How the Economy Becomes Increasingly Bi-Polar

This extremely interesting post ‘We’re living in two economies, and they are tearing us apart‘ aligns with many of our views in terms of the current revolutionary transformation from the Industrial Age into a new age which the author calls ‘Autonomous Age’, which is what we call the ‘Collaborative Age’. The interesting part is the analysis of what happens in the economy during this transformation, with an increased bi-polar economy between traditional (physical) and virtual economies.

The interesting part of the analysis is how the two economies are “pulling in opposite directions, and doing so, tearing the Old Order apart“. “In particular, the traditional economy is biased toward inflation. By comparison, the Autonomous Economy is biased toward deflation.” “The problem is non-monetizable productivity — unlike in the real world, the productivity gains in the Autonomous Economy don’t translate to increased incomes for average folks.”

We connect here with the Baumol effect that we described in the post ‘How the Relative Increase of Cost for Education or Health Care Can be Explained‘. Physical services struggle to improve in terms of productivity and become therefore relatively more expensive.

The author of the post however goes further and asks itself how we can avoid an upcoming wave of unemployment as the virtual economy productivity will require much less people to provide the same or a better level of service.

As I observe at the same time a strong trend to go local and develop human touch services, I am not too concerned on the long term although the transition may well be difficult as people lose their jobs and struggle to transform their occupation.

The bi-polar economy is there to stay and we need to be ready for the disruption. I remain optimistic on the longer term, but we need to brace for the short term.

Share

How Venture Funds Also Deploy Monopoly-Like Behaviors

My attention has been drawn by the behavior of Softbank, probably one of the venture capitalists, or as a minimum the largest investment funds into unicorn start-ups. This sprawling investor has stakes in many companies which are not known by their best ethical behavior( Uber, DoorDash, WeWork…), and does not seem much concerned by those aspects (read particularly recent news that looks like patent troll behavior in ‘A SoftBank-owned company used Theranos patents to sue over COVID-19 tests‘ or ‘SoftBank Owned Patent Troll, Using Monkey Selfie Law Firm, Sues To Block Covid-19 Testing, Using Theranos Patents‘)

The point which seems quite obvious is that while we start complaining about possible monopolistic behavior of companies like the GAFAM, this type of behavior also seems to exist with some major funds. Softbank is allied by the Saudi Arabian sovereign fund in the Vision Fund, the largest venture fund around. And its behavior seems to to try to build companies that could be one day in a sort of monopoly situation and then milk it. Unethical behaviors in the companies in their portfolios do not seem to faze this fund and its main contributors. It takes only public uproar for refraining some of those behaviors.

Therefore, if we manage collectively to do something to curb the monopolistic tendencies of the GAFAM and largest unicorns, we may as well do something about the monopolistic tendencies of some of the largest investors that are behind unicorns and the largest start-ups of the age.

Share

How Companies Manage Hundreds of Employees Remotely

The Covid-19 crisis has highlighted the practice of some modern virtual companies that can source and manage their employees globally. An interesting case study is developed in this post ‘Managing 185 people in 40 countries. How they do it‘.

In this case study the company Platform.sh is typical of those digital companies that have no office space and coordinate hundreds of employees globally. In this case, the company has been built that way since 2010 and seems to be quite successful on its market.

A few take-away points for me from this paper:

  • basically the money that would otherwise be spent on office amenities is spent in having meetings, including a long all-hands meeting every year for people to know each other and exchange in a physical space. Hence, those setups do not preempt the need to invest in building the relationships – and rely also on the ability to travel globally at least once a year!
  • a focus on the right mix of communication (synchronous / asynchronous) seeking the best effectiveness
  • Lots of writing and explicit behavior expectations to compensate for the missing informal expectations transmittal.

There is a strong benefit at being able to hire talent anywhere without any geographical constraint – and not be limited to some hot spots of coding talents. This in turn allows more diversity and apparently also less cost overall.

All in all, an excellent case study to meditate as we enter in a new era of much more frequent virtual remote work.

Share

How Some Startups Burn Cash Unsustainably To Gain Market Share

This ranting post “Doordash and Pizza Arbitrage” is gone somewhat viral. It describes in detail how many well-known startups are actually subsidizing users to consume their services in a desperate bid to capture market share and create new markets.

The post explains how a restaurant owner got enrolled without his consent on a food delivery application, only to find that the service was on purpose proposing his food products for delivery at a sharp discount compared to the selling prices (without even counting delivery fee) – and of course without his consent. This resulted in some funny experiments where the restaurant owner could order food for a lower price than the startup is paying for it, in reality getting subsidized by the startup!

In general many of the well known brands for new distributed physical services like car transportation (Uber…), food delivery etc, are using their investor’s money to subsidize the service, therefore necessarily skewing the market. This is of course unsustainable. If the vision is to become so market dominant that in the future prices can be imposed like in a monopoly, it is downright unethical. In any case I did not realize how many of the modern convenient physical services of the e-economy are currently in reality not priced as they should be.

In addition as in the case study of the post, poor logistics by the startup meant that the food was delivered cold, impacting the restaurant’s reputation.

You have insanely large pools of capital creating an incredibly inefficient money-losing business model. It’s used to subsidize an untenable customer expectation. You leverage a broken workforce to minimize your genuine labor expenses. The companies unload their capital cannons on customer acquisition, while this week’s Uber-Grubhub news reminds us, the only viable endgame is a promise of monopoly concentration and increased prices. But is that even viable?

There will necessarily be a wake-up call sometimes when those entrepreneurs will fail to show that their business model is unsustainable. And it will probably come sooner than expected. Welcome to the universe of unsustainable unicorns!

Share

How Power is Shifting to Social Network Connectors

In the book ‘The systems view of life‘, the topic of social networks and specifically how power exists and develops in social networks. We realize that the exercise of power, which was in the Industrial Age through hierarchies, is now becoming quite different.

The socio-biologist Manuel Castells argues that the paramount form of power in the network society is the power to constitute networks – to connect individuals and institutions to these networks, or exclude them, and to inter-connect different networks.”

Whereas power as domination is most effectively exercised through a hierarchy, the most effective social structure for power as empowerment is the network. In a social network, people are empowered by being connected to the network. In such a network the success of the whole community depends o the success of its individual members, while the success of each member depends on the success of the community as a whole.

Power in social networks therefore resides in empowerment through connection. Super-connectors have thus the most power. This quite different perspective helps explain how power is shifting in the most advanced societies – and what makes powerful today.

Share

How We Need to Learn More Than Ever, but that’s Not The Same as Getting Formal Education

In this post ‘But what could you learn instead?’, Seth Godin reminds us that now is the time to accelerate our learning to face a disrupted world – but that at the same time, learning is not necessarily correlated with formal education.

Learning takes effort, and it’s hard to find the effort when the world is in flux, when we’re feeling uncertain and when we’re being inundated with bad news. But that’s the moment when learning is more important than ever.”

But learning is quite different to formal education which was developed during the industrial age and is actually a way to ensure conformity and the capability to do hard work.

This shift [from education to true learning] is difficult to commit to, because unlike education, learning demands change. Learning makes us incompetent just before it enables us to grasp mastery. Learning opens our eyes and changes the way we see, communicate and act.”

Let us remind us always that never have we faced more the need to learn, but that there are myriads of ways to learn and change which are not just formal education.

Share

How to Build Your New Normal

As we live through unprecedented changes, there is quite a challenge to build our new normal. This Capitalogix post ‘Building Your New Normal‘ provides some pointers.

Things won’t go back to the way they were, but they will go back to normal. Only, it will be a new normal. It’s a good lesson in being attached to a result, not a medium for a result.”

The point is here: let’s not concentrate on how we were doing things, but back to why we were doing them. The means and technology do not matter, as long as we can align to our longer term purpose. We will adapt our delivery methods, our way of working, but the wider world still needs us because of our purpose.

It is a good time now to sit and reflect how we can deliver our purpose more effectively and to more people.

Share

How to Define Levels of Remote Working Organisational Proficiency

This Medium post ‘The Five Levels of Remote Work — and why you’re probably at Level 2‘ mentions how Matt Mullenweg, the founder of Automattic (managing amongst other products the WordPress platform) defines 5 levels of remote work.

Those 5 levels are (summarized with my interpretation):

  • level 1: majority office-based with some remote work
  • level 2: recreating the office online (fixed hours, large meetings, office-type rituals)
  • level 3: adapting to the remote working medium by changing rituals, minimizing meetings and maximizing asynchronous written information
  • level 4: fully asynchronous work, with no requirement for time coordination. This has also the benefit to avoid interruptions and allow longer focus times
  • level 5: nirvana. Not so clear for me. “Mullenweg equates this level with having more emphasis on ‘environment design’, insofar as the organisation’s culture, and the physical environment people work in is concerned

The post mentions that “Companies that truly practice asynchronous communication have stepped out of the industrial revolution, and no longer conflate presence with productivity, or hours with output, as one might on the factory floor.” This is probably more like the Collaborative Age will look like.

Also it is worth mentioning that it is recommended to organise physical team bonding events on a periodic basis to support a majority of remote work time.

It is true that most of my corporate clients are stuck on level 2. What remote work level have you achieved so far?

Share

How to Ensure Data Is Not a New Toxic Waste

There are quite a number of discussions about the ambiguous status of data in the new Collaborative Age. On one side it is celebrated as the new oil (refer to our post How Data Really is the New Oil, and Better); on the other side some argue that it is rather a toxic waste as in this interesting column ‘Data – the new oil, or potential for a toxic oil spill?

The point of the article is linked to data security and the harm that can be done through data theft and possible advanced recombination with other data sources that would also have been stolen. With zillions of data generated everyday, the argument is that one day or the other, sensitive data will leak and produce toxic effects on the wider data landscape and digital environment.

Specifically, the article mentions “Re-identification of anonymized data-sets [which] is a hot research topic for computer science today” and the fact that the breaches are additive in nature, progressively weakening privacy and sensitive data.

Of course, unclean data (refer to our post on data hygiene) is also another issue of toxic waste that may influence the wider data ecosystem if it is used as a basis for AI algorithm teaching or other reference applications.

The large amounts of data available today are a great source of value and at the same time are fraught with risks – as any new technology. Which will win first? My optimistic self is rather confident that the benefits will outweigh the risks, but that does not detract from the need to reinforce security and privacy.

Let’s make sure data is the source of value and not a toxic waste.

Share

How Data Hygiene Becomes Essential

In an AI conference lately I was struck by the mention of new jobs such as data hygienist and AI trainer. I did not realize how important data hygiene was – up to becoming a new profession!

Data hygiene is in reality quiet critical to AI development. Poor data hygiene is certain to create all sort of issues and false positive, and to lengthen dramatically the time it would take for an AI algorithm to learn its part.

Data hygiene is actually hard work because of the sheer size of the data bases to clean up, and the need to distinguish between rubbish and actual legitimate data points. It requires specific tools and particular attention, not to mention time. Hence it is a significant investment, but is found to be quite worthwhile apparently compared to the benefits.

Before we did not care so much about the quality of data in our databases – although there is still this old adage about garbage in, garbage out. Now we need a much higher quality level and apparently it is quite a challenge to achieve it.

Welcome to the world of data hygiene and data hygienists!

Share

How We Should Worry About Who We Have Helped Become Better People

Clayton Christensen, the innovation scholar that wrote so many books about innovation, passed away recently. He wrote “Don’t worry about the level of individual prominence you have achieved; worry about the individuals you have helped become better people.”

This quote if of course inspiring, and coming from someone with the life experience of Clayton Christensen, quite interesting too – since he had certainly reached a very high level of prominence.

This probably explains his drive to be a university professor while he could have had a very successful career in consulting and private ventures.

Still its reminds us that what people will remember is how much we helped them become better people. How can we work to achieve this better?

Share

How Irrelevant Industrial Age Approaches Are Still Prevalent

I read recently this account ‘Exclusive: Barclays installs Big Brother-style spyware on employees’ computers‘ of how a bank had installed a productivity measuring tool on its employees computer, that issues warning when people pause doing stuff on their computer. And indeed after a quick search I realized there seem to be quite an offer of “productivity monitoring tools” on the market.

This is an impressive application of the Industrial Age mindset as we move into Collaborative Age. Monitoring my computer activity would have absolutely no meaning as to my productivity: my work is about creativity, facilitating, getting people to work together. How can you expect to measure that based on my active interaction with my computer?

The article does not detail what were the specific tasks of the targeted employees, but in most modern organisations people don’t spend their entire day in front of the screen just repeatedly doing tasks that can be measured for actual productivity. Only some specific administrative departments could possibly be considered for that to be relevant.

In any case installing some software is a serious breach of confidence with regard to the employees and says a lot about the workplace culture that must be prevalent there.

In the Collaborative Age, productivity measurement must be more comprehensive than just interaction with a computer; and in case, trust will ever be a more essential characteristic of healthy workplaces.

Share