but outside of that, I'm not sure that free is mandatory. Take music or movies, while some people will download for free via a Torrent or something else, most do pay. In fact, artists that offer "pay what you want" downloads of music on their sites, often make more than the 99cents that iTunes charges.

Will it be this simple? Frictionless transactions or a new, more effective advertising medium? Or is there something else out there that is fundamentally shape-changing? I suspect the latter...

threeway anyone?

My last post about the Sovietization of America and the comments by J.R. and Erin got me to thinking about multi-party (vs. one or two-party) politics:

One-party politics is a sham. But it is also the closest thing to an ideal government provided you have the luxury of an integrity-filled, un-bribable, benevolent dictator. If you don't have that, it's a false democracy, and just plain sucks.

Two-party politics is by definition polarizing. There is no way for one to prevail over the other if they are so similar that it's hard to tell them apart. Each of the two parties has to stake out ground that is sufficiently different from the other that the constituents have a clear choice to make. Further, the issues need to be sufficiently provocative as to elicit powerful emotional responses from proponents of either view (ex. religion, security, abortion, etc.).

Another aspect you might not have thought about - two-party systems make it really easy for special interest groups to form and flourish. The parties themselves help because they've chosen opposing views on highly polarized issues. By promoting and advocating their views, they create a population that is violently for or against the issue, and the special interests get to prey on these people for funding and activism.

Two-party systems are shockingly divisive, you only have to look at the last presidential election to see proof of this. The combative and vitriolic tone was such that witless citizens actually began to believe the rhetoric, and suddenly the opposing leader became a terrorist or evil incarnate or worse. How sad, and how wrong.

Three-party politics can get very interesting. America saw a hint of this recently with Senator Liberman's defection from the Democratic party. Did you notice how much power he had all of a sudden? In a tight, often deadlocked Senate, he was a deciding vote, and hence actively courted by both parties. One person/party ended up wielding much more power was their due...

Now imagine if there were three parties in the US - D, R, and X. Say that D and R are the incumbents, and X was formed Nov 6, 2008 - just after the presidential election. X is centrist (fiscally conservative and socially liberal), and led and funded by the 18-29 year-old demographic [worth reading this article about shifting electoral tides]. It engages via non-traditional means (no TV advertising, purely e-focused, therefore requiring relatively little funding); it is led by university student activists and leaders, and new economy business leaders. Importantly, it hardly ever competes with either D or R for mind-share, since it doesn't go after traditional R&D issues, nor does it target traditional D&R strongholds (seniors, unions, religious groups, etc.).

In the mid-term elections, X is able to convert 45 D and 15 R seats, resulting in the following mix in the House: D:210, R:163, X:60. Since a majority vote = 218, neither party can win a vote without X, but either D+X or R+X (or D+R) can prevail.

In the end, all three parties will moderate their positions because none of the three can go it alone anymore. The more polarizing the proposition, the more likely it is to be discarded. Ideally, the three parties might also come together to pass anti-lobbying and campaign finance reforms.

Some of you might be thinking "what if it goes the other way" - imagine if instead of X, the new party that formed was G**2 (G-squared). Let's say G**2 stands for Guns and God. They splinter off of the existing R party and manage to get 40-50 candidates elected. Now you have an altogether different dynamic - R becomes the new X (it is socially moderate, and fiscally conservative); in most cases, D and R will work together, moderate their positions, and annex G**2. At some point, G**2 will become completely fractionalized.

Impact of Original D, R & X:

• Both R and D have to court X, but because X is centrist and doesn't care about all of R or D's issues, nor are they competing in R or D's strongholds, R & D will have to moderate their positions to even reach X.
• The special interests and lobbyists are thrown in a tizzy (technical term) - their ability to influence votes is diminished, and they are unable to affect change on issues X cares about by going to their traditional D or R representatives. Those guys simply don't have the votes to make change happen anymore, and X voters don't really spend money on this crap:-)!
• In 2012, if X has been effective, it will vie for 2-3 Senate seats and grow its House base by 4-6 seats. It will maintain its e-engagement model and continue to require minimal funding to reach its audience.

A three-party system would absolutely change the dynamic in American politics. Moreover, this is the perfect time for a well-organized X party for and by the 18-29 demographic to take hold and flourish.

What do you say? Would you vote for X?

epic movements

How do you create a global movement? What does it take to start something that sufficiently compels the leaders of governments around world to make the necessary trade-offs on a national scale to make change happen?

About a month ago, I had the opportunity to spend 30 minutes on the phone with Steve Killelea - a very interesting fellow who has taken on an equally interesting mission - global peace. To do this, Steve decided to make peace tangible - define it, quantify it, and build a model that allows each country to be assessed and ranked so that government leaders can see how they compare to each other, and take action.

As our conversation went on, he said that there were three causative factors for peace - income per capita, perception of corruption, and education. So the wealthier, more educated and less corrupt you are, the more likely you are to be peaceful - kinda makes sense. I also learned that the biggest driver of change in a country's ranking is domestic stability; Mexico for example has fallen significantly due to its drug-related issues.

Around the same time, I had the good fortune of previewing the premier of the upcoming NOVA scienceNOW season, where I learned about Luis von Ahn, and in particular this really cool idea he has called GWAP - games with a purpose. von Ahn is a fascinating and rather divergent thinker - he's done some brilliant and powerful work in a variety of areas - watch the NOVA episode when it airs to learn more.

Going back to Killelea's GPI (global peace index), I think it's a bizarrely interesting idea to quantify peace (I would have thought of it like porn - you know it when you see it:-)). First, I think you have to be very sure of your data before you publish - there are some numbers that I do question - the USA is absolutely not 99% literate, nor with a 75% (or less) high school graduation rate is post secondary enrollment 82%. I say this because the countries that this Index needs to influence are those that will dismiss the analysis (which I think is worthwhile) based on any error, and then we're nowhere.

I think for Killelea (or anyone) to create geopolitical change, there needs to be a really (really) big hammer - it's called the power of the people. There's no way you're going to pressure the USA (ranked #83 - remember the three factors - education, corruption and wealth!) to do anything differently without two actions - demonstrate the profundity of their impact, and get their citizens to viscerally understand how widely-felt their country's acts are, and start the change from within (witness recent events in Iran).

To do the first, the Peace Index must include a coefficient of influence for every country that measures and demonstrates the ripple effect on other countries of their malfeasance. So if America does something untoward, the impact spreads well beyond her borders to affect XX other countries. In this way, the whole world can see how interdependent it is, and each country will know just how much it's harshing on everyone else off with its actions. This can be an incredible motivator - both for the one country and those that are affected by its actions.

To do the second, we must humanize. Let's bring Luis von Ahn back into the mix. I think his GWAP is unique in how it connects with people's insides. The two gents need to collaborate and build a game (or other vehicle) that can go seriously viral, that shows people exactly how their government creates un-peace, how it affects them, and then helps them understand and play out approaches to shift the balance so that the country becomes peaceful from within - as Kellelea stated, domestic issues are the biggest driver of changes in ranking - let the people act!

Global change comes from within - let the people be the change they seek.

criminal freedom

The Social Science Research Network published an analysis which concludes that when you criminalize a thing, it becomes institutionalized. The example the author (Aaron Simowitz) chose is prostitution; Aaron's paper is divided into five parts - to quote his abstract (my emphasis):

Part I of this paper will examine the practice of prostitution in North America prior to the prohibitionist and criminalization campaign ushered in by the Progressive Era. Part II will examine this campaign and the immediate effects it had on the organization of prostitution. Part III will demonstrate that prostitution, particularly in urban centers, achieved a remarkable degree or organization and structure shortly after criminalization. Part IV notes that the independent contactor [sic] model that typified the 19th century in North American remains prevalent in the Dutch system of prostitution, a radically different framework owing to the absence of criminalization. Part V will set out an analysis of the forces behind the criminalization to institutionalization link. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the policy implications of better understanding the relationship between criminalization and institutionalization.

When something gets criminalized, the government abdicates oversight; by making something illegal (i.e. against or outside the law), the law is no longer available to control it. The only power the law has is to say it's wrong, and describe the penalties. Everything else is literally outside the law.

So what happens? When the legal system or any other legal oversight mechanism is unavailable, the void doesn't stay empty for very long - it gets filled by those opportunists that have something to gain. By definition, these people operate outside the law. But without oversight, they have have free reign, as long as they have good lawyers and know and how to avoid being found out or being penalized. In very short order, they form their own rules, their own policies and processes, and hence build a vibrant institution that's outside the law.

Yesterday I proposed that the US government get in the business of drug production and distribution; I was serious. Why? Because you can't change things without being a part of them. History has shown us that regulation is participation, but criminalization is abdication. If we don't care to get involved, we are not likely to control the outcome.

40 years of failure to legally control drug production, distribution and usage in the United States combined with a worsening drug situation for the country should point to the fact that staying outside the game is not working - we need to get in the thick of it.

By getting involved, we can control and regulate usage; by decriminalizing, we de-romanticize the idea of drugs; by being a part of it, it is possible to proactively treat people who have a drug problem; "Drugs America" should eventually work itself out of a job by making treatment and prevention a priority, and hopefully reduce demand, impede "external" suppliers and eventually reduce the problem to the point where it can be managed.

What's next? Prostitution America? Getting in the game is always better trying to influence it from the outside.

criminal addiction

Former Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske was interviewed on the local NPR station yesterday about his recent confirmation as the new head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Kerlikowske stated that he was removing the phrase "war on drugs" from the ONDCP's lexicon which is nice, but he will not put decriminalization on the table, which is a shame.

America's obsession with criminalizing everything and putting all miscreants behind bars is well known, and has contributed to this country having by far the largest percentage of incarcerated adults on the planet (only 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the jailed population). The greatest contributor to growing the criminal ranks was President Nixon, who in 1969 declared a war on drugs, specifically against producers, distributors and consumers of substances including marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and illicitly-obtained prescription drugs.

This morning I read an article in Scientific American on the impact of a change in drug-related legislation in Portugal. I didn't realize that for most of this century, Portugal has had the most liberal drug laws in Europe. I would have guessed the Netherlands; this very religious (mostly Catholic) and socially conservative country would never have occurred to me.

By changing the laws so that personal possession of drugs (including the ones mentioned above) resulted not in jail but the offer of therapy, Portugal was able to reduce the number of teens doing drugs, drug-related HIV infections, and most critically, more than double the number of people seeking treatment for addiction. Portugal has the lowest rate (10%) of lifetime marijuana use among EU countries with those over 15. The most comparable US statistic (for people over 12) is 39.8%. The Portuguese have done all this and saved money - the cost of therapy is lower than imprisonment, and with successful therapy, former addicts are able to become contributing members of society more quickly.

The ultra-hard stand America has taken during its 40-year war against drugs has resulted in four times higher use of marijuana compared to Portugal, who decriminalized drugs in 2001. Despite all of her efforts, America has the highest per capita usage of cocaine and marijuana in the world.

I suppose those in favor of current policy would argue that it would be worse if the laws were more lenient, that we should have even more stringent rules, and they'd dismiss the Portuguese results as an aberration, or those of a much smaller country that doesn't compare to the USA.

I think the current approach has failed; there are not only more addicts in this country, but we're spending increasingly more money only to achieve increasingly worse results. Change is required, and should have two parts:

I. Decriminalize

The US must decriminalize personal use of drugs. This must also apply to (and hence release) all those currently in jail for what is now legal. Like the Portuguese, panels (a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser) must be formed to handle every case, and the government must also ensure adequate treatment capacity for everyone who seeks it. This will end up costing less than the current cost of finding, arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating drug users. It will also free up the criminal courts to handle other cases, and reduce their backlog. The only losers will be the lawyers, and on this I agree with Shakespeare.

II. Control

This might be a tad more controversial. Paul Atreides (main character in Frank Herbert's Dune series) once said of another drug (the spice melange), "He who can destroy a thing controls a thing." In the same vein, the American government needs to think of alternative approaches to enforcing the production and distribution of drugs. Much of this begins outside the borders of America, which makes it very difficult.

What if the United States government became the largest (and only) domestic marijuana, cocaine and heroin producer and distributor in the country? They would be able to regulate production, quality, distribution and pricing. Imagine the impact. By out-pricing foreign suppliers, they could reduce the impact of players like the Central American and Afghan drug cartels. By controlling quality, they could reduce health risks; and by controlling distribution, they would eliminate a whole other tier of criminals.

Then we must use the profits to pay for therapy and addiction centers; contribute to national health care, education; and maybe even lower the deficit :-). I'm not saying the motivation for this should be revenue, rather, that the revenue should be put to good use, first to reduce the effects of drugs in the society, second to reduce addiction, and then to contribute to other worthwhile efforts if possible.

After blindly failing for 40 years, it's time we opened our eyes. Addiction is not a crime, but treating addicts as criminals is. We need radical approaches to solving the problem.

co-creating futures

Like David Warlick, I had not read this wonderful Chinese quote before:

If you are thinking a year ahead - plant seeds;
If you are thinking 10 years ahead - plant a tree;
If you are thinking 100 years ahead - educate the people

In the next breath I read Dean Sharesky's latest posting about how the book destroyed the community. Then I remembered Scott McLeod's recent post on what students want in an e-textbook - see the graphic on the right.

Together, these three are a most powerful argument. The first sets the context - it speaks of the power of education and its impact on the destiny of a people. The second refers to a predisposition (perhaps a desire to live in the past) that the way they learned something or did something is superior to what's available now or what happens now. The third speaks to what the current student generation wants in order to successfully shape its destiny and create the best tomorrow (and today) possible.

Dean has built a persuasive "business case" to rethink the nature and role of traditional paper books, and their real implications. I must admit I had never thought of books as an anti-community catalyst, though it's hard to argue the point given Dean's post. Moreover it also opens up the question of whether a traditional book is even the best way to read.

I love books and read as much as I can, but surely there are better ways to enrich the conversation? There is an argument that a book sparks the imagination and helps create a more vivid experience and impression of the author's story. I would normally agree, but then I look at how my good friend Clyde Ford has incorporated an enriched geo-spatial dimension in the e-experience of his latest book Precious Cargo; and now believe that this is actually a much better, more vivid, and imagination-sparking approach to reading.

There is a tendency to view technology as an anti-social medium. But in talking with Clyde, I know his vision is for adults and children alike to interact with his book. To learn virtually first-hand about the places his characters traveled, visualize, annotate, share their impressions and experiences, and ideally be inspired to show off their own world (both real and imagined) using similar (or what the heck, altogether different!) tools and techniques. He believes that this is a way to spark a broader embracing of literariness, literature and self-expression. I agree.

I also think it's a way to evolve the mainstream definition of literature and expression, and maybe even learning. If mashups were one starting point for this journey, why not expand the idea and open books up to the same capability? Might that inspire more people to read and express? Might it inspire deeper learning and understanding? If greater learning occurs through the process of teaching, then I think so.

Talking of self-expression, Scott has pointed us to a fantastic analysis that shows what students want in order to become better learners.

Participation creates vestedness - if students participate in the design and potentially creation of their texts, then don't we get better results? If people in general are able to participate in the consumption (and creation) of content, don't we get improved appreciation of that content?

Isn't that the ideal outcome?

the "Ed"

Andrew Rotherham recently pointed to a McKinsey analysis of national education data. A few things jumped out at me after a quick scan of the supporting materials to the article:

• We can learn from our neighbors (Canada is among the highest performing countries)
• We can spend less money (the US spends more per achievement outcome than anyone else)
• We can create more potential (effective graduates)
• That potential is worth a lot (the more graduates you have, the greater your GDP)

Then there's something missing - there has to be, otherwise how could the American education not be be better than it is?

If you were told: "You can spend less to create a better product that will make you more money, and one of the best examples of this is your next-door neighbor." Wouldn't you do it?

What are we missing??

This reminds me of The Karate Kid, a coming of age film where a boy learns how to defend himself from a group of thugs with the help of his Japanese superintendent. The Super starts him off with some work around his house, painting the fence, washing the floor, waxing the car - all done in a very specific way. After doing all these seemingly meaningless chores, the boy gets angry and frustrated, and that's when the old man, with a slew of attacks, shows him that he's unknowingly built the muscles and reflexes that are the essence of self-defense!

The sensei was wise, proven and savvy enough to know what elemental skills the boy needed, how best to teach them to him, and once these seemingly unrelated skills were mastered, he helped the boy realize that he had learned something altogether different.

The American education system needs a sensei. Someone with the wisdom and guile to craft a profound outcome out of a series of seemingly unrelated acts that suddenly explode on the American people,  forming the basis of a great education system.

The traditional approach is based on the Everett Rogers Innovation Diffusion Curve to the left. School teachers fit this curve very nicely. The most visible, Web 2.0, twittering blogger-types are all in the Innovators category, with Early Adopters, the Majorities, and maybe a slightly bigger than smaller category of Laggards.

But the Innovators are too far ahead of everyone else, so much so that the mainstream simply can't connect with them. Traditionally, the Early Adopters would bridge the gap to the Majorities and help pull them along into the future, and while this is how grassroots/organic change will happen in education, I think this process is too slow and too fragmented to yield meaningful results by itself. Moreover, the Majorities have enormous inertia and inadequate incentives to be receptive to quantum change.

We need a catalyst (sensei) with unimpeachable authority and strength, based on wisdom and experience to create the circumstances where "epiphanically" a national transformation occurs. It might take a decade to happen, but we all know it will, because our sensei is just that good.

I wonder - who is the Peter Drucker of Education?

Where is this person who has the chops and cred to be able to make profound change happen? And how would it happen?

It's time for America to create a non-political, national sister organization to the Federal Reserve/Ben Bernanke for Education.

We could call it "the Ed."

We just need to find our sensei.

business habitats

I had a meeting yesterday in Beijing next to The Place, which sports one of the most amazing open-air displays I've ever seen. A colleague (David Ho) and I were talking about organizational structures, my recent post on corporate brittleness, and his perspective from living in Hong Kong and working across Asia. He came up with this really fascinating idea - that organizations have no choice but to form according to the habitat they inhabit - we had to cut our conversation short when the rest of the group showed up, so I hope David doesn't mind me riffing on this.

If we define a habitat as a social, physical space with a pre-defined set of rules and expectations, then here are a couple of examples:

America - hierarchical, ever-abrupt, time-centered, measured by quarterly performance, driven by MBAs, lawyers, and a lot of management layers. Success is defined by the last deal closed, funds are raised based on a frenetic performance rate, and sustainability is a marketing gimmick. Business is done quickly, without preamble and concluded with a strong, manly handshake as a demonstration of personal and corporate prowess.

Asia - hierarchical, sometimes abrupt, far-sighted, deliberate, outcomes measured in decades, driven by familialness, protocol, a complex, interconnected socio-corporate lattice. Success is much like a game that takes minutes to learn and a lifetime to master, Go - it's all about occupying as much space that you can hold on to for the long haul as possible. Funds are raised based on navigating that same lattice with proven ideas, trustworthiness and long-standing relationships. Business is done when the time is right, minds have met, bonds have formed, subtleties explored, and ideals intertwined. There is more preamble than not and a strong handshake connotes weakness, bluster and a profound lack of substance (read: "walk softly and carry a big stick").

Is it any wonder that operating outside one's habitat is so difficult? It's akin to a baseball player taking home run swings at fastballs, only to suddenly notice that the "pitcher" is actually playing badminton. "Steeerike Three!!"

I bet most companies don't even realize that they live in and instinctively behave according to the rules of their habitat. They are so immersed that it is nigh impossible to perceive the forest from their tree. If they have a better sense of their habitat, they'd traverse it more effectively, and use its rules to their advantage. More critically, if they aspire to do business in other habitats, their capacity to understand how they are regarded from the outside based on the filter that the other habitat uses will be of tremendous advantage, and misinterpreting this a most significant risk. Of course one must also understand the premise, rules and traditions of the other habitat.

I am reminded as ever of the words of history's most brilliant strategist (Chinese as it turns out), Sun Tzu:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. -- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Master the Art of War, for it deciphers the rules of all habitats. One hopes that more MBA schools discover this text - who knows - maybe that'll lead to the occasional single or double.

the brittle truth

I heard this great quote on a TV show called Naruto: "anything that has form must one day decay."

Besides asking what the heck I was doing watching Naruto in the first place, I wondered why things get brittle as they age? Is it size? Ego? Sedentaryness? For inanimate objects, it feels like they just dry up - grapes to raisins, plums to prunes, etc. - not a happy thing. I imagine a person's "water content" also diminishes over time...

-- Oops - sorry about that - I felt oddly compelled to get a drink of water just then.

So why does it feel like the older (and larger) an organization gets, the more it "retains water"?? When organizations decay, they don't shrink and dry up, they ...congeal. Besides the "yuk" & "eeew -- gross" factor, this pendulous, ineffectual, slug-like behavior could have some dramatic effects on the world around them:

Apparently, 7,100 (or 47%) of the 15,000 air traffic controllers in the US will hit their mandatory retirement age in 2012. I don't know about you, but this doesn't make me sit back, relax and enjoy the flight!

I'm not an actuarial scientist, I didn't eat Wheaties for breakfast or sleep at a Holiday Inn Express, despite this even I can deduce that:

1. People do age (duh!)
2. It takes time to train an air traffic controller
3. The skies are crowded as it is, and we already have a lot of "close calls"
4. Planes aren't going to be replaced with Star Trek transporters anytime soon

The numbers:

1. There are 15,000 air traffic controllers today (we'll need 16,000 by 2012)
2. 3,500 of the 15,000 are in training (so there are really only 11,500 fully-qualified controllers)
3. The Department of Transportation (DOT) has found that 22% of facilities have already exceed the number of trainees they're allowed to have working at any time <-- read that one again!
4. 7,100 of the 11,500 (or 61%) qualified controllers are going to retire in three years (2012)
5. And now for the big one - it takes about three years to train an air traffic controller

Besides thinking it's time to go long on companies that sell video-conferencing technology, I'm wondering if this is just organizational decay? That as the DOT or FAA have grown older, they've just lost the ability to think clearly, forecast correctly, elevate issues appropriately, etc.? I'm sure there are many employees there who have been shouting about the impending resource gap, but maybe "management" just ignored it?

I think of the company I work for - it's now over 30 years old - and certainly some elements of it feel very sluggish. I think of the company that insures my apartment, that still today (after four years of assuring me that this was in the works) do not have a way for me to look at my policy or pay my bill online. I look at how long it took for America (a self-proclaimed super-power) to react to Katrina, or recognize that it's roads and highways are falling apart, there are so many examples.

What to do? How do organizations stay fresh? Here's one idea.

giving reality

Despite the tough times, interest in and focus on philanthropy remains strong. While the Gates, Fords, and Buffetts of the world are doing "big" things, the popularization of philanthropy started with Live Aid's "Feed the World," followed by USA for Africa's "We are the World," and now Bono's RED. Of course there are many, many others as well.

These programs are all wonderful because of the democratization/aggregation opportunity. Everyone gives what they can, and it gets added to others' little bits to create, big bits. They also call the world's attention to situations and issues we must all at least be aware of, and if that awareness leads to positive change, so much the better.

Why do people give? What's in it for them? Here are three possible answers:

1. We genuinely wish to make a difference and help change the status quo
2. It's a tax write-off
3. It's a way to relieve the guilt of being relatively better off than others

I suppose it's a combination of all three, but more #3 and less #1. If the priority was #1, then we'd be living in a very different (and changed) world. Instead, despite the $billions donated to many worthwhile causes, not that much has changed. No doubt changes do occur, but they rarely survive once the money's gone. There are counter-examples, but in the main, most giving that is targeted at persistent and endemic problems (vs. circumstantial events like earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, even 9-11) results in minimal sustained (where the status quo is permanently altered) change.

These are incredibly hard problems and money alone has never solved them. If you live in the United States (still the wealthiest country in the world), you don't have to drive very far to see homeless people and shelters; despite spending a massive amount of money, New Orleans is still not back to it's pre-Katrina state.

What's the problem? To be sustainable, the recipient must continue to make the same decisions they did after the money stops. This is easy when you're in your armchair reading a blog on your laptop, but put yourself in the shoes of a sole breadwinner who now has to decide between feeding the family and sending the kids to school, because the non-profit that funded the tuition is now focused on another part of the world, thinking that their work is done here. Not so easy.

The trade-off also applies to us (the givers) - we make the choice of sending money instead of participating. We all inevitably take the easy road, which is why change never happens - the hard problems are not solved because we participate. Until we do, there will be suffering.

So why do we keep doing the same things over and over again expecting different results? While the journey is far more important than the destination, surely those of us that do give would want to see something good, real and permanent result? This is why I think it's more #3 than #1 - we really don't care what the result is, we just care that we took action, fruitful or otherwise (guilt management).

But if we do decide to care and get serious, this is what I would do.

elemental learning

I received an email from Steven Volk a few days ago - he's a professor of education at Northeastern Illinois University who wrote an article entitled Why Go To School? In it, he speaks first on how today's schools treat students like widgets in a factory and are totally devoid of joy. Steven goes on to enumerate and describe the eleven elements that he believes are necessary for schools to do justice to their students:

1. Self; caring and empathy; peace and nonviolence; money, family, food, and happiness
2. Social responsibility; global awareness; environmental literacy; multicultural community; media literacy
3. A love for learning; creativity and imagination

This (with my ordering of his elements) makes for an interesting framing of what schools should teach. Makes a lot of sense.

School must provide a child with the ability to develop and build the atoms they will need to shape the molecules that will comprise their life. There are two kinds of atoms - basic and nuanced. The basics I've talked about before: the capacity to find information and sift through it; the ability to distill it into insight (which requires an understanding of the basics); and the skill to persuasively communicate new ideas. And the nuanced: we must help students know and embrace who they are; know and embrace the people and world around them as their own; and seek and desire the joy of learning and the pleasure of creating.

Let's say we make progress, and our high schools are able to graduate students with anything remotely resembling these atoms, what do we think will happen next? I ask because I also read this amazing article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. In a nutshell, it says that the advent of the Internet led (albeit with a longer fuse than anticipated) directly to the demise of newspapers. It goes on to say that universities may well suffer the same fate, quoting one of my heroes:

Thirty years from now, the big university campuses will be relics. ... Such totally uncontrollable expenditures, without any visible improvement in either the content or the quality of education, means that the system is rapidly becoming untenable. Peter Drucker, 1997

I totally agree. Tuition fees have risen dramatically, there is little oversight or cost control in the system (compared to a typical corporation), many professors are reluctant teachers, and in a model that celebrates anarchy (aka academic freedom), the concept of customer-centricity is largely foreign (exceptions include University of Phoenix, and it's peers). But this isn't their real problem.

Their real problem is that students entering high schools today are completely comfortable learning via iTunes U, or listening to Professor Walter Lewin's brilliant lectures at MIT Open Courseware. They may not all need formal university lectures to learn. Already university students increasingly attend electronic lectures. And when these students graduate, they will not look askance at students whose lecture bias was more electronic than personal. So the real problem will be compounded by the fact that employers a decade from now may be less interested in the academic accreditation when presented with a prospective candidate's e-portfolio, which so eloquently and persuasively demonstrates her work to-date.

It is then that the elements of learning will have reconstituted themselves. If the K-12 school system does its job well, and its graduates have been prepared with the atoms they need to create the molecules they will be, universities may end up holding a very different role in our society than they do now.

Perhaps this won't take a mere decade, and of course many universities will remain strong, but I believe the premise that is their undergrad cash cow will change dramatically. The elements of learning tomorrow will be very different from today. It's time to start preparing for this. University leaders should begin the retooling process now, or some may follow in the path of many of today's newspapers.

It's time to begin (re)creating the elements of higher learning.

private, public, pirate

I recently read Larry Lessig's post about the implications of ThruYou and how they're flaunting intellectual property rights. I also received an email pointing me to an article in the Austin Chronicle about Stephanie Klein whose life is as open a book as you'll find.

An interesting set of bedfellows? They do have things in common. They're about expression, they're about expression that might backfire if misused, and they are expressed in a medium where so much can be said so quickly by people who have so little to lose and so much to lose.

Seems pretty complicated...

Historically, a ton of content was produced, but not very much of it was published. What was published was vetted and reviewed, and funneled through a small group of people (editors/publishers) who were the gatekeepers to broad distribution. They also ensured intellectual property rights protection, mostly because they could be found easily and they had enough money to be lawsuit-worthy.

Then came the information and communication revolutions. First publishing became easy, and with Internet access, even free. Second, distribution/middlemen were largely removed from the equation - while they still exist, their impact as a percentage of the whole has shrunk dramatically. Third, with search engines, distribution is easier still, you can publish, with some work and a little luck, you will find an audience - all with little or no money expended. Though the returns are not really significant (witness my experience), they can be compelling depending on your strategy, and in aggregate, I presume better than traditional book publishing.

Implications? A ton of content gets published and is consumable by anyone who can find it. It's easy for someone to plagiarize other people's work and claim it as their own or just not attribute it. Copyright law does protect the original publisher, but let's face it, first you have to find it, then find the publisher, and then sue them, assuming there's something meaningful to sue for, and that your "authority" will have the power to get them to do the right thing. ("Authority" = does the plagiarist live in a place that recognizes and honors your authority to sue?) I have no data to back this up, but I would guess most web/blog publishers don't even explicitly protect their content (with Creative Commons, etc.).

The other side of this is publishing so much about yourself that you essentially have no privacy. That might seem like a good idea at the time, but it is possible that anything you say can and will be used against you. There is amazing power to being completely out there, as Stephanie Klein has demonstrated. The sheer volume of content not only creates a large following (if you're good, as she is), but can also shield you from piracy if your style is well-known and distinct enough to be identified.

How is a person benefited by being this public? There's the exhibitionist dimension. There's also the part where your followers can a-la Wisdom of Crowds, provide you with insight or advice about your situations. There's notoriety of course. And clearly there's money in it too. Is it worth it? Is TMI a factor? Do I really want to know that much about anyone?

Apparently people do. Not only through blogs, but certainly through reality TV shows, as well as those "wonderful" Jerry Springer-type people.

Is this an American/Western phenomenon? How about this for an experiment: what if someone in say Sao Paulo, Brazil decided to completely plagiarize Stephanie's blog, translate it into Brazilian Portuguese (make sure the context was shifted to their city) and then publish it?

Do you think it would make money?

Do you think Stephanie has a right to any of that money?

Do you think the authors are obligated to attribute it to Stephanie?

Do you think if Stephanie were to find out and sued, that she would get anything for her troubles?

The last question will be asked often as the web grows in global economic relevance, and when everything that is seemingly "intellectual property" becomes freely sampled and distributed for anyone to see and few to control.

inspired minds want to grow

Inspiration is a wonderful word. Someone recently reminded me that it is a word that provokes beginnings. I suppose that's true, but I say it has more juice than that. It's a word that helps you through the middle, it is what nudges you forward when things are particularly difficult, and it helps you cross the finish line with strength. 

It is powerful, and has powerful implications. Statements that have inspired me include:

• We will put a man on the moon and return him safely home before the end of this decade. John F. Kennedy, 1961
• I have a dream. Martin Luther King, Jr., 1963

They share this amazing sense of movement, and progress, and impact. They cause you to act.

What is the "corporate" equivalent? I like GE's old one: "We bring good things to light." It made me want to go work for them and help make good things happen. I also like Microsoft's original "A computer on every desk and in every home." People thought they were crazy - there would never be a day when everyone had a computer! But in just one generation, one billion people across this planet have or have access to a computer; that's just incredible!

Neither JFK nor MLK lived for very long after proclaiming their vision. The moon landing did happen as specified, and equality is closer than before; though I suspect that it would be closer still if King had not been assassinated.

Visions move people. But they do something even more powerful - they shape decisions, especially difficult decisions. Trade offs that might have been difficult are made easier because the outcome, the vision is so disproportionately valued.

When inspired, participants separate themselves from the fray to become a part of something. Inspired minds do want to grow; but more than that, they naturally coalesce, they come together, push each other, and become "us" and not "me." "It" has power.

If I were starting something, I would invest a ton of energy, demand that my best people fight, argue, and yell and scream to develop the most profound expression of our intention possible. I would do this knowing that every ounce of energy invested here would (if done well) pay off a thousand-fold with amazing, brilliant, wonderful results.

There's one that you might remember from just a few months ago... "yes we can."

Sense, respond, adapt

The good old days. It's not that they were that good, it's just that in hindsight and since we survived it, we feel a fondness for it. The past is also safer because it's known and understood; the future is obviously neither.

I was reading Seth Godin's latest this morning. We are also in the midst of the Communication Revolution. The implications of this combined with what Seth wrote are huge.

Survival is about agility. The mantra has to be: sense, respond, adapt. Most large (and sedentary) companies will be able to live for a while based on sheer inertia. But that only lasts so long. The automobile industry has run out of momentum. Because things are moving so much more quickly due to the Communication Revolution, there's more friction to arrests the inertia. Move fast or stop moving altogether...

The airline industry learned it too; during the fuel crisis, Southwest Airlines was least scathed, because they had sensed future oil issues, responded with a hedge strategy, and adapted to the new world more successfully as a result.

Apple has done this twice. When they recognized that they were no longer Apple Computers (long before they announced this) but Apple Inc., they ramped up their Apple Store strategy and became a retail force, connecting directly with their customers. Fantastic move to sense that the consumer was becoming more empowered and conscious of their own image; they responded, and adapted. The second time is happening now. It's their recognition of the value of iTunes and that it and the App Store are their new channel to the consumer. I think the ripple effects and impact iTunes and App Store will have are going to be massive, and surprise a lot of people.

Organizations that are naive enough to believe the market will wait patiently while they attempt to extract every possible drop of milk from their cash cows, are in for a much quicker reckoning with reality.

But those that look at change and like the Aikido master, are able to take its inertia and redirect it to their advantage are the ones that will thrive.

Sense ~ Respond ~ Adapt

Size does matter

When does a company get too big? For most companies, success is defined as rapid, profitable growth. But at some point, the company becomes unwieldy, hires more HR, lawyers and "operations" people than ever imagined, and starts to erode the essential sensibility that made them what they are.

The bigger and more mature an organization gets, the more inwardly focused it gets. (Yes, there are exceptions, but in the main, I think I'm right.) When you start out, and are an unknown underdog, you can't afford to care about anything else but your customers, and building and shipping your product. You are incredibly responsive to the market and your customers, because you'll die if you aren't.

But at some point, you become more focused on yourself, your perception, your opinions, than you do your customers or your products. It's not to say that lip service isn't paid to the customer and the market, but let's face it, even that is a more self-aggrandizing gesture. You take yourself so seriously that now the PR department has a deciding voice in policy.

And if you're looking for the sure sign that you're there: it's when people in the organization get measured on internal awareness campaigns, and actually spend real money advertising to the employees about some little program that only that team cares about.

Another impediment growth was articulated extremely well in this article by Scott Anthony. He talks about how companies raise the bar for successful innovation. In a survey of Fortune 100 companies, some stated that $1 billion was the minimum market opportunity they would target. In other words, innovations that could not demonstrate a $1b revenue opportunity did not qualify for consideration! How do you know? Who knew that you'd be this big when you were starting out, so how are you able to discard opportunities so arbitrarily? Finally, are you really going to believe a forecast a bunch of MBAs wrote based on historical trends and analysis? How often are they right?

It seems that to grow, one must have the willingness to think small, and adopt the rules that encourage an open-minded view of innovation, change and opportunity.

Seth Godin, another very smart guy wrote this really interesting piece recently, in which two paragraphs  connected with me:

Ideas that spread, win. Sometimes ideas get changed in transmission, and sometimes those changed ideas spread even farther and with more impact than the ideas that came before them.

In business, if you lock down ideas, make them difficult to change and spread and have impact, you fail. If you accept the fact that change is real, that there is competition for your ideas and that amplifying the good stuff works, you can grow and thrive.

He's absolutely right. This is a critical element of sustainability, and is ignored often at the organization's peril.

But now I'm wondering - why do I need to grow at all? Why does a company have to keep getting bigger to succeed? Is it possible to stay small and be successful? What if a company (even a public one) decided that it was no longer seeking revenue growth, but feels instead that it's making enough money and that improving its products, processes and services but remaining relatively the same in size is success enough?

What if the employees of this company were happy with that as well? They didn't all want to be CEO, they didn't all need to earn that much more money, they were content with the status quo...

OK - that's just absurd - human nature will not allow this.

Since we can't live in this Zen-infused complacency, how does an organization sustain success? How about combining the views of Anthony and Godin while maintaining a sense of smallness?

What if we were able to build a company whose employees were shareholders, and where innovation and change were embraced. But when an innovation began to flourish, they did three things:

1. The company sold off 60% of the new business, retaining a large but non-majority stake
2. Recouped the cost of its R&D, etc. and hopefully made some profit from the 60% sale
3. Allowed employees related to that business the option of staying or leaving

The effect on their organization would be a new revenue stream added to the investment portfolio, but no commensurate headcount or physical asset growth. If the spin-off did well, they benefited; if it didn't, they didn't lose, since the sale of 60% was implicitly profitable, plus they'd get to write off the 40% that was still on their books.

In the end, the company's performance would be based on their ability to maintain the business they started, and with their culture of open-minded change, the ability to spin off as many profitable innovations as possible, creating new revenue streams, employee growth opportunities, and happy employees and shareholders.

Size does matter, but happiness and success don't require you to be biggest one on the block...

UPDATE:
Pierre de Vries wrote this brilliant entry a couple of days ago (I wish I'd read it before I wrote this). In it he describes the four stages of evolutionary transformation and rebirth (my words) as: "exploitation or growth, a mature conservation phase, a catastrophic release, and finally reorganization leading to new growth." This is conceptually very aligned to what Anthony and Godin talked about as well a most viable alternative path to the one I suggested above. A cycle of continual reinvention might be a very natural and effective way for organizations to avoid bloat and stay vibrant and engaged.

Clarity of Thought

I had a most excellent time being away from technology these last few days. It turns out I didn't miss the lack of electronic access one bit! While many things happened back in the real world (corporate layoffs, the Palin book deal, oh and that lightly-attended rather minor event in DC on the 20th), I managed to survive not witnessing any of them in real time:)!

Being away from the fray did allow for time to reflect, organize thoughts, and gain clarity about many things.

When I got back, a good friend forwarded me a link to this great article entitled The Cook Doctrine at Apple. The article is about Tim Cook who as you all know is replacing Steve Jobs at Apple while he's on his health-related hiatus.

Here's the payoff quote:

We believe that we are on the face of the earth to make great products and that’s not changing. We are constantly focusing on innovating. We believe in the simple not the complex. We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies behind the products that we make, and participate only in markets where we can make a significant contribution. We believe in saying no to thousands of projects, so that we can really focus on the few that are truly important and meaningful to us. We believe in deep collaboration and cross-pollination of our groups, which allow us to innovate in a way that others cannot. And frankly, we don’t settle for anything less than excellence in every group in the company, and we have the self-honesty to admit when we’re wrong and the courage to change. And I think regardless of who is in what job those values are so embedded in this company that Apple will do extremely well.

Talk about clarity of thought! There are very few leaders who can articulate their organization's ethos in quite this way. It does ring true, and what I really liked is the last sentence, which assures their constituency that things will be OK no matter who is driving the bus, and actually sets up a change-friendly environment.

Personally, I think Jobs will return, but later than forecasted. I think he'll have a smaller role (not unlike Bill Gates at Microsoft), but will still be the voice and face of the company, and when they announce their next generation products (like a light (under 3 lbs), long-battery life (over 6 hrs), touch-enabled MacBook Pro - please!!) in a year (I have no inside knowledge, just trying to get Santa to listen and put me closer to the front of the line), the person doing the show will be Mr. Jobs.

Going back to the quote for a moment, imagine if the Superintendent of your school district was this focused, or the Mayor of your city, or your employer. "We are committed to greatness; we will always focus on what we do, and ensure that we do it with excellence. We are open to new ideas, and even more open to looking at ourselves as critically as we do our customers, markets and competitors."

I imagine that Mr. Jobs has read the Art of War, and so has Mr. Cook.