Category: Change

How the Balance of Work Time Between Rich and Poor has Dramatically Changed

In previous centuries and roughly until the mid XXth century, the few rich were idle, bored, and enjoying sports and other ways to spend time; and the poor worked extra long hours in dire conditions just to survive. It is amazing how this has changed – nowadays it is almost the reverse: the upper middle class and rich people generally work intensely, while the working class has on average more leisure, or at least more time away from formal work.

Early 20th century leisure: a tea party

Although this might be changing with the gig economy regarding the working class, with working hours going up again for some categories, the amazing observation is more for the wealthy part of the population, which is generally working very intensely nowadays – with the potential exception of some super-rich billionaires.

Wealthy and upper-middle-class persons are nowadays most often very highly paid and very highly busy professionals, with little time availability for leisure – even more so when family requirements take up the precious remaining time. Of course this has significantly changed from previous times where wealth was often primarily derived from mariage and inheritance.

This trend for the wealthy to work even more is now being called by some “workism” as a psychological or even almost religious need to work a substantial part of the time, as part of personal values or education.

This trend seems to reinforce itself with the Fourth Revolution, which is in strong need of highly educated engineers, and which is at the same time automatizing manual labor tasks. The wealthy educated will work more, be more constantly on line, while the less educated will have more time for themselves.

Amazing how in less then a century, the balance of work has shifted!

Share

Why It is Better to Use ‘Disruption’ Rather than ‘Innovation’

I like this short video of Charlene Li ‘Truth Drop: Disruption vs Innovation‘. She explains why ‘innovation’ is not the right word because it looks like it is going to be easy. So she recommends to systematically use ‘disruption’ instead.

Basically, she states that “innovation is a false promise. It says that it’s going to be easy, we’re going to find the answer in a certain timeline with an investment.

On the other hand, “Disruption though is honest. It says, “If we’re going to create growth, create change, it’s going to be hard, it’s going to be painful and the journey ahead is going to be filled with obstacles and boulders that we have to climb over.”

I will listen to the advice, and use disruption rather than innovation the next time I will talk about digital transformation!

Share

How the World is Really Improving

The world is improving. There is much less poverty today than there was a few years or decades ago, and it is much more visible. Yet, amazingly, there is substantial controversy on this positive message. For example, in this article ‘Bill Gates tweeted out a chart and sparked a huge debate about global poverty‘, this controversy is expressed in length.

The controversial chart from Bill Gates

The interesting aspect of the controversy is that most of the counterarguments are based on moving the signpost: while there was a standard for defining poverty globally, some argue that it is not sufficient any more and it should now be raised substantially. Of course, we don’t define poverty in the same manner in developed countries and in less developed countries. Of course we need to improve further. Yet, why move the signpost when the situation is improving?

In addition, many studies show that in most aspects, the story of the chart is true and that all segments of poverty are seeing their situation improve. I read not so long ago the enlightening book by Jack London, ‘the people of the abyss‘ about his experience in the poorer districts of London at the end of the 19th century. So say the least, the situation has improved greatly!

It is good to be demanding on the subject of poverty, but let’s not underestimate the substantial progress that is made. It deserves some celebrating, even if it is never enough.

Share

How Digital Detox May Not Be Effective

“Digital Detox” is a growing trend, a manner to unplug from our increasingly hectic and 24h way of life and find back our balance and ‘real connections’. This extreme process is increasingly trendy (although it just implies unplugging from our screens and internet), and this certainly reflects some level of anxiousness. Yet the effectiveness of this process is disputed, or at least not proven scientifically, as exposed in this Quartz post ‘Digital detoxes are a solution looking for a problem‘.

The point is to examine whether digital detox really improves mental health, like other detoxes do (by the way, the terminology assumes that digital is an addiction).

The article mentions quite a number of excellent references on the impact of digital and social networks on mood and other factors such as sleep. It is clear that in some ways, social networks impacts mood, in particular as people tend to post only the good things that happen to them. Still, the amount of impact on mental health is controverted.

I like the thesis of the article which takes the view that as always when a new technology is introduced, its effect on health is controverted, and adequate usage rules must be invented (one will remember the famous articles in the early 19th century about the fact that running on trains above a few mph should result in certain death).

My view is that digital services are part of our way of life and provide us with significant services that improve our lives (for example, navigating in an unknown town, knowing the latest infos on local transportation etc). They also make it more hectic. On the other hand, excessive usage is certainly harmful. Cutting off entirely is not any more an option; however, making sure we have spaces with lower usage such as on week-ends is certainly a good idea for balance. There is so much to be learnt in that respect that it will take years of learning to understand really what is harmful and adapt our behavior. Let’s use digital in a measured way in the meantime!

Share

How To Apply Prioritization Properly

Robin Sharma writes “The real key to getting great things done is to stop doing so many good things“. Easy said, not so easy done! He complements this statement with “Success has less to do with hard work and more to do with massive focus on your few best opportunities“

While I concur with these statements overall, and do struggle to prioritize like most of us do, I still have some reservations on some aspects.

The first one is that I believe it is important, while focusing on our current projet, to keep one’s mind open on other things and the general environment. They might well transform into even better and more exciting opportunities! Therefore, it is essential to reserve time for personal education and meeting new people, and identifying new opportunities, even if that’s only for limited time. It’s what I call a diversification strategy (it might even allow you to identify ways of doing your current project more effectively).

The second is that even if you focus on your best opportunity (or opportunities), lots of hard work is still required to get where you want to be, because it is probably something nobody has ever done before, at least in the specific situation you try to apply it. So don’t believe focus does not mean hard work!

Still at the end, it is true that prioritization and focus is a key to success, even if it remains important to be aware of one’s environment and how it shifts.

Share

How to Apply the Accordion Principle to Your Projects

I love this post by Pamela Slim ‘The Accordion Principle‘ because it resonates with my facilitating and consulting practice, and brings a systematic approach to a practice I often use.

The idea is to have a cycle between taking the high-level view on the challenge or problem to solve, and to focus on some detailed work. It is to make a systematic ‘health-check’ of what we are focusing on by looking at the big picture regularly. “The key is not to avoid looking at the big picture, it is to consistently move between the big picture and the small picture. I have termed this practice The Accordion Principle.“

In Pamela’s view it gets even further: “The new client will say something like “I don’t even know where to start. There are so many things going on right now, and they are all kind of swimming in my head.”. “Just start anywhere,” I say.” The point here, is that we need to start somewhere, and we need to start small. And then when we take the big-picture view, we’ll figure out how things have changed and how to progress with the rest.

Are you ready to apply the ‘accordion principle’ more systematically to your endeavors? Work on the details, then go wide to check the full picture, then go detailed again, and repeat… until you get there!

Share

How to Apply Ethics to Digital Applications in the Collaborative Age

Following up and expanding on our previous post ‘How to Deal with the Conundrum of Smart or Safe Cities‘, let’s expand about the issue of ethics in technology. This excellent post Medium post by Rachel Coldicutt ‘Ethics won’t make software engineering better‘ addresses some of the core issues: more ethics trainings for engineers won’t by itself address the issue.

She explains, “Ensuring more computer scientists have a rudimentary understanding of ethical decision-making will certainly broaden their horizons as individuals, but it’s not enough to transform how technology is made or how it affects society. A more radical proposal is to train arts and social science graduates in product and experience design, so that people who put people first have the skills to shape technology more confidently.”

Her point here is that even ethical computer scientists may fail without a proper ethical governance. And this governance must foster multi-disciplinary-based decisions. She fosters the presence of social science experts as part of the teams.

Whether this is only what is needed is debatable, but the point that ethics must be considered from a diverse viewpoint is essential, inasmuch as it is well known that computer engineering has a gender and ethnical bias, which needs to be checked. It is why governance and authorities must be diverse and not only engineering-centered.

In summary, Rachel Coldicutt states “Knowing what to do with tech must become at least as valuable a skill as knowing how to make it.“

Share

How Internet Giants Disruptors Now Have to Address the Physical Economy

I love that post from Mitch Joel ‘A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To Disruption‘ that started from the issue faced by publishers over last Christmas: loss of capacity in printing shops made many popular books unavailable.

Uber buys thousands of cars

Internet disruptors have reached a disruption stage where their decisions have so much impact in the physical world that they now have to intervene in that world.

Mitch Joel quotes “Tom Goodwin (of Zenith Media) and his well-worn/well-used quote from 2015: “Uber, the world’s largest taxi company, owns no vehicles. Facebook, the world’s most popular media owner, creates no content. Alibaba, the most valuable retailer, has no inventory. And Airbnb, the world’s largest accommodation provider, owns no real estate. Something interesting is happening.”“

“What many people don’t know, is that Tom updated that quote this year to read: “The world’s largest taxi firm, Uber, is buying cars. The world’s most popular media company, Facebook, now commissions content. The world’s most valuable retailer is now Amazon, and has more than 350 stores. And the world’s largest hospitality provider, Airbnb, increasingly owns real estate. Things change.””

Things change indeed, and also show how internet disruption really impacts our daily life now. This may lead to another deep transformation of our economic setup: as internet companies will have to own much more physical assets, their business model will also transform.

Share

How to Overcome a ‘Big Gulp’ Decision in Transformations

Following from our previous post ‘How many Transformations Fail Due to the Lack of Decision‘, in her post ‘Big Gulp Decisions‘ Charlene Li suggests when it comes to the manner of taking the decision to transform, that the right strategy is to ‘burn the boats’.

“Realize also that in the end you’re not going to have all the answers. You will never be 100% certain. […] Once you decide to make this decision be prepared to what one disruptive company calls “burning the boats”. We have to be willing to say we’re making this decision and we’re moving forward and there is no going back. Because if people think that there is an option to go back to what you normally doing before, they will hedge.”

On that perspective, I am not too convinced that it is the right strategy in all cases, because contrary to the Spaniards landing in America with Cortes, organizations nowadays live in an open world – people can decide with their feet to go somewhere else. Therefore, while it is important to ensure commitment to the transformation, the risk of people fleeing is also real.

My recommendation is to instill the transformation at a reduced scale in a specific part of the organization – maybe a specific subsidiary, or even a newly created business, and then let it spread by example and exchange of personnel to the rest of the organization. This also avoids to ‘bet the house’ on the transformation and maintains revenue from the traditional business. This approach may seem less efficient, but it takes into account that something that works will attract people in an open world.

Share

How many Transformations Fail Due to the Lack of Decision

Charlene Li is a specialist of digital transformation. In her post ‘Big Gulp Decisions‘ she expands on the issue of taking the decision to move into actual transformation after the phases of analysis and planning. If it is a real disruption, the change will be dramatic and probably irreversible. What does it take to move forward?

“In many ways the reasons why most organizations do not go into the disruptive strategies and really move into that assertively and intentionally is that they come up to this big gulp moment and they haven’t prepared for it. For some reason they think some magic wand will show up and they can wave it and it’ll be an easy obvious decision. It’s never that way“

So, many failures in transformation programs could stem from the fact that when comes the time, the decision is not actually taken.

This decision can’t be a half-hearted decision. The governance body must be prepared to take it. It might be the main responsibility of the directors, in addition to planning for the transformation, and it might be the most difficult decision to make: what are you willing to stop doing? Are you willing to bet the house on the transformation? Will you stick to it whatever happens?

“Preparing for that big gulp moment is something that has to be built into a disruption strategy. What are the preparations, the data you need to make? Also, what are you going to do afterwards to be able to make sure that people are aligned and able to move forward from the big gulp moment?“

Share

How Arthur C Clarke’s Three Laws Continue to Apply

Arthur C Clarke, famous science-fiction writer, produced three statements about technology development. They are quite applicable and profound, in particular with the perspective on the Fourth Revolution. I find it useful to share them here.

  1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
  2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
  3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The first statement is about the role of the change of generation in our institutions: too often, such a change is needed for our paradigms to evolve officially – experts and professors remain stuck in their worldview.

The next statements are about going beyond what we believe is possible. There are not enough visionaries doing that nowadays: in spite of the start-up trend, too many start-ups remain within the established possible.

I love the mention of magic, because the last statement tells us that irrespective of the progress of technology, there will always be magic: beyond the currently possible, and we will always be amazed. Let’s look for the next magical stuff!

Share

How to Deal With Different Storytelling Approaches

Following up on our post ‘How We Believe The First Explanation We Hear‘ I like this post of Valeria Maltoni ‘We Have two General Models of Storytelling. One is Ancient. One is New. It is Only a Matter of Time Before they Collide‘. Storytelling is how we develop our view of the world. The article is meaningful because it adds a dimension between the subjective, relational storytelling and the new storytelling generated automatically from computer-based knowledge.

There would be two different kind of storytelling:

  • anecdotal storytelling, passed between individuals and based on a low level of information – local and variable,
  • the statistical storytelling, produced by new technology based on global information and data – global and standard.

Quoting from Christopher G. Moore: “We have a generation who are getting their stories from the global library, and the international group of story-tellers are transmitting stories that may conflict or contradict what they learned at home or school. As storytellers compete for the attention of an expanded global audience, the stories essential to sustain local cultures are threatened. Stories that inspire are no longer exclusively based on local elites, celebrities or events. […] The statistical story has disrupted and threatens to displace the anecdote.”

Valeria Maltoni makes a powerful point by contradicting this statement: “we have a hard time shedding the subjective story. Because it feels more real […] The reason why we feel more connected to a subjective story is that it influences our emotions. The statistical story keeps changing based on updates and fixes. We have a hard time connecting to that. But the statistical story can make us more efficient, improve our decisions.“

In any case, the conflict between statistical story and a more subjective, emotional one is I believe an essential conflict for all of us today. Let’s be more conscious of it.

Share