If you read David Carr in the NYT this morning, you were treated to a snarky interpretation of what's wrong with business journalism today. According to Carr, the "collapse" of business journalism has been caused by one simple development: business isn't heroic any more. The way Carr sees it, business journalism is about larger-than-life heroes of capitalism making huge financial bets that result in enormous personal gains. Inspired by glossy coverage of epic corporate chiefs, readers flock to business magazines, hoping to learn how to do what their out-sized heroes have done.
But Carr's column tells us less what is really wrong with business journalism and more about what's wrong with too much time spent in New York, drinking the same kool-aid as every other journalist in Gotham. When everybody sees it the same way, you can be sure that nobody really sees what's going on.
There's a reason why the magazines that Carr writes about have lost their way--and it isn't because business is any less interesting, dynamic, or important than it was 5 or 10 or even 2 years ago. Let's go through the failures and then talk about some of the successes and see what we learn.
Why did BusinessWeek get sold for $2 million? Because the idea of a weekly news magazine that thinks its job is to report "news" is preposterous on the face of it. That said, BusinessWeek is far from worthless: it has a terrific web site and with serious re-work, could be converted into a valuable property. But not if it thinks its in the news business.
What happened to Portfolio, the $40 million business bust launched and then killed by Conde Nast? Early in Portfolio's development, I asked one of its top people what the mission of the magazine was--what was its definition of victory? The answer I got was telling: "This is Conde Nast," I was told. "The mission of the magazine is to make money." And how does that relate to the reader? And to why a reader should bother to subscribe?
What about Fortune? In 1929, when Fortune was launched, it was a magazine of business sociology, telling the story of the growth of the new-to-the-world American corporation. Eighty years later, Fortune has lost its editorial purpose. In the 1980s and 1990s Fortune wrote about Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs, Jack Welch. It had covers devoted to "the 10 toughest bosses in business," as if being tough were a postive definition of leadership. In the early 2000s, Fortune picked Enron as America's most innovative company--several years in a row! This is a magazine that needs to re-think, not its frequency, but its way of writing about business and the service it provides its readers.
Now let's look at The Economist, a publication that is writing about business, writing about the ideas behind business, writing about the changes going on in business--a publication pointedly ignored by David Carr. Why is The Economist doing so well? Because it has a clear idea of its mission. It understands what it does for its readers. It presents, not news, but a lens on the news. It offers a seasoned, experienced, intelligent eye on business, economics, and the mixture of the two. It has no by-lined articles. But it has a very consistent editorial voice--a slightly right-of-center British economist's interpretation not only of what is news-worthy, but also what the news actually means.
And what of my old magazine, Fast Company? It has never been guilty of the description offered by Carr. From the beginning, Fast Company has focused on a different idea of what is important about business. When Bill Taylor and I started the magazine, we went so far as to say, "We're not a magazine--we're a movement." What did that mean? It meant that we had an agenda for business--a different definition of leadership, a different idea of how business could and should be done. We didn't focus on the same old CEOs--we wrote about "people before they're famous, ideas before they're safe." That's still what Fast Company writes about: innovation, change, new ideas, best practices, new thinking, and new business models.
Business magazines aren't in trouble because business is less interesting than before the big crash.
Business magazines are in trouble because the crash revealed a fundamental fault that existed before the crash: Most of them had lost their reason for existing. They no longer understood what their mission was; or their mission had lost its relevance and they had failed to adapt.
But business today is more, not less, important than ever. It needs smart, thoughtful journalists who can wrestle, not with celebrities and heroes, as Carr suggests, but with new ideas and fresh ways of creating value.
If David Carr doesn't understand this fundamental point, he'd do well to talk with his colleague at the Times, Joe Nocera, who not only understands what business journalism is about--he practices it with every column he writes.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Tweet This
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Rule #5 Change Is a Math Formula
Sorry for the long stretch between blogs! I've been traveling non-stop since my last posting--and if it weren't for a piece on the front page of today's New York Times on zero-waste, I would have waited until I got back to Santa Fe on Friday to weigh in with a report of an amazing month-plus of travel!
What did the Times report?
Here's the key paragraph about a news story describing the rise of the zero-waste movement, a movement that is replacing old-fashioned recycling with an even more ambitious approach that eliminates waste. The Times' Leslie Kaufman writes, "Though born of idealism, the zero-waste philosophy is now propelled by sobering realities, like the growing difficulty of securing permits for new landfills and an awareness that organic decay in landfills releases methane that helps warm the earth's atmosphere."
Change is a math formula! Change happens when the cost of the status quo is greater than the risk of change. When it comes to the corporate costs of doing business and the social costs of dealing with waste, economic pragmatism is forcing real change. It is cheaper and more reasonable to eliminate waste than to pay the rising costs of burying it or even of trying to recycle it.
Here's the thing: most innovators want to focus on coming up with cool ideas that make risk look more attractive because the new solutions are so appealing.
But it turns out that it's ultimately more effective to drive up the cost of the status quo--if you want to be a change agent, learn how to make the real economics of existing systems become more transparent! Showcase the real costs of doing business the way we've done business for years! When the cost of the status quo goes up, the risk of change looks a lot more attractive!
What did the Times report?
Here's the key paragraph about a news story describing the rise of the zero-waste movement, a movement that is replacing old-fashioned recycling with an even more ambitious approach that eliminates waste. The Times' Leslie Kaufman writes, "Though born of idealism, the zero-waste philosophy is now propelled by sobering realities, like the growing difficulty of securing permits for new landfills and an awareness that organic decay in landfills releases methane that helps warm the earth's atmosphere."
Change is a math formula! Change happens when the cost of the status quo is greater than the risk of change. When it comes to the corporate costs of doing business and the social costs of dealing with waste, economic pragmatism is forcing real change. It is cheaper and more reasonable to eliminate waste than to pay the rising costs of burying it or even of trying to recycle it.
Here's the thing: most innovators want to focus on coming up with cool ideas that make risk look more attractive because the new solutions are so appealing.
But it turns out that it's ultimately more effective to drive up the cost of the status quo--if you want to be a change agent, learn how to make the real economics of existing systems become more transparent! Showcase the real costs of doing business the way we've done business for years! When the cost of the status quo goes up, the risk of change looks a lot more attractive!
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Rule #52 Lives in Washington, DC
Stay alert! There are teachers everywhere!
You'd think that, having written Rules of Thumb, I'd know about my own rules, wouldn't you? Except that, as one of the Rules says, "Knowin' it ain't the same as doin' it." (A rule taught me by Larry Smith, who was gracious enough to host me at his lovely Capitol Hill home.)
But the rule that I end the book with is, perhaps, the rule that deserves constant reminders: there are teachers everywhere, if you keep your eyes and ears open, pay attention, and ask questions.
For example, I spent a very interesting hour with Beth Rhyne of the Center for Financial inclusion, a department of ACCION. In addition to briefing me on the work of the Center, which focuses on moving micro-finance into the mainstream and help it reach more people with opportunity and protect more people from bad financial practices, Beth gave me a heads up on ain interesting piece of financial/political news: a number of Latin American governments are buying micro-finance operations to make sure that micro-finance serves their political interests. Check out what has happened with Prodem as an example. To be accurate, Beth wasn't commenting on these purchases--she was just reporting that people with an interest in micro-finance need to look outside of the ordinary boundaries of micro-finance to see how it has become a part of the global political competition for the minds and hearts of people all over the world.
Another teacher: Connie Evans of the Association for Enterprise Opportunity. Connie is fresh to Washington, having moved from Chicago. Earlier in her career Connie started the first micro-enterprise project for women in the US: the Women's Self-Improvement Project. In her new job Connie is determined to bring micro-enterprise to the US, where, she says, there are 10-18 million potential micro-enterprise entrepreneurs. Another interesting point raised by Connie: each micro-enterprise creates 2 to 3 new jobs--but the Labor Department doesn't count jobs created by micro-enterprise!
And then there's Neil Shah. As a 21-year old at Georgetown, Neil is operating Compass Partners, a brilliant, fascinating dynamic training program to teach fellow students how to be social entrepreneurs. Compass Partners operates a consulting firm and 9 student-run enterprises, all of which are social businesses, serving a social purpose and generating operating revenues! There are 163 Georgetown students in the program and each student goes through 5 levels as they learn more, contribute more, and undertake more in the field of social entrepreneurship. It's a fascinating program and Neil is a remarkable young social entrepreneur whose vision is both far-reaching and highly disciplined.
From there I went to a day-long conference sponsored by the University of Maryland. Seth Goldman kicked it off with the story behind Honest Tea--and left the audience with an old Chinese proverb: "Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it."
And when you get to hear a Nobel prize winning scientist discuss climate change, well, that's a real teacher! Thomas Schelling gave a key note address in which he said that climate change is real and the science is well-accepted. The question is what to do and who will do it. The heart of the matter, said Schelling, is for rich countries to help developing countries transition to renewable energy sources. It's wrong to insist that developing countries slow down their energy use--they need to use energy to develop, which is how they'll be able to survive climate change! Schelling cited the Marshall Plan as one of the last times in modern history where major powers found a way to cooperate to help countries rebuild. But at a time when China is building 1 coal plant per week--1 coal plant per week!--the challenge is for rich nations to come together and cooperate in putting up money to help developing countries; for developing countries to figure out how they would divide the money; and perhaps an intermediary to negotiate between the two, so the transfer of wealth doesn't resemble extortion or black mail.
The last word goes to Paul Light, who spoke about his research on social entrepreneurship. He ended his talk by saying, regardless of your definition of social entrepreneurship or the sector in which you work, "We are all public servants now."
You'd think that, having written Rules of Thumb, I'd know about my own rules, wouldn't you? Except that, as one of the Rules says, "Knowin' it ain't the same as doin' it." (A rule taught me by Larry Smith, who was gracious enough to host me at his lovely Capitol Hill home.)
But the rule that I end the book with is, perhaps, the rule that deserves constant reminders: there are teachers everywhere, if you keep your eyes and ears open, pay attention, and ask questions.
For example, I spent a very interesting hour with Beth Rhyne of the Center for Financial inclusion, a department of ACCION. In addition to briefing me on the work of the Center, which focuses on moving micro-finance into the mainstream and help it reach more people with opportunity and protect more people from bad financial practices, Beth gave me a heads up on ain interesting piece of financial/political news: a number of Latin American governments are buying micro-finance operations to make sure that micro-finance serves their political interests. Check out what has happened with Prodem as an example. To be accurate, Beth wasn't commenting on these purchases--she was just reporting that people with an interest in micro-finance need to look outside of the ordinary boundaries of micro-finance to see how it has become a part of the global political competition for the minds and hearts of people all over the world.
Another teacher: Connie Evans of the Association for Enterprise Opportunity. Connie is fresh to Washington, having moved from Chicago. Earlier in her career Connie started the first micro-enterprise project for women in the US: the Women's Self-Improvement Project. In her new job Connie is determined to bring micro-enterprise to the US, where, she says, there are 10-18 million potential micro-enterprise entrepreneurs. Another interesting point raised by Connie: each micro-enterprise creates 2 to 3 new jobs--but the Labor Department doesn't count jobs created by micro-enterprise!
And then there's Neil Shah. As a 21-year old at Georgetown, Neil is operating Compass Partners, a brilliant, fascinating dynamic training program to teach fellow students how to be social entrepreneurs. Compass Partners operates a consulting firm and 9 student-run enterprises, all of which are social businesses, serving a social purpose and generating operating revenues! There are 163 Georgetown students in the program and each student goes through 5 levels as they learn more, contribute more, and undertake more in the field of social entrepreneurship. It's a fascinating program and Neil is a remarkable young social entrepreneur whose vision is both far-reaching and highly disciplined.
From there I went to a day-long conference sponsored by the University of Maryland. Seth Goldman kicked it off with the story behind Honest Tea--and left the audience with an old Chinese proverb: "Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it."
And when you get to hear a Nobel prize winning scientist discuss climate change, well, that's a real teacher! Thomas Schelling gave a key note address in which he said that climate change is real and the science is well-accepted. The question is what to do and who will do it. The heart of the matter, said Schelling, is for rich countries to help developing countries transition to renewable energy sources. It's wrong to insist that developing countries slow down their energy use--they need to use energy to develop, which is how they'll be able to survive climate change! Schelling cited the Marshall Plan as one of the last times in modern history where major powers found a way to cooperate to help countries rebuild. But at a time when China is building 1 coal plant per week--1 coal plant per week!--the challenge is for rich nations to come together and cooperate in putting up money to help developing countries; for developing countries to figure out how they would divide the money; and perhaps an intermediary to negotiate between the two, so the transfer of wealth doesn't resemble extortion or black mail.
The last word goes to Paul Light, who spoke about his research on social entrepreneurship. He ended his talk by saying, regardless of your definition of social entrepreneurship or the sector in which you work, "We are all public servants now."
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Washington, DC
Even though I worked here at DOT in the last two years of the Carter Administration, I'd forgotten how humid Washington, DC is--it's like working and living in a cloud (in more ways than one). But it is a city that stimulates thinking; it's hard to be here without reflecting on the state of the nation and what it means to be an American.
Last night I had dinner with my old friend and mentor, Larry Smith (he's the man behind "knowin' it ain't the same as doing' it). We talked about a speech he'll be giving to a group of foreign journalists in a week or so. Larry is expert at explaining the American political system, so I'm sure he'll do a fantastic job of bringing context to the current scene.
But our conversation turned to other matters: Larry has always insisted that the American character is uniquely pragmatic. But the current temper seems less pragmatic and more bent on rage and irrational anger--the dark side of the American character. Larry said that we've always had this division in our "national soul"--a battle between our instinct to do the right thing, to make good things happen, versus a seething undercurrent that manifests itself in demagogues and destroyers. Harry Truman famously once observed that it takes a skilled carpenter to build a house, but any jackass can knock one down.
Larry told the story of one US Senator who has always been able to work across the aisle, even though he's a principled conservative Republican. When he went back to his state over the summer, he was confronted with angry crowds who threatened to unseat him if he worked with the Democrats to pass any health care bill. He's now officially against health care reform.
My comment: He's a double-loser. He's not only not standing up against the tide of irrational hate and anger, he's also caving in as a leader and not doing his job as a Senator. The excuse,"If I vote for this it will cost me my job" is not a defense for doing the wrong thing.
It reminded me of a conversation I had with Jim Collins about CEOs who cave in to pressure to amp up the company's stock price, even though they know it's not the right thing to do. They do it because, like the Senator, they're afraid they'll lose their jobs. But keeping the job by doing the wrong thing isn't the point of the exercise! It's not an admissible defense! Why did you do the wrong thing? "Because otherwise they'd fire me." Sorry! Not admissible!
If you look closely at the issues on the front page of the paper--from the economic melt down to health care reform to what to do in Afghanistan--they are all in one way or another moral issues.
What does it mean to be an American today?
It means having the courage of our convictions--but first it means having convictions.
Too many politicians, too many business leaders lack not only courage, but also moral convictions. Without moral convictions, it's impossible to make sound business decisions. And when you make unsound business decisions, you forfeit the right to be a leader, and, ultimately, you help drive the company and the economy into the ditch.
Fundamentally that's the story behind this global financial crisis.
And it's why we need to look hard at fixing the systems, including executive compensation, that fueled bad decisions and rewarded people who lacked moral courage.
Last night I had dinner with my old friend and mentor, Larry Smith (he's the man behind "knowin' it ain't the same as doing' it). We talked about a speech he'll be giving to a group of foreign journalists in a week or so. Larry is expert at explaining the American political system, so I'm sure he'll do a fantastic job of bringing context to the current scene.
But our conversation turned to other matters: Larry has always insisted that the American character is uniquely pragmatic. But the current temper seems less pragmatic and more bent on rage and irrational anger--the dark side of the American character. Larry said that we've always had this division in our "national soul"--a battle between our instinct to do the right thing, to make good things happen, versus a seething undercurrent that manifests itself in demagogues and destroyers. Harry Truman famously once observed that it takes a skilled carpenter to build a house, but any jackass can knock one down.
Larry told the story of one US Senator who has always been able to work across the aisle, even though he's a principled conservative Republican. When he went back to his state over the summer, he was confronted with angry crowds who threatened to unseat him if he worked with the Democrats to pass any health care bill. He's now officially against health care reform.
My comment: He's a double-loser. He's not only not standing up against the tide of irrational hate and anger, he's also caving in as a leader and not doing his job as a Senator. The excuse,"If I vote for this it will cost me my job" is not a defense for doing the wrong thing.
It reminded me of a conversation I had with Jim Collins about CEOs who cave in to pressure to amp up the company's stock price, even though they know it's not the right thing to do. They do it because, like the Senator, they're afraid they'll lose their jobs. But keeping the job by doing the wrong thing isn't the point of the exercise! It's not an admissible defense! Why did you do the wrong thing? "Because otherwise they'd fire me." Sorry! Not admissible!
If you look closely at the issues on the front page of the paper--from the economic melt down to health care reform to what to do in Afghanistan--they are all in one way or another moral issues.
What does it mean to be an American today?
It means having the courage of our convictions--but first it means having convictions.
Too many politicians, too many business leaders lack not only courage, but also moral convictions. Without moral convictions, it's impossible to make sound business decisions. And when you make unsound business decisions, you forfeit the right to be a leader, and, ultimately, you help drive the company and the economy into the ditch.
Fundamentally that's the story behind this global financial crisis.
And it's why we need to look hard at fixing the systems, including executive compensation, that fueled bad decisions and rewarded people who lacked moral courage.
Monday, September 21, 2009
On The Road Again!
The Rules Tour Hits the Road Again--starting tomorrow! First stop: Washington, DC for a series of meetings with social entrepreneurs and an all-day event at the Reagan Center sponsored by the University of Maryland: Leadership for a Better World--Creating Social Value Through Innovation.
From there it's up to NYC on Saturday, more social entrepreneurship, more Rules of Thumb!
Then off to Sweden, arriving September 29th for the official launch of the Swedish version of Rules of Thumb. Jan Lapidoth (father and son) have put together a fantastic series of meetings, interviews, conversations, and a big public launch to get Rules introduced to the Swedish community of change agents.
Next stop, Vienna! Usually at this time of the year, it'd be for the Waldzell gatherings, which I describe in several of the Rules--but the economy has taken its toll and there is no Waldzell this year. Instead, a reunion of sorts with some of the friends Waldzell helped make and a chance to connect with Austrian social innovators and their backers.
Then a brief overnight in Stockholm before heading to Providence, RI, arriving Oct 6 for the Vusiness Innovation Factory's 5th annual gathering, co-hosted by my partner-in-crime at Fast Company, Bill Taylor. It's a festival of story-telling and innovation, and should be great fun--the line up is unrivaled at any conference I know of.
October 8 I'm off to Toronto--for a long long weekend with my brother--if you read Rules you know him for the incident with the East German border guards! Then a series of talks on October 13 at the Centre for Social Innovation and on October 14 at the University of Toronto's Rotman School--which Roger Martin and team have turned into one of the most creative business schools in the world! Richard Florida will be there, as will Uffe Ulbaek, on loan from Copenhagen--should be a great visit!
October 15 has me flying to Boston, the birthplace of Fast Company, and scene of many lessons learned in the making of Rules. I'll be at Babson on October 15 and then at a gathering on design and change sponsored by DMI at the Marriott in Kendall Square on the 18th.
October 21 the Rules Road Show moves to NYC--just in time for a talk on the 22nd on the changing shape of the law business. Rules for the Law? That is sustained!
Finally, October 23, I'll be flying back to Santa Fe (along with the band) for a brief stop and some home cookin'!
Hope to see you somewhere along the journey!
From there it's up to NYC on Saturday, more social entrepreneurship, more Rules of Thumb!
Then off to Sweden, arriving September 29th for the official launch of the Swedish version of Rules of Thumb. Jan Lapidoth (father and son) have put together a fantastic series of meetings, interviews, conversations, and a big public launch to get Rules introduced to the Swedish community of change agents.
Next stop, Vienna! Usually at this time of the year, it'd be for the Waldzell gatherings, which I describe in several of the Rules--but the economy has taken its toll and there is no Waldzell this year. Instead, a reunion of sorts with some of the friends Waldzell helped make and a chance to connect with Austrian social innovators and their backers.
Then a brief overnight in Stockholm before heading to Providence, RI, arriving Oct 6 for the Vusiness Innovation Factory's 5th annual gathering, co-hosted by my partner-in-crime at Fast Company, Bill Taylor. It's a festival of story-telling and innovation, and should be great fun--the line up is unrivaled at any conference I know of.
October 8 I'm off to Toronto--for a long long weekend with my brother--if you read Rules you know him for the incident with the East German border guards! Then a series of talks on October 13 at the Centre for Social Innovation and on October 14 at the University of Toronto's Rotman School--which Roger Martin and team have turned into one of the most creative business schools in the world! Richard Florida will be there, as will Uffe Ulbaek, on loan from Copenhagen--should be a great visit!
October 15 has me flying to Boston, the birthplace of Fast Company, and scene of many lessons learned in the making of Rules. I'll be at Babson on October 15 and then at a gathering on design and change sponsored by DMI at the Marriott in Kendall Square on the 18th.
October 21 the Rules Road Show moves to NYC--just in time for a talk on the 22nd on the changing shape of the law business. Rules for the Law? That is sustained!
Finally, October 23, I'll be flying back to Santa Fe (along with the band) for a brief stop and some home cookin'!
Hope to see you somewhere along the journey!
Monday, August 31, 2009
Which Side Are You On, Part 2
"How did you go bankrupt?"
"Two ways, gradually and then suddenly."
The quote is from The Sun Also Rises, and it's worth remembering that before he was a novelist, Hemingway was a very careful reporter. He took notes and he remembered everything and everybody he met. His dialog on bankruptcy isn't something he made up; it's something he heard--it has the unmistakable ring of authenticity.
If you ask the people at GM how they went bankrupt, my guess is they'd say much the same thing. Or ask the higher-ups at Lehman Brothers what it felt like to vanish. Gradually, they'd say, and then suddenly.
What's true for companies is true for ideas as well.
How do ideas go bankrupt? Gradually and then suddenly.
These days when you hear the old refrain that "greed is good," you have to shake your head. Did we ever actually fall for that? When you hear someone describe the promises Madoff gave to his investors, the notion that year after year he'd deliver double-digit returns without a single year of failure or falter--did people actually fall for that?
What's next?
In a few years, will we look back at the notion that the job of a corporate manager is to create value for the shareholders and ask, did we ever really believe that?
Will we look at CEO compensation and shake our heads, as if it were just another version of a Ponzi scheme?
How do ideas go bankrupt?
Gradually and then suddenly.
But by the time they go bankrupt, it's too late.
The time to start writing your own new rules is before the old ones are officially bankrupt. Don't wait until the bankruptcy proceedings have gone from gradual to sudden.
Do it now.
"Two ways, gradually and then suddenly."
The quote is from The Sun Also Rises, and it's worth remembering that before he was a novelist, Hemingway was a very careful reporter. He took notes and he remembered everything and everybody he met. His dialog on bankruptcy isn't something he made up; it's something he heard--it has the unmistakable ring of authenticity.
If you ask the people at GM how they went bankrupt, my guess is they'd say much the same thing. Or ask the higher-ups at Lehman Brothers what it felt like to vanish. Gradually, they'd say, and then suddenly.
What's true for companies is true for ideas as well.
How do ideas go bankrupt? Gradually and then suddenly.
These days when you hear the old refrain that "greed is good," you have to shake your head. Did we ever actually fall for that? When you hear someone describe the promises Madoff gave to his investors, the notion that year after year he'd deliver double-digit returns without a single year of failure or falter--did people actually fall for that?
What's next?
In a few years, will we look back at the notion that the job of a corporate manager is to create value for the shareholders and ask, did we ever really believe that?
Will we look at CEO compensation and shake our heads, as if it were just another version of a Ponzi scheme?
How do ideas go bankrupt?
Gradually and then suddenly.
But by the time they go bankrupt, it's too late.
The time to start writing your own new rules is before the old ones are officially bankrupt. Don't wait until the bankruptcy proceedings have gone from gradual to sudden.
Do it now.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Which Side Are You On?
Here's where we are:
It looks now as if the economy has bottomed out. What appeared as a possible melt-down of capitalism has turned into a disastrous global financial crisis--as if averting the melt-down is enough reason to declare victory. And there are even some indicators that suggest that maybe, just maybe, things are starting to turn around. It may be a jobless recovery. It may be a long and slow recovery. But the collective sighs of recovery are enough for a world that is willing to take recovery on almost any terms.
At the same time, with recovery comes a new question--and how you answer the question tells you which side you're on.
Here's the question: Was the downturn just cyclical, and with recovery will come a return to business as usual?
Or was the downturn a sectoral change, the kind that happens when tectonic plates shift, the kind that signals a fundamental alteration of how business works, how organizations run, how careers develop, how we all behave as workers, consumers, and citizens?
Over the last month or so, I've heard voices on both sides of this divide. In the magazine industry, there are business leaders who're convinced that, once the recovery takes hold, we're all going back to the way it was before. Advertising will come back; readers will come back; the old business model will re-assert itself.
In the world of big-time corporate lawyers, there are many who see it the same way. Prior to the financial melt-down, law firms in the U.S. enjoyed 7 straight years of booming profits and lucrative earnings. Why shouldn't it all be that way again?
Leaders at ad agencies are making the same argument, as are people at the top of retailing, entertainment--even some at the U.S. Post Office.
And then there are those of us on the other side of the great divide.
We say the changes are deep, lasting, and unrelenting. We agree that there will be a recovery, and recovery always brings back some of the business-as-usual practices that worked before.
But the cracks that have emerged, the ruptures that have split old business and old industries--those will never be sealed, never be repaired.
We're seeing a whole generation of business leaders, government leaders, non-profit leaders who have been seared by this economic crisis. Old assumptions have been proven not to work. Even Alan Greenspan was forced to admit in front of Congress that business leaders made decisions that were not part of his old economic philosophy, that didn't fit his academic model.
But it's not just philosophy or academic models that need re-thinking. It's practices and methodologies, mental maps and personal values that need to undergo a deep and serious re-think.
It would be great if we had time to re-calibrate the teachings in the business schools across America--I'd welcome a longer conversation about what a new curriculum needs to look like.
But right now, we need to make our own changes, learn our own lessons, and come to new practices without the luxury of an MBA re-education camp. We need to ask new questions, sponsor new conversations, and challenge each other to new answers that respond to the new circumstances we're in today, circumstances that will last for the foreseeable future.
That's the reason I wrote Rules of Thumb. It's a field book for leaders who are being minted in the crucible of today's challenges. It's a work book that you can use to take your own notes, generate your own rules, and share them with me, your colleagues, and everyone else who's on our side of the great divide.
Here's the question: Which side are you on?
If you agree with me that things are not going back to the way they were, if you agree with me that we need to re-think, re-work, and re-write the rules of work, business, and life so this crisis is the last one we ever have to confront, let me hear from you.
Go to www.rulesofthumbook.com and give me your view, your insight, and your own Rule of Thumb.
It looks now as if the economy has bottomed out. What appeared as a possible melt-down of capitalism has turned into a disastrous global financial crisis--as if averting the melt-down is enough reason to declare victory. And there are even some indicators that suggest that maybe, just maybe, things are starting to turn around. It may be a jobless recovery. It may be a long and slow recovery. But the collective sighs of recovery are enough for a world that is willing to take recovery on almost any terms.
At the same time, with recovery comes a new question--and how you answer the question tells you which side you're on.
Here's the question: Was the downturn just cyclical, and with recovery will come a return to business as usual?
Or was the downturn a sectoral change, the kind that happens when tectonic plates shift, the kind that signals a fundamental alteration of how business works, how organizations run, how careers develop, how we all behave as workers, consumers, and citizens?
Over the last month or so, I've heard voices on both sides of this divide. In the magazine industry, there are business leaders who're convinced that, once the recovery takes hold, we're all going back to the way it was before. Advertising will come back; readers will come back; the old business model will re-assert itself.
In the world of big-time corporate lawyers, there are many who see it the same way. Prior to the financial melt-down, law firms in the U.S. enjoyed 7 straight years of booming profits and lucrative earnings. Why shouldn't it all be that way again?
Leaders at ad agencies are making the same argument, as are people at the top of retailing, entertainment--even some at the U.S. Post Office.
And then there are those of us on the other side of the great divide.
We say the changes are deep, lasting, and unrelenting. We agree that there will be a recovery, and recovery always brings back some of the business-as-usual practices that worked before.
But the cracks that have emerged, the ruptures that have split old business and old industries--those will never be sealed, never be repaired.
We're seeing a whole generation of business leaders, government leaders, non-profit leaders who have been seared by this economic crisis. Old assumptions have been proven not to work. Even Alan Greenspan was forced to admit in front of Congress that business leaders made decisions that were not part of his old economic philosophy, that didn't fit his academic model.
But it's not just philosophy or academic models that need re-thinking. It's practices and methodologies, mental maps and personal values that need to undergo a deep and serious re-think.
It would be great if we had time to re-calibrate the teachings in the business schools across America--I'd welcome a longer conversation about what a new curriculum needs to look like.
But right now, we need to make our own changes, learn our own lessons, and come to new practices without the luxury of an MBA re-education camp. We need to ask new questions, sponsor new conversations, and challenge each other to new answers that respond to the new circumstances we're in today, circumstances that will last for the foreseeable future.
That's the reason I wrote Rules of Thumb. It's a field book for leaders who are being minted in the crucible of today's challenges. It's a work book that you can use to take your own notes, generate your own rules, and share them with me, your colleagues, and everyone else who's on our side of the great divide.
Here's the question: Which side are you on?
If you agree with me that things are not going back to the way they were, if you agree with me that we need to re-think, re-work, and re-write the rules of work, business, and life so this crisis is the last one we ever have to confront, let me hear from you.
Go to www.rulesofthumbook.com and give me your view, your insight, and your own Rule of Thumb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
All Rights Reserved 2009 (c) Alan Webber, Rules Of Thumb
