“We don’t want to listen to experts anymore”. “We don’t want to elect elitists”. “Give us someone ‘like us’, an everyman, a commoner, not someone already part of the system”.
A few years ago, I started commenting about how the traditional sources of authority (politicians, doctors, professors etc.) were being less trusted. They were being replaced by friends, celebrities and other people we perceived to be more like us, and more attuned to our point of view. This was interesting to me because I was running a startup (Sooqini) that was a crowd-sourced platform where businesses could get services provided by ‘the crowd’. Having trust reside in ratings and reviews by your peers was a good thing, (possibly selfishly speaking, but I continue to believe that, post the demise of Sooqini).
I see now that this trend continues with the rise of Donald Trump, the anti-vaccination movement led by vacuous celebrities, the UK’s flirtation (I hope) with Brexit, and so on. It also occurs to me that the trend is being enabled by something else, which I’m calling a lack of faith. By this I mean, western civilization is inextricably linked to religion (and also geography, and climate and so on) in that our foundational beliefs (manifest destiny, who is and isn’t human, moral codes, etc.) spring largely from the Judeo-Christian system.
What has happened is that as religion has eroded in influence (almost completely, even in the US, despite the churches on every corner) nothing has taken its place, unless you count consumerism and the Internet. In that moral vacuum, the rise of nihilists like Trump, Farage, Haider, Le Pen etc. can be seen as being enabled by the lack of faith/belief in countries ranging from Austria, the UK, and France, to the US.
As it happens, I’m not in favor of religions and don’t subscribe to the idea of a supernatural being. I believe they were ideally suited to controlling large numbers of people in a time when most people were illiterate and uneducated. Oh, and they enabled abuses of power, too. But, if we are unable to replace the sense of community, morality and sharing that they preached with something else, we’ll be in big trouble. Or, rather, even bigger trouble than we are now.
If we are to salvage the gains of the Enlightenment, we need to a) vote, and b) start teaching civics again and make it a top priority for all students (and perhaps adults too). I know we all hate being told what’s good for us, but if we really believe that tolerance, learning, respect, and equality are the right way to go, we need to draw the line somewhere. Yes, it will be hard, and take a long time, but it is worth it. And, if we have to make it an app with gamification in order for people to pay attention, so be it. After all, the other path is just too horrible a future to actually allow it to become a reality.
Given my interest in the Corporate Venture Capital (CVC) industry, I’ve decided to blog a little about it, here on this site.
I define CVC as investments into technology startups by large companies whose primary business is not investment into technology startups.
Technology here is broad – could be semiconductors, could be social media, biotech, food, environmental tech etc.
Startups means recently established companies focused on changing the market they are trying to serve through a new or repurposed technology.
Large companies means well established companies.
Now that the ground rules are clear, I imagine they will be swiftly broken if I comment about corporate incubators, the innovation pipeline issues in large companies and organizational behavior etc. But hey, you’ve got to start somewhere.
I see a huge volume of articles on LinkedIn, and sometimes even read them, and it has occurred to me that there might be a spambot out there coughing up these things to a precise formula. In an attempt to warn everyone (“Soylent – it’s people!”), here is how to spot them (or, alternatively, write the rules for your own spambot).
1. Topic:
Must be relevant to the business goals of your readers (e.g. get ahead!, communicate better!, corner the world’s supply of exclamation marks!!!) or about how business and your personal life are really the same thing (e.g. why you should work with friends, why you should never work with friends, why you should marry/never marry your job/co-worker/laptop, why your children should work for your business on the weekends)
2. Format:
No question – it has to be a list. Five, seven or ten are most popular, but feel free to change it up with a stolid eight or a cheeky nine – you can’t go wrong (as long as the number isn’t 13, or more than 15). Do also throw in a photo of you looking dynamic, possibly speaking to a crowd of rapt onlookers, for good measure
3. Style:
Authoritative, with a hint huge splash of self-referential stuff (check out www.sooqini.com please), and leavened with a bit of humour, and self deprecation (not too much, else it won’t be authoritative). Make sure to not say anything that people don’t already know, and be very black and white – no room for the wishy-washy here
4. Length:
Slightly longer than your average blog post, so 500 words or so, enough to make your presumably avid reader scroll a bit at the end to get to the happy ending, and possibly see that there is a place to comment as well
5. Comments:
Never reply to your readers’ comments – remain above the fray and let the hoi polloi ruminate on the meaning of your pearls of wisdom. (Unless your topic was about engagement, communications or crowd-sourcing ideas, in which case, do the opposite)
6. Frequency:
At least once a month, and possibly twice a month – make sure you are in front of people enough that they start to get the impression that you are everywhere, involved in everything, but not so much that they won’t read the next one
7. Fillers:
Never ever use fillers. Unless you need to get that last list point in somehow, and have run out of ideas.
So that’s it. Be on the lookout for these dastardly ways to waste your time now you know how to spot them (see point 3), and remember folks, just say no…(!)
I’m interested in education, as I believe it to be the only way a country can improve its quality of life and standard of living in a sustainable way. I don’t think this is a particularly controversial view – most people would agree. (A lot of the work I did in Innovation Consulting came down to improving the educational system.) The debate starts around what a ‘good education’ entails.
In Europe and North America, education policy is set and run largely by governments, local and national. There is little or no experimentation beyond the regulations. There are some exceptions (Sweden, but the company in question has recently pulled back due to a lack of profit), and there is government-sponsored change as well (such as charter/magnet schools, and vouchers), but in general it’s pretty monolithic.
So, a ‘good’ education is decided by the state. In these countries, there tend to be parallel state and privately owned systems. Generally you need to be wealthy to go to the private ones, and again generally, your child will get a better education there. (It’s historical – before the industrial revolution, most children didn’t go to school at all, but factories eventually meant that some level of literacy and numeracy was required).
But even in these countries (and other less developed ones, too) is a good education being delivered? Largely speaking, it isn’t, IMHO. This is in part due to the monolithic nature of education (one size doesn’t fit all) and in part due to what teaching methods are used.
The monolithic aspect: the school curriculum is the same for everyone. Makes sense at a lot of levels, but just look at the results – the population as a whole is unprepared for the adult world they have to live in.
The teaching: we’ve seen south-east Asian countries achieve great test results through a regimented, fact-and-test-driven system. Other countries are more focused on a holistic approach, figuring that education isn’t just about turning out savvy employees.
I think both of these systems will continue to fail, because as noted above, one size doesn’t fit all, and because no teaching method will turn out smart informed citizens unless it focuses on teaching people how to think.
And that is my humble definition of a ‘good’ education; one that focuses on critical reasoning, on how to understand the world around you by asking the right questions, analyzing facts and figures, and drawing conclusions. In short creating smart, informed citizens who can participate in a democracy, and who can understand the nature of the world around them. (Of course, there is room for many other topics of study, but this seems to me to be the most important one that is missing). Get this right and you equip people to thrive in any situation, no matter how quickly things change. What better competitive advantage could you imagine? Surely it trumps all others, including geography, natural resources and population size?
It is analogous to the ‘teach a man to fish’ argument. Teach girls and boys to think, and never again will they be led down the garden by politicians and leaders. The apathetic and anemic democracies that we live in will slowly become more lively as informed debate accompanies every decision. Yes, we’ll need technology to enable this. But take a cue from the FMCG and medical industries. The ability to ‘mass personalize’ goods and services down the level of a specific drug for a specific person is now emerging. Why shouldn’t we do the same for education? And indeed we see the first stirrings of this in the MOOC space.
So, the building blocks are now falling into place to allow an individual focus on each pupil or student’s needs. The excuse for monolithic education is being eroded. Combining this with a focus on thinking would allow a country to build for the future.
Of course, what is not in place yet is a system that rewards governments for thinking (and funding) in generations rather than elections. I hope it is not the case that only a smart informed citizenry would vote for a government to create a smart informed citizenry… Not being a nihilist, I’m sure we can work this out, and the place to start is to allow some experimentation. Is anyone out there working on something?
According to an enjoyable Grauniad article about OCD, it’s fashionable these days to claim one is anal-retentive, a completer-finisher and obsessed with details. The author makes the case that this is something new, but I’m unconvinced. It reminds me of the old interview response to the question about what are you bad at (oh, I’m a terrible perfectionist, I don’t suffer fools gladly, etc).
I do think however that it is a change for the UK. Many years ago it was about effortless success – let’s not break a sweat as we cruise through life in a crisp shirt and immaculately polished oxfords. Now it is more fashionable to show the effort, but this is most likely imported from the USA, as is so much in popular culture. Can more stories about ritalin and over-caffination be far behind?
Asides from the dubious practice of co-opting an illness as a badge of honor, I welcome this desire to be seen to be detail-oriented. Goodness knows we could do with more people who focus on actually getting things done, having a sense of discipline, and applying some elbow grease to a problem. Better than wanting to be famous by getting on to a reality TV show for your 15 minutes of fame…
So Starbucks will be paying a ‘voluntary’ £20 million in tax.
If you haven’t been following this, a huge cry of outrage has arisen in the UK because multinational corporations have only been paying the tax they are supposed to pay. Yes, you read that correctly. How dare these parasites obey the laws of the country and at the same time try to serve their shareholders by minimizing their tax bills?
A-ha, you will say, the cry of outrage is directed against the government, of course, given they are the people that put in place the rules that Starbucks, Google and others must follow. But no, that would be too logical. Instead, a journalistic frenzy has erupted against the companies themselves, resulting in this rather humiliating volte face by Starbucks.
As anyone in business should know, you must constantly attend to many things simultaneously: run your business well, (including legally), provide great products and services profitably, and maximise shareholder value. That is your job. Now, it seems, you have to rectify government policy and atone for government’s shortcomings too.
A real government would stand-up and agree to change the tax code, if that was the fiscally prudent thing to do. Instead, they sigh with relief that they aren’t the ones being bashed, and join in with a few blows of their own. I guess this is what comes of electing politicians in the first place.
For the record, if a company is operating legally, and certainly not immorally, let us leave them alone to get on with it. If you want the law to change, lobby your politicians. Oh, and by the way, the uncertainty that this will cause among all corporations operating in the UK will only be bad for business, the economy and the Chancellor’s tax take. Bad news for everyone.
Like the rest of you I was very excited about the new iPhone 5 launch. Apple’s superb track record at building innovative new products meant that I ‘expected the unexpected’ – an unfair thing I suppose, but the cruel flip side of excellence – people come to expect it.
Also like many of you, I was nonplussed by the actual phone they delivered. It looks like a good phone, and some of the features may turn out to be ‘killer’, like Passbook. But overall, it felt like more of the same, and I chuckled at the photos of the ‘iPhone 10‘ lampooning the slightly longer screen of the 5 over the 4/4s.
It then occurred to me that perhaps this was the beginning of the end for Apple’s domination of smartphone ‘mindshare’, and that maybe the competition was about to surpass them. The thought came out of an experience I remember well – when the IBM PC was no longer the de facto standard for business PCs.
I was working for IBM at the time, and in the PC Company in fact. I was a specialist on IBM’s new operating system, OS/2, which was meant to replace Windows (first, in collaboration with Microsoft, and later, in competition with them). IBM did something that later turned out to be a huge mistake: they made OS/2 so it would run on an IBM PC/AT, which was powered by an Intel 80286 processor. They did this for the best of reasons, their customers had masses and masses of these devices, and they wanted to protect their customers’ investments in all that hardware. (IBM had made its fortune by inventing the whole concept of general purpose computers that shared a common operating system, back in the 1960s).
The only problem with this approach is that the chip in question had a fault – Intel had built a multitasking mode into the 286, but it didn’t really work. Not an issue when running MS-Dos/Windows, but a huge problem for OS/2, which was built around multi-tasking. So running OS/2 on the AT was a less than enjoyable experience, and this contributed to a) Microsoft going it alone with Windows NT, and b) users not going for OS/2 because it kinda sucked.
Back to the future: will Apple’s decision to make the iPhone 5 screen more or less backward compatible with the previous versions (and therefore helping iOS app developers everywhere) result in other providers leapfrogging them, simply because they are free to be more innovative? Clearly running iOS 6 on an iPhone is far from a miserable experience, but those large screen alternatives sure are seductive, and even now the sum of all Android phones out there is far greater than the number of iPhones.
If I’m right, expect me to refer back to this post a lot. If not, well, it’s just a post 😉
The arc of life is smooth and jagged
We labour along, unseeing, unaware
A moment of reflection amazes and perplexes
Did we really mean to end up here?
aurisacrafames 