~synthesis~

followings

If you were tasked with creating a following for your company, how would you go about it?

With most projects, I'd say you start by understanding the definition of success, perhaps asking questions like: Whom do we want to "follow" us? How will we know they're "helping" us? What's the budget? What is the first milestone and when do we need to hit it? (These are variants of "what are we trying to accomplish, and how will we know when we get there?")

But that doesn't really create a following as much as it creates a marketing outcome at a given point in time. Once the effort stops, will the following live on or does it just fade away?

I think a follower is someone who prioritizes the one thing over others in a meaningful way (i.e. I'll spend less (time, money, focus, whatever) on Y because I care about X and want to put my limited energy there).

If you are looking to get a following, your intention is not to do great things, but for others to applaud your doing of great things. Your intention is flawed. You might be successful in the short term, but you will be found out eventually.

If you're a company trying to create a following in DC, you go to the Capitol with hat (read: wallet) in hand to find someone to convince of your view/need based on what that politician wants to accomplish and how you can "help" them. Your goal is one of three things - policy advocacy (help change the rules in our favor); economic advocacy (help fund our efforts); PR advocacy (help us look good).

In all these cases, the company's currency is whatever is valued by their advocates - nothing more. Once that currency stops flowing, chances are the advocacy stops flowing as well.

There's a word for that - it's called a transaction. Ethics aside, you purchased an outcome - plain and simple.

Being followed is the same as being cool - by definition, when you seek it, or seek to emulate others who have "it" your effort is fruitless. If you are true to yourself, take pride in what you do, and take actions staying true to your integrity, you are cool.

Rarely do people or companies that have a true following begin with the goal of creating one. Their relentless passion is focused on whatever greatness is their raison d'être. It's not to say that you shouldn't be savvy about managing your political risk or ensuring market or political advocacy, but if you do it without a genuine passion for that which is you, you are at risk. As Seth Godin put it, you still need to create advocates, and "coordinating a tribe ... requires patience, consistency and a focus on long-term relationships and life time value."

A political example of this comes from one of our failed politicians - Al Gore - he achieved a following for the environment by doing what he believed in and putting all his effort into telling the story that he needed to tell. He was smart not to take the bait and run for office again - doing that would be akin to Ali actually throwing that last punch when Foreman was already going down in Kinshasa. It would have been inelegant, and offended the aesthetic (or coolness) of that moment. It was at that point that I respected Gore.

If a corporation wishes to create public advocacy for their cause in the form of a following (i.e. make politicians want to help them be successful), they have to counterintuitively avoid it - something very few CEOs have the cojones to do...

spoiler alert

To be an effective spoiler, you must lure people in and then do the bait and switch by thoroughly turning the tables on them. You have to be smarter than people expect.

It's impossible over the last few days to read/watch/listen to any kind of news without hearing about Sarah Palin, her book, her Oprah interview, and how she's still just a honest, God-fearing, down-to-earth, anti-socialism hockey grandmother.

The Republican Party, despite her rather harsh words about the McCain campaign seems cautiously supportive. There is no doubt that since she was nominated as John McCain's running mate, the heartland has turned out in droves for her; and if the Republicans are to win more House seats during the midterms  or mount a viable challenge in 2012, they will need the heartland to turn out in droves for their nominee.

Ms Palin is being understandably coy about her intentions (other than to help elect Republicans in 2010, and promote her book). Polls show that well over half (59%) of Republicans and 21% of Independents have a favorable opinion of her, and I imagine close to that percentage believe that she'd make a good president. In her own words, her people are "everyday, hard-working Americans who want government back on their side."

For someone who has been as contentious as she has, whose family has had as many ups and down as hers has, this is either a remarkable testament to her star-power, or a serious indictment of the American voters. What you can't argue is her ability to draw a crowd, get free publicity and media coverage, and raise funds for candidates she supports.

So what of all this? What's the political upshot? Who's most afraid of Palin?

I think it's the leaders of the Republican Party who are most scared. And if the Democrats are thinking at all, they're secretly rooting for her. You might be wondering if I've gone off the bend, or is this just a typo?

What if in 2011 as the Republican leadership game begins to heat up, Sarah Palin, having supported the party during the midterms, resigns from the Republican party (citing concerns about how establishment they are, reiterating their screw-ups during the last presidential election, and punctuating all this with her real worry, which is their centrist, almost liberal views on key issues (she may not even have to name these issues))?

Yes, Sarah Palin will resign. In her speech she will say that since the mid-terms she has assembled a team who like her are just plain, ordinary Americans, and raised a large-enough war chest to finance her own campaign without the help of the Republican party.

She will then announce her candidacy for President of the United States as an Independent with the wholehearted support of the Tea Party, the NRA, much of the religious right, and potentially Fox News (maybe she'll also announce Sean Hannity is her choice for Vice President). Thus will "Palin - for the People" be born.

Like Ross Perot before her, she will split the Republican base, earning about 20% of the popular vote, and giving a landslide victory to the Democratic ticket.

I don't believe she is this smart, but then again, I didn't just resign my job and get a $7million book deal.

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.

democracy

Leonard Cohen is one of my favorite artists - he is a brilliant poet and a great entertainer - I was (ironically) listening to Democracy as I was reading the news:

It's coming to America first,
the cradle of the best and of the worst.
It's here they got the range
and the machinery for change
and it's here they got the spiritual thirst.
It's here the family's broken
and it's here the lonely say
that the heart has got to open
in a fundamental way:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

The NY Times reported that Dede Scozzafava (R) suspended her candidacy for an upstate New York Congress seat this weekend. Scozzafava's support of gay and abortion rights caused conservative interest groups to embark on an extensive radio and advertising campaign against her (despite he being a fellow Republican). Without missing a beat, the RNC switched its support to a more "mainstream" conservative candidate, but they never consulted the district in question, which of course is upset because the new candidate is a national choice and not a local one.

This is not about calling out the Republican party - this could just as easily have happened with the Democrats if a candidate wasn't "on board" with one of their core issues.

I'm not an alarmist, but the first thing I thought of after reading this article was these words: "Our job as Americans and as Republicans is to dislodge the traitors from every place where they've been sent to do their traitorous work." -- As spoken by Senator Joseph McCarthy in a 1952 speech at the Republican National Convention.

Those were complex times, when fear prevailed in the face of a very scary enemy and the government felt empowered to do whatever was necessary to win. Sound familiar? As today (with Newt Gingrich in the NY Times article), there were cautionary voices that spoke out, most notably:

Sir, I detest, I abhor their [communists'] philosophy, but I detest more than that their tactics, which are those of the fifth column, and are dishonest, but at the same time I never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group, that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment. I still think that democracy can do it.
–Ronald Reagan, testifying to HUAC as president of the Screen Actors Guild (1947)

It's easy to understand why the conservative Republican community is so bent on protecting itself. After years of dominance, the last months have been a struggle. When you face this kind of test, you think about what got you here (your last win) and try to recreate it or protect it. In the corporate world, it's strategic entrenchment - where a company tries to milk its cash cows to the last drop, forgetting how they began in the first place, and as a result allowing others to eat their lunch, their dinner, and future meals as well.

A set of principles galvanized a group of people to form the Republican party. If I were in their leadership today, I would remember that moving away from a successful approach is incredibly difficult, and requires serious conviction. But the alternative is someone else eating your lunch, dinner and all your future meals...

As Cohen said:

Sail on, sail on
O mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
Past the Reefs of Greed
Through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on.

antitrust

Does human nature dictate that we don't trust each other? It seems that way. While it is true that communities can form and have each others' backs, the vast majority of society seems bent on believing and expecting the worst of its people.

This is why we have police officers, FBI/CIA/DEA/NSA/TSA/XXX agents, a vast military machine, and even a division at the US Department of Justice that focuses solely on corporate antitrust. Schools have metal detectors, airports have ridiculous security procedures - it goes on. As a politician, you have to show that you are tough on crime, promoting your prosecutorial record (or in some states how many people you've put on death row). Have you ever heard a politician campaign on the fact that they have less people behind bars, and claiming it to be a good thing?

As an aside, it's interesting that American (I can't speak for other countries) enforcement officers are measured on their conviction rates vs. their prevention rates. Success is putting more people behind bars vs. preventing the crime from happening in the first place. Implication: the whole system is conditioned to look for wrong-doing (perhaps even creating wrong-doing to succeed) vs. preventing it.

Surely this can't be a productive way to live? This mentality permeates the corporate space as well; with few exceptions, almost every large (> 500 employees) company I've ever worked with or for has a layer of politics and mistrust between departments. In some cases it's the arrogance of not wanting to take a dependency on "them" to do something, so you create your own redundant process; in other cases, it's a belief (not inaccurate) that compensation/recognition is a zero-sum game that requires me/us to do better than him/them - for me/us to win, he/they have to lose. The team matters less than the individual.

Whatever it is, companies as much as societies believe the worse of themselves, and design and manage to that expectation of untrustworthy behavior. Look at HR models, regulatory compliance rules and trainings, corporate overhead, and you'll find that much of that is rooted in the expectation of betrayal.

But there are exceptions, my thanks to Axon for sharing this statement of Netflix' Freedom and Responsibility culture. It speaks volumes about their approach, but it's also interesting that it took 128 pages to tell the story. I wonder if one statement might have sufficed:

"We hired you because we believe in you, share your passion for doing great things, and feel your belief in us. All we ask is that you always keep our shared goal for greatness at the front of your mind and do the right thing."

Is it possible that if I trust you, you will feel empowered by that trust and allow the better angels of your nature to prevail? We do this in places like airports where we ask a stranger to watch our bags for a minute. Parents do this when entrusting their children to babysitters. Team sport athletes do this because they know they have to act as one and trust in each other in order to win. Netflix does this.

What will it take to do it more broadly? I think it boils down to one thing - the imposition of a shared accountability. This might not stop all untrustworthy behavior, but from what I've read of organizational behavior and crowd theories (like Wisdom of Crowds), it is possible to move the needle towards less oversight but better outcomes through self- and team-policing. Look at most smaller organizations, and especially those where each employee has some kind of equity stake in the company and you see this how well this can work. Is it possible that size does matter? That once you hit a certain size trust just begins to fade? I can't believe this (that's the Pollyanna in me, I know) - I think we can design organizations and even communities that are pro-trust.

It's a matter of will.

corporate therapists

Are you a fanatic about a sports team? If so, chances are you are among hundreds if not thousands who share that same passion and zeal. When you are with your "kind" (at the arena or stadium or in a bar), it's like a feeding frenzy. The crowd is a self-fulfilling prophecy; it reveres those who have been fans forever; who were actually there when XXXX did YYYY to ZZZZ; those who know all the stats and the history; and who have been there through thick and thin. Newcomers are viewed skeptically until they "prove" their loyalty, and "woe betide anyone who walks into our house wearing that [hated team X] shirt!"

If you're an "outsider" who happens into a bar at game-time, having a drink or a meal can be a rather odd experience. The intensity level during critical moments, the superstition, the insider lingo, the "us" and "them" stuff, etc. are certainly freakish, and may put you off that team forever.

Will you be able to find the truth about that team's ability/potential/etc. from those in that room? In Seth Godin's post about true believers and the truth, he said: "the truth of the market is that the products and services that win ... are rarely the products and services that are beloved without reservation by the true believers." Well said!

When I'm looking to buy a new product, the research I do online is equally about its capabilities (features, specifications, etc.) and about finding people who didn't like it, to understand what I'm really getting into. It's always easy to find those that really liked it, and who with their cognitive dissonance, want others to vindicate their decision, by joining the "team" and buying. I want the critic as well.

Cults are formed by those who blindly pursue a value proposition that may or may not be real. Their belief in the proposition overrides their ability to see clearly.

There's this interesting dynamic in "viral" marketing - everyone searches for mavens to advocate their product, but the real successes are when the mavens are a surprise. When the people who like it are the ones that "shouldn't" or ones that once decried it. They're most "legitimate" and most convincing.

The most powerful champion for your product is always the convert and not the lifer. The lifer is only able to talk to other lifers - and let's face it they don't have to be sold to anymore.

If you want to expand the size of your pie, you have to reach those that don't share your passion. The ones you already have need a different level and type of service.

This type of myopia also affects corporations. If you've drunk the Kool-Aid to the point where your world-view is utterly tainted, you simply can NOT make good decisions. Your vestedness impedes you from seeing the truth about your product, your competitors, or your customers. It absolutely prevents you from acknowledging (or even recognizing) any disruptive forces.

Many organizations view employees who use competitors' products as traitors (drinking Coke as a Pepsi employee); I'm all for passionate employees that care deeply about what they do and where they work, but surely there's an inherent flaw in only surrounding yourself with lemmings and sycophants? Surely you don't want to dis your customers by decrying what they also use/buy? How will you ever adapt, evolve and be successful over time?

Give me the objective skeptic over the fanatic every day - she's the one that I want to listen to. I want to know how the outsider critically assesses what I have, how I market and sell it, and what I'm building next. More critically, I want that objective outsider to help de-tint my glasses so I can see my customers, my marketplace, and my future with clarity and truth.

In life, many people go to a therapist for this type of objective perspective; at work, this is more difficult. I've only met one true management consultant in my life - Peter Drucker - a person who did not color his views for anyone, and certainly did not shape his PowerPoint presentation to please the customer, and ensure future business by telling them exactly what they wanted to hear, with just that mild hint of edginess (like using a black background) to be "credible."

This might not matter so much with sports, which is mere entertainment. But it sure does matter with work, with life, with business...

Do you have Kool-Aid drinking requirements at your company? Are people "rewarded" for strict adherence to the religion? Do people get punished for "straying"? Do you really know what's going on outside your walls?

Who's your corporate therapist?

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.

erudite

I don't normally post blogs like this, but I was just now surfing the Opinion section of the NY Times and came across this piece by Dick Cavett. It is the first interview between Cavett and Richard Burton. [You have to click on the link or the images to get to the article and then scroll down to view the recording - it is brilliant.]

I haven't really been exposed to a lot of Burton's work (or Cavett's TV show for that matter), so this was a bit of a first - it was recorded in July of 1980, four short years before he died. 

It is a powerful lesson: one generation ago, a talk show consisted of some simple opening and closing music, a stage and two chairs. The host and the guest sat very close to each other and talked. They talked (in this case) for just under 30 minutes, without interruption, and yet at the end you felt like it had just begun.

In comparison, our conversations today are shamefully vacuous; our talk shows even worse; and I struggle to come up with more than one or two entertainers (actors, musicians, athletes, etc.) who could even come close to the presence and wit and strength and impact of Burton. He was something special indeed.

We would do well to hearken back to the day when one had to deliver in such a simple medium, and those that were proficient could do it with such ease, but create such powerful tours de force.

You can say the same thing about business, education, and politics today - so much of it is small and mundane, and so many of their "stars" pale in comparison.

I wonder if this is just a matter of the pendulum swinging, and that at some point in the very near future, we will swing back to where we demand and expect this level of performance not just from our players, but from everyone, no matter their role? I hope that is the case, right now, I'm going to look for the other three shows, and watch them often.

Bravo

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...

nyet nyet...

I read an outsider's view of life in the Soviet Union in 1982 by Edward Crane this morning. 1982 is 27 years, or roughly a generation ago - it seems like so much longer ...or does it?

The Soviet Union was formed in 1922 following a long and bloody civil war. Its formation spawned a massive industrialization, achieving among other things, the electrification of the USSR. Socialism became the policy, along with a one-party system that viewed everyone including their own citizenry with suspicion and mistrust.

Following WWII, the USSR built a mighty military machine and a progressively oppressed society. It viewed everyone not "of the Party" as "them" and not "us." The socialist way achieved a high degree of equality, but very little quality. Over time, the "thems" became most of the rest of the world; and despite becoming an industrial/military superpower, the Soviets were only interested in further domination and suppression. Needless to say, this created enemies among all the "thems," who were united in their "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality. In the end, there were very few countries that the USSR could count on, and most of those were "allies" due to economic ties vs. any sense of camaraderie.

According to Crane, Debra Kocher, and Wikipedia, life there was at best dour. It was permeated with authoritarian thuggery, excessive oversight, chronic despair, alcoholism, religious oppression, dilapidated infrastructure, lack of basic services (like health care, good education), and shortages of food and consumer goods. While not explicit, each also remarks on how the Soviet people's views of life in the West were inaccurate, and "crafted" by their government. Worst of all, all three characterized the Soviet people as being entirely without hope.

The downfall of the USSR was the result of a lack of industrial self-sufficiency, the resulting economic disparity leading to a lack of foreign currency with which to import goods; and then the disaffection of all the States in the Union, leading to their own declarations of independence, and the eventual Soviet dissolution by Gorbachev.

Is there parallelism between then and now? Yes, I think so, but these are still two very different unions. 

In America, politics is a predatory act. Politicians either prey on hope, fear, or ignorance, or sometimes all three. The ideal situation for any politician, Democrat or Republican, is to have an utterly submissive and willing populace. After September 11, 2001, Americans bowed to Cheney/Bush's will, blindly accepted everything they said, and believed their resolution to be true and righteous.

During this time, Americans accepted many changes to their way of life in the name of a secure society. The government was happily given permission to impinge on its citizens' privacy (listening to communications, proliferating security cameras, watching economic transactions); control movement (all air travel and border crossings); declare war on nations; commit crimes on foreign soil; and spend $billions that it didn't have - all in the name of national security.

Americans have also become increasingly xenophobic - everyone else is "them" and only Americans are "us." The idea of building, dare I say it, an Iron Curtain between the United States and Mexico was at the forefront of political debate just a few short months ago, as is the ever-present issue of restricting immigration.

Religion dominates policy issues, whether it is marriage or sex education or abortion or gay rights or curriculum. It aims to control large swaths of political will and social behavior.

American infrastructure is horribly dilapidated - roads and bridges are falling apart, trains are failing, airplanes are poorly maintained, and air traffic control is in a dangerous state. Hospitals are unable (or unwilling) to care for everyone, millions go without health care altogether; schools are in decline, students that do manage to graduate are poorly equipped for their next evolution. The economy is tanking, unemployment is rising precipitously, as is the number of people who have already lost unemployment benefits but remain without work or income.

Is it simply a matter of time before someone comes along with a "just and righteous" value proposition, and the citizens willingly accept a bold new way to salvation, where the "state" controls everything and "provides" everyone exactly what they need?

The recent election might be a ray of hope, though things don't seem to have changed a whole lot. The many economic packages have dramatically increased state ownership of industry (textbook socialism); the ideas of nationalization, excessive government oversight, and foreign intervention have become acceptable; a tacit rejection of the very things that made America the country it once was. A country that rejected oppression (religious or otherwise); that opened its arms and welcomed all people; whose Declaration of Indepencence brilliantly stated:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Why aren't these words quoted more often? Why isn't their truth and practice promoted more often? And why isn't their violation called out more often?

Now I don't really believe that America will all of a sudden turn into a variant of the Soviet Union, but I think some sense of why and how this country was formed in the first place needs to be much closer to the front of our minds than mired somewhere in the bowels. 

Let us be vigilant lest we be doomed to generations of constipation...

UPDATE - corrected to reflect correct document - thanks Josh

social darwinism

I'm not a fan of protectionism. I think that every business or industry must either thrive in the global marketplace or die. This is how we ensure sustainable businesses and a vibrant economy. You only have to look at the auto industry to see how protectionism and creating a false-economy (one, two, three) solely to support an expensive, unionized labor force were not sustainable, caused or perpetuated uncompetitiveness, and eventually resulted in failure.

Yesterday was a beautiful, warm, cloudless day here in Seattle. Hanging out at a nearby park/marina, I noticed two sets of parents with their infants - one was using an anti-bacterial wipe to sterilize a restaurant highchair, the other was feeding their child (overhearing this part) ultra-organic, home-prepared, "pure" baby food. Both parents had expensive strollers; bragged about their infant's already hectic schedules; and talked about how they were already looking at schools (or even home-schooling); and (this blew me away) bemoaning how careful one had to be to pick the right kids for play-dates. Next to them was a family that had just plopped their infant down (no autoclave in sight), and were feeding him restaurant-prepared junk food. The latter child seemed happy, energetic, inquisitive, looked around, laughed, etc.; the former two were both placid.

Assuming these "super-parents" succeed, their kids will never touch "imperfect" food, never inhabit "unclean" environments, have ultra-busy schedules (playing with the "right" kids in "appropriately-designed" play spaces), enjoy ultra-managed electronic access, and ideally never have an uncontrolled exposure to anything.

This is not new; a large class of baby-boomers have been raising children like this for more than a generation.

How are these kids acclimatizing to the real, post-pubescent, high school world? Being around people with different opinions, potentially more confrontational, competitive, angry, etc. will have an effect. Will their systems have the antibodies, immunity and resilience to eat in the real world? Will their bodies accept a non-hypoallergenic environment? Will they be able to adapt to dealing with "raw" situations containing stress, angst, happiness, lust, greed + alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, etc.?

Exposing children to the world suddenly, and now without the parental protection safety-net has resulted less healthy, uncontrolled, immature, binge-driven behavior in high-school and university (and beyond). Academic performance has declined generation over generation, as has the motivation to excel. Children today aspire to be so much less than their grandparents and parents - you only have to look at relative academic performance to confirm this.

Can it be because their parents coddled them to the point where they have no motivation to achieve, nor do they fear failure?? After all, their parents have always been there - haven't they?? They expect to be happy, successful and healthy, because they've never known any other reality.

I think well-intentioned "super-parents" (like their NHTSA & EPA counterparts) may be doing their children more harm than good. I hope modern American children are not already down the path of suffering the same fate as General Motors, that like GM they're so close to action, and have so much social inertia that they are unable to see the forest through the trees.

We must expose our children to the real world; build up the physical, intellectual and emotional antibodies and resistance that will enable them to participate; and create the stress, team-orientation and competitiveness that will best-prepare them to not just survive, but aspire and thrive.

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.

bookmaking

I've been traveling the last couple of weeks and haven't had much time to write. But this article caught my eye, and some words popped into my brain.

The New York Times reported that the US Department of Justice is opening a probe into Google's Book Search service. The class action suit filed by authors and publishers was settled recently, granting Google the license (from authors and publishers) to commercialize just about every in-copyright book ever published in the United States. The resulting potential monopoly situation has piqued the DOJ's interest.

According to the Inquisitr, Google has digitized some seven million books, many out of print, and whose authors aren't around to claim royalties. They will charge for access to the books and share the revenue with authors and publishers. You have to register your book in the Book Rights Registry to receive your share of the 63% royalties that the registry will receive. If a book is "orphaned," Google may show 20% of the content for free (ad-funded) and then sell consumers access to the rest of the book, keeping all the proceeds.

Channels Matter

Google controlling the largest digital book library in the world and the ability to set prices and conditions of use for any services provided by Book Search is problematic. There is no doubt that tomorrow's reader will prefer e- to paper, which makes Google's repository the de facto library for America, and potentially the rest of the world, depending on how this goes with the EU and other markets.

Publishers are OK with this because they have secured monetization rights to new releases, thinking that this is their greatest source of revenue. This tip-of-the-iceberg mentality is fraught with risk. Long-tail principles teach us that more than half of what interests people is not recent, today or kitsch - it's the stuff that's in the inventory that publishers just ceded. Moreover, there is a principle of efficiency or one-stop-shopping that pushes people to go towards more definitive and complete sources. Given that, it's a slam-dunk that every new author is going to want to have their newly-released book in the medium that gives them the most potential readers - Google; this will force publishers to want to push all their content through Book Search.

Of course you will all recognize this as the same dynamic and head-in-the-sand mentality that the RIAA and music industry exhibited in the face of iTunes. Looks like publishers even more naive, 'cause they don't believe this will happen to them.

Channels Rule

This is something publishers know intrinsically, but they're so entrenched in their world that they can't grasp this new paradigm, or the fact that it will subsume their current business. The individual author probably likes this because they're thinking this will results in increased royalties for their books. The Darwinian Free Market Forces (DFMF) person in me says - "Good - let them be victims of their myopia!" But the Serve Society's Best Interests (SSBI) side says - "No - we can't allow this to happen!"

Society (and the people) should control access to its members' works (especially works of art). Broad, universal control of literature, music, art, etc. can not be in the hands of a commercial enterprise, no matter how benevolent they may be, or appear to be. It belongs to the people.

Changing the Channel

What if we form a joint venture (this applies to the USA only) with US Library of Congress (LOC), National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the US Public Libraries and ask Google to turn this Book Search facility over to it. We will form www.booksearch.gov (or bs.gov for short - I'm guessing it'll be easy for people to remember this) as a revenue-generating facility whose profits for the first three years will go to Google (to cover their investment), and following that will go to funding the LOC, NEA and Public Libraries.

This appeases the both the DFMF and SSBI in me and allows us to keep the fruits of society's labors in the hands of the people and not the one.

<<UPDATE - to correct some typos - Thanks John>>

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.

the target audience

Most rapid successes in the commercial world come from people who built something that they themselves would use, knowing (or hoping) that there were many others out there like them who would be similarly compelled. Their second advantage came from knowing themselves, and knowing where they'd go to shop for something like this, and how much they'd be willing to spend on it - thus was formed their marketing strategy.

But then the plague of success hits - they get bigger, hire more people, get an MBA intern. and fall into the trap of PowerPoint, market evaluation, quantitative and qualitative analyses, projections, focus groups, etc., and all of a sudden ideation and marketing become a process-laden mechanism that has its own definition of success and failure, which may or may not correlate to actual business success.

At this point, it's hard to identify that original company, its original passion and commitment to the audience, etc. At this point, things like Seth Godin's sugar-coated corporate speak emerge. Why? Because MBAs and lawyers and HR people get involved, and marketing becomes data-driven, lawsuit-proof, politically-correct "customer engagement tool" vs. the process of authentically and creatively driving demand to capacity.

This organization must get out of its strategic entrenchment and sense, respond and adapt. It must focus on what matters most, their knowledge and intimate understanding of their audience, its needs, its passions, and what the customer will pay for. They can do this by recapturing that which started them off on a path to success in the first place.

What if you didn't have that first-hand knowledge? Pete Reilly spoke of the need for new paradigms this week, specifically about why "shared pencil" and "many watching one" models for learning are not very effective, and proposes a new paradigm of "ubiquitous access" based on cloud computing and virtualization. Just two days before this, Scott McLeod wrote about the efficacy of netbooks in schools.

I admire both these gentlemen immensely - they are passionate, proven and respected educators (I am not); and while I wholeheartedly agree with their premise (that a paradigm shift is needed, as is better technology for learning), I worry that they might be missing a critical element.

The target audience.

Students are not adults. They have (as both Pete and Scott have spoken about many times) an absolute affinity with technology. The adult frame of reference is different, and the adult's filter is different, adults are not children.

The customer of a school system is the student. Like Google's advertising model, the students don't pay for the service, but if they aren't achieving the right outcomes, the funding/ads will dry up. Proof that the education system hasn't internalized this - "no child left behind," "education reform," abysmal graduation rates, etc.

What do students want? A friend was telling me recently that he bought his 14-year-old son an iPod Touch and an Acer Ferrari 1100 laptop. The former costs roughly a tenth of the latter. One day he walked in on his son doing homework with his Touch while the Ferrari sat, closed and untouched. Dad asked Son why he wasn't using the laptop (bigger screen, keyboard, faster, etc.), and Son said he was fine as-is. Dad then asked Son if he'd be good without the laptop altogether, and after a pause to think about it, Son said "yes." Dad took the laptop away Son hasn't yet asked for it.

I think Pete and Scott ought to reflect on the real needs of the customer. "Ubiquitous access" today is about mobile devices that the students already have or can get easily and cheaply. It's about schools and educators opening their minds to the idea that the customer and hence the target audience is not people like them. Students' use of technology is dramatically different from adults. Tomorrow it will change again.

The paradigm of teaching will need to adapt to the requirements and expectations of its customers, and engage them in their context. Most project-based learning schools already do this. What's more, in this new world, schools may have to re-think certain concepts - preventing text messaging (and the use of mobile phones) because it looks like "cheating" might be replaced with encouraging the use of text/mobile because it is teamwork. But as an adult, I'm sure this is already so last year...

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.

$18.69

Some of you noticed that I tried Google's AdSense service about three weeks ago, I'm now happily back to being ad-free. It was an interesting experiment, I tried to keep them unobtrusive, despite using three distribution mechanisms - the site, search and the feed.

As you've no-doubt guessed, I "earned" $18.69 over this time. I had intended to contribute another $18.69, and take the total $37.38 and donate it to a local charity which my employer would match, to get to $74.76. 

But even now I am unable to get to the money I earned - Google won't allow me to provide payment information - it says I must reach the $10 earning threshold first. I'm pretty sure that $18.69 is greater than $10, but I defer to the very bright minds at Google - they must know of a newer math.

Speaking of which, I read today that Google now owns 3% of the global ad market, which gives them something akin to Wal-Mart's (who has 4% of the worldwide retail market) economic stature. The author (Christa Quarles) went on to suggest that Google should next move into the more lucrative corporate IT provisioning business, where they can provide cloud-based services to companies (they currently have 0.1% share in this market).

I don't agree. For Google to branch out into this space, they would need a level of sales and marketing and support that IMO is inconsistent with their business model. Unless of course they have innovated a whole new business model. And even then, I think they should stay true to their core business.

It's telling that we are comparing the market might of Google to that of Wal-Mart. Think about Wal-Mart's market dictatorial capability. They tell their suppliers what they want and at what price, and the suppliers acquiesce. Google seemingly has the might to tell people (it's channel partners like me) that math as they understood it doesn't apply anymore, and I suppose I have to acquiesce too.

Have both organizations gotten too big? Here's an interesting thought - some of the more diversified companies have suffered the most unhappy fates in this current economic situation - from GE to Citi to GM to AIG. Isn't this a bizarre reversal? We're taught to diversify our portfolios to protect from specific reversals, but looking at this market situation, it looks like a bad strategy.

Or was it? One common denominator with these poor performers is that they all own a finance company (GE Capital, GMAC, etc.). I believe even Wal-Mart had explored the idea of creating a bank. If they'd all only been banks (no trading, insurance, etc.), they would have been subject to more stringent regulatory oversight, and perhaps never been able to get into this situation. But with their diversification, and current rules, at the highest level, they were able to choose which regulator applied to them, and of course they chose the most lenient, which gave them the most latitude.

I hope Google doesn't go into finance - it could be their kiss of death, especially if their new math is anything like the math that our friends at AIG, Citi, GMAC, etc. use. And it'd be a certainty that I'll never see my $18.69.

getting your ticket punched

Brian Dixon wrote a great post on the transforming role of education. As I read it, I asked myself - what is the most elemental reason that people get an education?

For parents, it's about structured, mostly free babysitting; though I suppose wanting more for your kids than you had and thinking that education is the path towards that might have some influence.

For the government, it's about capacity creation. Once we moved into the Industrial Age, it became clear that GDP growth was tied to capacity to scale output, which was tied to the capacity to create scalable output, which was dependent on educated people. Plus most politicians are lawyers, and despite Shakespeare's best efforts, they still live, are inexorably linked to their alma maters, and want to see them live on and be filled with students.

For the student... now there's an interesting question. In most cases, entering the education system is an involuntary act. At some point they get used to it, and then hopefully enjoy it, building a community of friends, etc. But why (at the most fundamental level) do students wish to be in school?

A part of it (especially today) is that children know we live in a capitalist/market-driven world. They know also that from food to clothes to cars to games to phones to whatever, the biggest impediment to getting what they want (besides parental and legal constraints) is money. Once they're old enough, as long as they operate within the rules of society, the main thing in the way of what they want (or think they want) is money.

Again - why school? Until the Information Age, the ticket to employment (and thence income) was an accreditation of some kind. The better the accreditation, the better the employment & wage. School was the most likely path towards this. Two things have changed in the last couple of decades - first the success of athletes and musicians that prompted some to believe they had a non-academic path to bling; and second, the success of creative Internet commerce (mostly by young people) where "accreditation" wasn't required - examples include the Million Dollar Homepage, and of course this Forbes list of teenage millionaires - most of whom were really smart, but seemingly didn't require school to get it done.

Notwithstanding the fact that these successes are the equivalent of winning the lottery, it still puts children in a place that deeply questions the need for school. This of course creates yet more pressure on schools to be a place that compels children to want to attend and remain.

Back to Brian, I was at his place of work (High Tech High) last week. It is an incredible school. There are many things that make it so, but two stand out for me - first that it is a joyous place, and second that every student that I met or saw exuded "I can be anything." This is a tribute to the philosophy of this school and its amazing teachers. I got to spend some time with Brian and Larry Rosenstock, CEO of High Tech High (HTH). We had a wonderful conversation, one that befitting the surroundings, spanned a gazillion topics. Of course I learned a ton, and emerged that much more inspired and grateful that I get to do what I get to do.  While we didn't talk about it, I believe Larry would sign up for the three measures of school success I suggested here.

At HTH, I saw students wanting to be in a place where inspiration provokes outcomes, where the outcomes are meaningful, and where everyone (faculty, staff and students alike) thinks: "we can, we must, we will." It is this type of inspiration that every student needs, the inspiration to not merely seek the quick, easy win or a free ride, but instead the path of challenges, team work, and accomplishment - that's the ticket.

strength and honor

Leadership and teaching excellence seem to have a lot in common. Is a great teacher a great leader? Is a great leader a great teacher?

Pete Reilly wrote about what it takes to be great in front of the class, and suggested three things (my paraphrasing):

1. Be grounded; be confident, open and connected to your audience
2. Remember you are serving your audience, not vice versa
3. Have the courage to be open and passionate.

In almost the same breath, I read about sustainable careers and why business school may not be worth revisiting. Dana (the author of Investoralist) states five reasons why she would not go back to business school again (my paraphrasing):

1. Graduates aren't fit to give business advice
2. Business schools create masochists [<-- :-D]
3. "I wouldn't trust me with your money"
4. We lost our senses of humor
5. Every gig is transient, take what you can and move on

Ironic.

If you have five minutes, both blogs are well worth a read. Together, they punctuate something I've felt strongly about for some time. Leadership requires much more than training. Business schools can do a disservice to their customers by giving graduates the impression that they are immediately able to lead and create success. Teachers colleges likewise don't appear to train teachers to lead.

Clayton Christensen once told me that MBA programs teach people to make decisions based on the rear-view mirror. Everything is inferred from the past, and based on a highly procedural, structured, methodology. This does not a leader make. No doubt that there are many talented leaders who have MBAs, but I don't think it was the MBA that made them so - they had that before they enrolled.

In both teaching and the corporate world, experience can give you the confidence to be adept in front of a room, but it doesn't ensure leadership. It seems that one is taught how to use authority versus leadership. We all know that authority is about power. And power (and its abuse) are why we still and likely always will need workers' rights laws and unions. It is also why some students don't get to learn.

Extending what Pete and Dana said, I say leadership is about vision, courage, commitment, empathy and inspiration.

• The vision to discern a path both compelling and meaningful.
• The courage to stand for something, and to be decisive.
• The commitment to remain a believer when it's hardest and you're in the doldrums, but more importantly to stand in front of, beside and behind everyone who works for you.
• The empathy to care for (really, to love) the people you work with and know and relish that each is, and contributes uniquely.
• The inspiration to exceed your grasp and the ability to infect others to do the same.

There's more I'm sure, but if these aren't there, leadership isn't there either.

I'm reminded of Gladiator, and Maximus' speech to his soldiers before the battle at the beginning of the movie:

Three weeks from now I will be harvesting my crops. Imagine where you will be, and it will be so. Hold the line! Stay with me! ...What we do in Life echoes in Eternity.

This guy was a leader and a teacher. Maybe Business Schools and Teachers' Colleges should consider building an arena...

the new green

Following on inspired minds that want to grow, and some feedback I received, here's a corporate viewpoint.

Maybe it's the optimist in me, but especially now when trust in corporations is so low, companies must not only assert a vision that is inspiring, but also make it a public mission to live up to, and be held to a standard of performance.

The green movement started this way. A few saw the light and began to behave in a new way. Green funds were created, VCs for green start-ups were formed, etc. When it began, most were skeptical. Cynics said that green was more expensive - organizations that were green would be less profitable; they/it would never succeed, it was just a fad.

Despite this and no major legislation (outside of emission controls), green continues to be a strong and powerful force. Our government is now investing in green; new companies are touting their commitment to green every day, hiring green "czars," moving into green(er) buildings; green-specific industries have sprung up; even students now more than ever use green and social responsibility as criteria by which to judge potential employers.

Green is a largely self-policed or socially-policed phenomenon based on the idea of good and environmentally-sensitive behavior. Can it be repeated?

Companies that step forward and demonstrate their integrity, transparency and accountability could be the ones where customers choose to shop, whose shares investors choose to buy, in whom people choose to believe.

Integrity, transparency and accountability (ITA) are not where a company will out-innovate or out-perform their competitors, but rather where a company out-behaves. This could also be where a company creates market advantage, where they can capitalize on the perception of mistrust and outshine the rest to be recognized as having a management ethos and discipline that can be trusted, that won't be rapacious, that will be open and honest and accountable. This could also be a really effective marketing strategy, one that results in (like Whole Foods) market and price advantage.

There will need to be a way to judge performance, and ensure actively good behavior. Could it, like green, be a more socially-driven vs. regulation-driven mechanism? I hope so.

My gut says companies that out-behave are more sustainable than those that don't. They are potentially better long-term investments because they are less likely to get caught out, but will be able to capitalize on the those that do, capturing market share, talent, etc. when the ill-behaved are outed (AIG, GM, Madoff, etc.). Imagine if there was an ITA-compliant directory of companies from which you could choose your insurance, banking, investment provider, or where you could buy your car, etc. Would you go there if you just found out that you'd been "Madoff'ed"?

They, like the tortoise, will get there in the end, perhaps with less flash than the hare, but with a stronger and more sustainable business.

It's different spin on inspiration and vision, one that could be table stakes for tomorrow's companies because society (and not necessarily regulation or law) wants and expects good behavior.

101

The last post was my 100th. It took me almost exactly five months to get here - #1 was posted on October 6. This is an incredible medium, and I'm grateful and honored to be a part of it.

A confluence of happy circumstances found me a finalist for best new blog in the Weblog awards, and then came Wonkette and Rumproast whose enthusiastic support gave me the win. I assume the editors at Time found ~synthesis~ through the Weblog finals.

The result has been nothing short of amazing. :-)

I have learned a lot, but three things stand out:

Respect the audience

Respect the medium

Respect the idea

Thank you all for reading and especially for participating...

Wow!

Today is a great day - as you might have noticed with the new graphic on the left, this blog was named one of Time.com's 25 best of 2009!

Thanks to all of you for reading, commenting, and inspiring. Congratulations to the others who were also chosen. I'll do my best to keep this up.

Thank you again

Imbeciles at play

Athletes using steroids ...who cares???

Why are Congress, State authorities and the media so obsessed with these ridiculous issues? Surely there has never been a time in the history of America where its lawmakers had so little real work to do that they needed to conduct congressional hearings (spending millions of dollars) on whether professional athletes used chemicals to improve their performance?? Duh!

I'm the first to acknowledge that athletes are role models, and children are easily influenced and will follow in the steps of their idols. BUT - if that's true, why would you publicize the fact that some of the best, most successful and most admired athletes did something bad? Is it not reasonable to assume that a child will look at A-Rod or Barry Bonds or Jose Canseco or whomever and say - hmmm... these guys became mega-super-duper-stars, made TONS of money, drove amazing cars, had all those beautiful women throwing themselves at them, etc., etc., and what's the one thing I remember about how they got there? Steroids!

So what will that child do???

Yep, you guessed it. A quick search yielded these (1, 2, 3) articles on steroid use among teens, and in the last article, correlating it directly to Barry Bonds' usage of steroids through BALCO.

By showcasing and publicizing these athletes, by Congress sticking it's nose in the problem, and by Attorneys General in various states getting involved (because of course there are no other crimes and criminals in their states), all we've done is glorified the effect of steroids, and provided children who are always looking for a quick fix an easy way out.

This is emblematic of our society. It's hard to find a day when the media doesn't exalt bad behavior, or some idiot (witness the media following Joe the Plumber during his trip to Israel) making a fool of themselves. The media will tell you that that drives viewership or readership, and that's why they do it.

Isn't or shouldn't our media adhere to a higher standard? Why is it that in this country more people exalt bad behavior than good? In fact, the only consistent acknowledgment of good behavior in this country is directed at soldiers, fire fighters and police officers. Can you think of the last time you saw someone other than these (doubtless very deserving) communities be recognized in the mainstream?

Have you for example seen Nobel Laureates or even Space Shuttle crews get this kind of recognition? Has anyone (other than Obama during the campaign) been lauded for being smart in your memory? Is it any wonder that our children wish to blend in at school (never be exceptional), and seek the quick, easy path to success (sports, music, selling drugs), versus going to school, getting an education and getting a great job?

Look at the ethic of most of the children in the countries referenced in this entry (from India, China and Africa). I went to school in Tanzania for the first few years of my life. In our school (as with most schools in the "third" world), every child aspired to sit at the front of the class. Why? Because that's where the smartest children sat, and that's where we all wanted to be. When I got to North America, being smart was not just uncool, it would get you beaten up!

Instead of opening investigations and hearings on the use of steroids in baseball, Congress should keep its eye on the ball, and recognize and applaud the great things that smart and successful people do in this country, and show our children the very direct correlation between education and economic success.

Drawing the line

I subscribe to eSchool News, and find most of their issues have something of interest, but I never expected to see this subject line: eSN Today: Porn charges for 'sexting' stir debate in my inbox!

Sexting is where teenagers use their cell phones to take and distribute nude pictures of themselves. And because there are laws governing the distribution of obscene materials, prosecutors are charging teenagers for both sending and receiving these materials. The charges can include felony obscenity or child pornography, and might result adding "sex offender" to the person's hopefully confidential juvenile record.

First, based on this search, I had no idea this was such a big thing (375k results). Second, it never occurred to me that a minor distributing pictures of themselves could constitute child pornography, though it does make sense (separating the two acts - taking the picture, and distributing it). Third, how does a kid get arrested for receiving a text message?  Finally, it got me thinking about the approach that officials have taken to discourage it, and how well similar approaches have worked for other "bad acts."

It has generally been difficult for the adults to effectively police the kids, or find the right deterrent. More often than not, the attention given to the act (and the adults' negative views) results in more frequent occurrences that are more effectively hidden from older eyes. The risk only adds to the allure.

Where to draw the line? It is illegal for minors to drink, smoke, drive, and I'm sure many other things. It is also illegal for minors to have consensual sex.

How effective have these laws been? Do you think that the laws have resulted in deterring these behaviors? Did they stop you?

What's next? Will the police start arresting minors who masturbate and charge them with statutory rape? Will there be a harsher penalty for repeat "offenders"?? Will there be any minors left to roam the malls? What will they do to while away the days in their jail cells? What will all those poor child-molesting priests do? [OK - that last one was in bad taste - apologies.]

Is there a better way? What if we erased the line altogether?

I'm thinking about countries I've visited where there isn't a child drinking problem. In France and Italy for example, adults don't seem to share America's angst. Their minors drink wine at the dining table with the family, and have for generations. Their open-mindedness towards this has not only resulted in this not being an issue, but because children are taught "how to drink" at a young age, and don't view it as a novelty or illicit in any way, there are dramatically less incidents of alcohol abuse in children in these countries vs. the USA.

Let's look at Finland, where most friends and families routinely sauna together. In their culture, it is a faux pas to wear clothing in a sauna. So the naked body has no novelty value for children in Finland - they see it all the time. I'm guessing that sexting is not a problem in Finland.

Now let's look at the potentially horrific societal effects of having a glass of wine with dinner in Italy or France, or sitting naked in a sauna with people of either gender in Finland - wait a minute, there aren't any! The French and Italians do not have higher alcoholism or liver problem rates than Americans. And the Finns don't have higher child pornography or child abuse rates than America!

Maybe it's time for America to erase the lines, before all our teenagers are arrested for felony masturbation.

Sticky Guns

I assume the phrase "stick to your guns" has to do with soldiers remaining at their post and trying to kill the bad guys despite the declining odds, and not some weird fantasy some "stimulated" people might have:)

OK - back to reality.

I recently read a couple of posts in Godless Liberal Homo's blog (<-- a most awesome blog name!), and got to thinking about the Holocaust, the Catholic Church's views on this + their point of view on the role that their leaders (like Richard Williamson) must play.

Notwithstanding an absolutely unambiguous denial of the Holocaust, Williamson was returned to the Church. I wasn't born, or in Germany during WWII, and can't personally attest to it, but from what I've seen, there was a whole lot of evil that occurred in that place at that time against everyone who was viewed as not part of the Master Race. In fact, I'm pretty sure I would have been among those that got nuked.

But our hero, Richard Williamson, is once more thrust unto the breech, and now carries the title of Bishop, which conveys upon him the role of "teaching the faith and ruling the Church." I bet he's got one of these stickers to the left on the door of his natural gas-powered oven.

His convictions I presume are part of his/the faith. Which implies has been entrusted to guide people who seek "truth" based on his principles, convictions, and beliefs. What's more, the effect is multiplied, since a Bishop outranks a Minister, he will run a bunch of churches, influencing the voice of all those that will minister to the members of each of these churches, and their brethren.

How the Vatican can be sanguine about this? The Church's argument against abortion or birth control is that it is murder, and they don't sanction murder (Thou shalt not kill). But isn't Bishop Williamson violating the essence of this Commandment by denying the killing of millions of people? Doesn't reinstating him imply that the Church agrees with his views?

What's next? Will the Vatican decide to ordain a physician who performs abortions?

Talk about sticky guns!

I presume they readmitted the Bishop because they wanted to inject more conservative opinions into the fabric of the Church. The effect though, is to basically flaunt one of the Ten Commandments and call into question any related "arguments" based on that Commandment (like proscribing abortion, birth control, etc.), which puts the Church on a whole different footing.

I am not religious so I don't know how this type of dichotomy gets resolved, and this one seems pretty glaring. As the leadership in the Vatican thinks through this, I wonder if they will back out, or find a way to spin this to mitigate the harm? And if they are able to spin this to neutral or positive, I've gotta say, I'd want to hire their marketing team!

I wonder what Charlton Heston would think of all this?

Can we talk?

Wordnet defines "Revolution" as "a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving."

I like the world revolution - and use it often in my vernacular. Today I was thinking about some of the revolutions we've all experienced.

The Industrial Revolution (IR) began in the 18th century, and marked the point when the growth of mechanical work began outpacing the growth of manual work. The technologies that shaped IR were the steam engine, iron founding and textile manufacturing. The business model was centralized, patent-based monetization, where few were granted IP rights, and they built huge economic machines. Resulting innovations in transportation (rail, ship, automobile) caused the effects of the industrial revolution to go global, albeit over a generation or three.

The Information Revolution (IR2) began in the mid-20th century. It was marked by the connection of easily-stored content to widely-available distribution. The technologies that shaped this time were reduction in storage prices, improved data transmission through telephony, TCP/IP for networking, the massively widespread use of PCs, and the invention of the World Wide Web and Internet (thanks to Al Gore of course). The business model shifted from big to small, from centralized to decentralized, and most critically away from just Western centers of power. The value of IP waned compared to the value of awareness and "eyeballs", which when combined with much lower costs of entry into the "network" resulted in more content being available to more people with almost no effort on the publisher's part. Moreover, banking had evolved to the point where people almost anywhere in the world were able to buy things from anywhere else, thereby monetizing their content. The proliferation of PCs combined with the availability of phone lines that could handle data (via modems to start) made this revolution go global in a matter of decades.

The next revolution (which we are now at the beginning of) is the Communication Revolution (CR). It is marked by the proliferation of mobile telephony; search engines (which is really the transition between IR2 and CR); and non-verbal communication modes (SMS, data, email, etc.) and Internet access via cell phones.

In each Revolution, the infrastructure required to participate is progressively smaller. In fact, having a lot of infrastructure actually impedes and steepens (is that a word?) the on-ramp to the next Revolution.

Moreover, the generations that were born in these latter revolutions have very different preconceptions and approaches to doing things. They live in a world that is steeped in "polyphonicness" - and they're comfortable there. They don't feel the need for communication to replicate face-to-face experiences <-- this is a big one IMO. There is no need to simulate a live meeting for effective communication; each has value and impact, but one doesn't supersede the other. They're also less about persistent fidelity (i.e. highest definition audio/video, immersive feel, etc.) and more about efficacy and fitness for purpose. The concept that I needed to talk to you now, found you, in eight words communicated my message, you acknowledged, and we're done, is very efficient and without the burden of "building a relationship first". This can be done via simple text messaging; no need for a Video Conferencing Room that costs $50,000 and requires three admins, five technicians, an owners' manual, four remotes, and all that crap.

With the proliferation of mobile phone systems, this Revolution has begun even more quickly (a decade?). But CR isn't about blurring boundaries (that happened with IR2). This is rather about blurring time.

Standardization --> Discoverability --> Transparency & Immediacy

IR was about standardization through mechanization (you can have any color you want as long as it's black). IR2 was about publishing and sharing. CR is about not being able to hide (or more poetically, being no longer being cloaked in a veil of time, place, and knowledge).

Everybody talked about "Internet time" back in the day, well we're now in cellular time, Dorothy. I don't even need to wait to boot up my machine and open a browser. If I want to know what's going on somewhere, I can call and find out, if I want to talk about something, I can call and share. But I can also Twitter, text, blog, send pictures, etc. - all in real time.

This is the revolution, and its implications are profound.

Most organizations today have a clearly-defined a protocol and hierarchy. This structure creates latency. They simply don't have the ability to respond in real time to real problems or opportunities. In the CR world, MBAs are a hindrance - they take too long and obsess overly about historical patterns and writing reports.

The concept of a sense-and-respond organization does not yet exist. The Communication Revolution is pointing this out every day as we learn about the bungling acts of corporations and governments. In the past, they would have had the time to manage the conversation, control the message, and have a measured response or be able to hide it. Now they look like buffoons with their heads cut off.

We need to build a business model that embraces sense/response; it needs to have measures, discipline, and an infrastructure that's able to accommodate what CR requires. This capacity is a priority for survival in this Revolution and for whatever is coming next. The leaders of this new model are very much not the leaders to today's corporations or government.

I was reading this MSNBC article today and was freaked out at the thought that Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer or Robert Gates don't use email for work! So if you want to communicate quickly to them, you need to write a memo, print it, and deliver it to one of their minions who will (if the mood strikes) find a way to get it in their hands at some point.  Holy SH*T! This is how we run a country?

The industrial revolution created mechanical speed, the information revolution changed space (specifically, the distance between points in space), and the communication revolution changed time (sense and response time).

Are you ready?

Swimming with da fishes

Well, I'm off to Singapore and Thailand for a few days, and am totally excited at the prospect of also doing some scuba diving off the Thai coast.

I'll be on a liveaboard, which is a really great way to do a lot of diving in a concentrated period of time. The boat is called the Black Manta, and it will sail from Phuket around the Similan Islands where we will spend a few days getting wet and swimming with da fishes:). 

This is one of my favorite things in the world to do, and I can't wait!! The weather in Phuket today was Sunny with a high of 86F and a low of 69F (note to self remember to pack a sweater for those chilly evenings!).

I'll be back online Jan 27.

The polls have closed...

Thank YOU!!!!!

<<UPDATE>> It's official - thank you again for all your votes, we won:)! <<UPDATE>>

And while the winner hasn't been declared officially, the results thus far have vastly exceeded any expectations I might have had!

When this blog was selected as a finalist I was excited with the hope that one or two other people would look at this blog and hopefully get involved in some of the conversations and out of that would come a few more readers and a bit more debate. My second (ego-based) goal was to not come in last.

And then came Wonkette and Rumproast and through them a whole bunch more traffic and votes than I'd ever imagined!

Suddenly, rather than clawing up from the bottom, things changed altogether. I empathize with all the other finalist blogs in this category - random chance allowed me to get lucky.

In the end, I congratulate Wonkette and Rumproast for their presumptive success in their categories, I congratulate all the other finalists in this and all the other categories, and more critically, express my heartfelt gratitude to every one that voted for me and this blog over the last week and promise to do my best to live up to your votes.

Thank YOU!!!!!

Boundary effects

Seth Godin struck a chord with his post on boundaries. I had never thought about it quite like this, but the way a person or an organization deals with its boundaries is pretty telling.

Every organization has walls. I think past success can be the biggest impediment. I was going to write a paper a while back entitled "past success is the greatest predictor of future failure". I would have cited Microsoft for their inability to get past Windows and Office; the Detroit Big Three who still build cars and negotiate with their employees the same way they did decades ago; and the music industry (and the RIAA) who still believes they can sell CDs the way they sold vinyl decades ago. These organizations could be on the precipice of not being able to live up to their past successes.

Why is this?

Individuals also live within boundaries. A fascinating post from TYWKIWDBI - I didn't realize how many people on earth from "successful" nations don't believe in evolution. Like the Flat Earth Society, they've put themselves in a place where progress is self-limited. A possible outcome (courtesy of Daily Kos) is that one in seven American adults is illiterate. Scary. What will the outcome be of the xenophobic desire of so many to build a wall between the United States and Mexico? I'm sure we can all name other examples. These individuals are at risk of not living up to those that preceded them.

Why is this?

South Africa is one of my favorite places (amandla awetu!). In Johannesburg, some people live in beautiful homes but you wouldn't know it, because they're surrounded by huge, thick concrete walls with broken glass on the top and steel gates. Safety is in being inside your jail-like walls. I've also been to Soweto a few times, and there, if there is one at all, the fences are low (3 foot) and decorative. I asked why they didn't use tall concrete walls and was told, "we feel safer when our neighbors can see into our homes and come to our aid if we're in trouble. The bigger the walls, the less safe we feel."

This speaks volumes, doesn't it?

It tells me that at a minimum, I should be more open-minded towards those that don't believe in evolution or a spherical earth, be there to help if they are in trouble, and be less prone to arbitrary judgment and stereotyping.

In Soweto, they gain support and security from each other. Together they are stronger than as individuals.

How do organizations achieve this? Some answers lie in a very good business book I read a while back by Jim Collins called Good to Great. If you haven't read it, Collins looked at more than 1,400 companies' performance over decades to find 11 that met his criteria for significantly outperforming their industry over time.

He (and his team of 21 researchers) analyzed these 11 companies and came up with a set of common elements that the data showed was how they created and sustained success. This is one approach that not only works, but should also appeal to business leaders in the West, since it is required reading in most MBA programs:).

Of the various input principles (in the diagram), the one that connected with me the most is "Level 5 Leadership". Here is what you will read if you click on the image (which takes you to the workbook pdf) about this:

Level 5 Leadership. Level 5 leaders are ambitious first and foremost for the cause, the organization, the work—not themselves— and they have the fierce resolve to do whatever it takes to make good on that ambition. A Level 5 leader displays a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will.

If you have the time, pages 4 and 5 in this pdf are worth the ten minutes you'll need to read them a couple of times.

The L5 leader's role is to build the right boundaries for their organization and for themselves, and to do it with that "paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will".

I don't think we need to wait until we're CEOs to exhibit L5 behavior. That can happen now, and I hope more of our community and national leaders read this book, and embrace the idea of "personal humility and professional will."