Today, it seems that almost everyone wants to be the “Uber” of something, and why not? With very little capital investment, the company has completely disrupted the taxicab industry and attained a market value of over $100 billion. In an earlier era, it would have taken decades to have created that kind of impact on a global scale.
Still, we’re not exactly talking about Henry Ford and his Model T here. Or even the Boeing 707 or the IBM 360. Like Uber, those innovations quickly grew to dominance, but also unleashed incredible productivity. Uber, on the other hand, still gushes red ink even after more than a decade and $25 billion invested. Just last year it lost more than $6 billion.
The truth is that we have a major problem and, while Uber didn’t cause it, the company is emblematic of it. Put simply, a market economy runs on innovation. It is only through consistent gains in productivity that we can create real prosperity. The data and evidence strongly suggests that we have failed to do that for the past 50 years. We need to do better.
The Greek philosopher Heraclitus observed that “There is nothing permanent except change” and events over the past few thousand years would seem to prove him right. Yet while change may endure, the rate of change fluctuates over time. Throughout history, forces tend to cascade and converge on particular points.
By all indications, we are in such a period now. We are undergoing four major shifts in technology, resources, migration and demography that will be transformative. Clearly, these shifts will create significant opportunities, but also great peril. The last time we saw this much change afoot was during the 1920s and that didn’t end well.
Yet history is not destiny. We’re entering a new era of innovation in which our ability to solve problems will be unprecedented and can shape our path by making wise choices. Still, as we have seen with the Covid pandemic, the toughest challenges we will face will have had less to do with devising solutions than with changing behaviors and conquering ourselves.
More than anything else, 2021 seemed like a year-in-waiting. We waited for the vaccine and then we waited for herd immunity to take hold. We waited to go back to work and school and then we waited for the supply chain crisis to pass. Most of all, we waited for things to go back to normal. We’re still waiting.
Yet while we’ve been waiting, things have been changing. We’ve learned how to work and collaborate remotely. Scientists learned that the mRNA molecule had more potential than most thought. We learned that building resilience into our systems was more important than just moving fast and breaking things.
Most of all, we learned that things need to change, that living unsustainably is, for lack of a better word, unsustainable. We simply cannot go on as before. Still, needing to change and accepting change are two very different things, which is probably why my many most popular posts this past year focused on the challenges of overcoming the status quo. Here they are:
Many hoped that this year would be a return to normalcy and in some ways it has been. The trend toward popular authoritarianism seems to have ebbed and, for the most part, economies are back on track. People have largely returned to work and kids have mostly gone back to school. At least in the US, shops are open with decent foot traffic.
Still, what’s perhaps most striking is the challenges that remain. Covid deaths in 2021 outpaced 2020 and there’s always the possibility of more severe variants. Despite all the hype around technology, we remain in a productivity crisis. We continue to struggle to maintain competitive markets. The specter of climate change still haunts us.
I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that many of the books I read this year focus on those challenges. We are in the midst of a demographic handoff from the Boomers to the Millennials, who are much more focused on the long-term. So we should expect more seriousness in how we tackle problems. Genuine solutions, however, still elude us.
In a certain sense, these seem random, but they aren’t really. In each case, we can see undercurrents of politics, economics and other forces that gave rise to tensions people were trying to resolve. Great thinkers would explore, meet and influence each other, creating new directions and possibilities.
Yet it isn’t only intellectual life that converges in this way. History has a way of assembling forces around certain points of time and space, when long-standing trends intersect and give rise to new things. That’s why we study past events and learn about the lives of great personages long gone, so that we can hope to proactively recognize these forces and adapt.
When I first moved to Kyiv about 20 years ago, I met my friend Pavlo, who is from Belarus. Eventually our talk turned to that country’s leader, Alexander Lukashenko, and an incident in which he turned off the utilities at the US Ambassador’s residence, as well as those of other diplomats. It seemed totally outlandish and crazy to me.
“But he won,” Pavlo countered. I was incredulous, until he explained. “Lukashenko knows he’s a bastard and that the world will never accept him. In that situation all you can win is your freedom and that’s what he won.” It was a mode of thinking so outrageous and foreign to me that I could scarcely believe it.
Yet it opened my eyes and made me a more effective operator. We tend to think of empathy as an act of generosity, but it’s far more than that. Learning how to internalize diverse viewpoints is a skill we should learn not only because it helps make others more comfortable, but because it empowers us to successfully navigate an often complex and difficult world.
The practice of change management is a relatively young discipline. It got its start in 1983, when a McKinsey consultant Julien Phillips published a paper in the journal, Human Resource Management. His ideas became McKinsey’s first change management model that it sold to clients and set the stage for much that came afterward.
Phillips’ work kicked off a number of similar approaches such as Kotter’s 8-step model and the Prosci ADKAR model and an industry was born. Today, hordes of “change consultants” ply their craft working to communicate transformational ideas to inspire change. The results, unfortunately, have been rather dismal.
The simple truth is that change rarely fails because people don’t understand it, but that it is actively sabotaged by those who, for whatever reason, oppose it. That’s why any change strategy that depends on persuasion is bound to fail. The truth is that if you want to bring change about you need to identify those who believe in it and empower them to succeed.
The late Clayton Christensen had a theory about “jobs to be done.” In his view, customers don’t buy products as much as they “hire” companies to do specific “jobs” for them. To be competitive, firms need to understand what that job is and how to do it well. In other words, no one wants a quarter-inch drill bit, they want a quarter-inch hole.
The same can be said for an entire society. We need certain jobs to be done and will pay handsomely for ones that we hold in high regard, even as we devalue others. Just as being the best blacksmith in town won’t earn you much of a living today, great coding skills wouldn’t do you much good in a medieval village.
This is especially important to keep in mind today as the digital revolution comes to an end and we enter a new era of innovation in which some tasks will be devalued and others will be increasingly in demand. Much like Christensen said about firms, we as a society need to learn to anticipate which skills will lose value in future years and which will be considered critical.
On July 16th, 1945, when the world’s first nuclear explosion shook the plains of New Mexico, the leader of the Manhattan Project, J. Robert Oppenheimer quoted from the Bhagavad Gita, “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” Clearly, he was troubled by what he had unleashed and for good reason. The world was never truly the same after that.
Today, however, we have lost much of that reverence for the power of technology. Instead of proceeding deliberately and with caution, tech entrepreneurs have prided themselves on their willingness to “move fast and break things” and, almost reflexively, casually deride anyone who questions the practice as those who “don’t get it.”
It’s hard to see how, by any tangible metric, any of this has made us better off. We set out to disrupt industries, but disrupted people instead. It wasn’t always like this. Throughout our history we have asked hard questions and made good choices about technological progress. As we enter a new era of innovation, we desperately need to recapture some of that wisdom.
One of the toughest things about change is simply to have your idea understood. The status quo always has inertia on its side and never yields its power gracefully. People need a reason to believe in change, but they never need much convincing to allow things to go along as they always have. Inaction is the easiest thing in the world.
This can be incredibly frustrating. It doesn’t matter if you’re a political revolutionary, a social visionary or an entrepreneur, if you have an idea you think can impact the world, you want people to be as excited about it as you are. So you try to describe it in vivid language that highlights how wonderfully different it really is.
The pitfall that many would-be revolutionaries fall into is they fail to communicate in terms that others are able to accept and internalize. Make no mistake. Nobody needs to understand your idea. If you think your idea is important and want it to spread, then you need to meet people where they are, not where you’d like them to be. That’s how you make change real.
Or install manually
Copy and paste the following Google tag code onto every page of your website, immediately after the element. Don’t add more than one Google tag to each page.
