In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states that it is a fact that “all knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good,” but then continues, “what then do we mean by the good?” That, in essence, encapsulates the ethical dilemma. We all agree that we should be good and just, but it’s much harder to decide just what that entails.
Since Aristotle’s time, the issues he raised have been continually discussed and debated. From the works of great philosophers like Kant, Bentham and Rawls, to modern day cocktail parties and late night dorm room bull sessions, ethical questions are endlessly mulled over and argued about, but never come to a fully satisfying conclusion.
Today, as we enter a “cognitive era” of thinking machines, the problem of what should guide our actions is gaining new importance. If we find it so difficult to denote the principles by which a person should act justly and wisely, then how are we to encode them within the artificial intelligences we are creating? This is no longer a purely theoretical question.
read more…
Since Donald Trump’s election, the media has been pilloried for bad coverage, with good reason. While there was extensive coverage of salacious scandals, there was little coverage of issues of governance, such as foreign policy, the federal budget and the environment. Actual policies were rarely compared side by side.
This is largely deserved. Cable news shows favor ratings over reporting. Online news outlets chase clicks over substance. Leaks and innuendo are routinely passed on without confirmation. As James Poniewozik, put it in the New York Times, “only one candidate was treated like she might be elected, set policy and make appointments.”
Yet still, while the media has a responsibility to report news fairly and accurately, we citizens have a responsibility to interpret it, separate fact from opinion and evaluate sources. This goes far beyond simple partisanship, even reputable and balanced reports can get it wrong, but requires us to think critically about what we see and hear. Our democracy depends on it.
read more…
I spent most of my adult life working in some of the world’s most challenging business environments. For 15 years, I managed and consulted for media businesses in places like Warsaw, Kyiv and Moscow. It was a difficult, but incredibly rewarding experience, both personally and professionally.
In time, I became adept at parachuting into a new market, learning the culture, learning the language and figuring out how to build a business. I was able to do so because I developed systems and processes for just about everything, from marketing and sales to operations and even crisis management.
Yet there was one thing I was never able to find a system for: innovation. It wasn’t for lack of effort. I studied many innovative people and organizations, but I found everyone I looked at did things very differently. Follow one and you defy another. Still, in my research I found one thing in common: Great innovators don’t just solve problems, they actively seek them out.
read more…
Apple is no longer the darling of the tech world it once was. It used to be that if you wrote something that even mildly suggested problems at the company, you were subjected to howls of execration by a seemingly endless legion of Apple fan boys. Yet clearly, those days are now over.
Consider this. In just the last few weeks, veteran tech journalist Walt Mossberg called Siri stupid, Silicon Valley guru Steve Blank questioned the company’s vision in Harvard Business Review and Business Insider reported that people are now saying that Microsoft is more innovative than Apple. Ouch!
How did what would have been considered heresy a few years ago become conventional wisdom today? The easiest answer is that Apple was unduly deified before and is now simply coming back to earth, but there’s something more at work as well. Technology cycles come and go and the present one simply doesn’t play to Apple’s strengths. It was bound to happen.
read more…
It’s a political season, so we’re hearing a lot of the usual arguments the economy. Should we raise taxes or lower them? Negotiate trade agreements or abandon them? These are important questions, but they are not the central economic issue that we face today. Productivity is.
As economist Robert Gordon explains in The Rise and Fall of American Growth, productivity growth soared between 1920 and 1970, but has sputtered since then. What’s more, he predicts that the productivity picture will get even worse in the decades to come, making it even harder to raise living standards.
To be clear, this is not a recent problem, nor can be laid neatly at the feet of one politician or another. It is also not a distinctly American challenge, but a global trend. So rehashing old arguments will get us nowhere. The truth is that the productivity problem is unlike anything we’ve faced in the last century and we’ll have to come up with new solutions for it.
read more…
Most technologies just seem to come and go. Try explaining to a teenager today about how much fun it was to go to a record store and buy a new album on vinyl, cassette or — heaven forbid! — 8-track and it immediately becomes clear how defunct and meaningless those technologies have become.
In the Innovator’s Dilemma, Harvard professor Clayton Christensen argued that disruption occurs when a technology’s performance surpasses customer needs. When that happens, the basis of competition changes and a new technology arrives that outperforms the incumbent on some other parameter.
Yet some technologies, like Leonardo DiCaprio’s character in the The Revenant, simply refuse to die. When faced with a disruptive competitor, they find new purpose and continue to thrive for decades. A big part of the difference seems to be not just the characteristics of the technology, but how it is able to integrate itself with other innovations.
read more…
In 1960, Harvard professor Theodore Levitt published a landmark paper in Harvard Business Review that urged executives to adapt by asking themselves, “What business are we really in?” He offered the both the railroad companies and Hollywood studios as examples of industries that failed to adapt because they defined their business incorrectly.
Yet today, the railroads don’t seem to be doing too badly. Union Pacific, the leading railroad company has a market capitalization of over $80 billion, about 60% more than Ford or GM. Disney, the leading movie studio company, has a market capitalization of about $150 billion. That doesn’t seem too shabby either.
While nimble startups chasing the next trend are exciting, the truth is that companies rarely succeed by adapting to market events. Rather, successful firms prevail by shaping the future. That can’t be done through agility alone, but takes years of preparation to achieve. The truth is that once you find yourself in a position where you need to adapt, it’s usually too late.
read more…
Nothing really prepares you to be a leader. In most cases, you get the opportunity to lead by being good at something else. However, while being a strong performer gives you the credibility to lead, it says nothing about your ability to lead. Leadership is a skill in its own right and, for the most part, it’s one you learn on the job.
Of course, there’s no shortage of advice about being a leader. Some say that you should make decisions rationally, while others say you need to trust your gut. Just like some say that it’s important to exude confidence, while others say that it’s important to show humility. It’s all terribly confusing.
The truth is that all leaders have different styles and you’ll have to figure out what yours is. Nobody can do that for you. Still, one thing I wish somebody told me before I began leading people is what I would be required to do and how it would be different from any other job. So here’s four things you’ll need to learn in order to become a successful leader.
read more…
In Sapiens, Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari argues that it was the exploratory mindset that led to European dominance over the world. Other empires, such as the Chinese and the Ottomans, had far greater military and economic power in the 18th century. Yet, it was the Europeans quest for understanding that made the difference.
To explore, you first need to come to terms with your own ignorance. We find the accomplishments of men like Columbus and Magellan so impressive precisely because they didn’t know what they were getting into. Yet they still had the the courage to sail boldly into the unknown when no one else dared to venture forth.
Today, scientific exploration is what fuels the modern world. We look at an iPhone and see the genius of Steve Jobs, but forget about the work of men like Maxwell, Faraday, Einstein and Turing that led to it. So science budgets are cut and skeptical politicians grill researchers about the value of their work. Yet without exploration, there can be no advancement.
read more…
In 1980, an obscure professor at Harvard Business School named Michael Porter published Competitive Strategy, which called for managers to drive efficiency by optimizing their firm’s value chain, maximize bargaining bargaining power with buyers and suppliers, while at the same time minimizing threats from new market entrants and substitute goods.
These concepts launched Porter into the top rank of strategic thinkers and profoundly influenced how businesses were run. Much like chess grandmasters, CEO’s worked to develop the right sequence of strategic moves that would position their firms to exert power and dominate their respective industries.
Yet much has changed in since then. Rather than an orderly marketplace defined by clear boundaries of industry and geography, we operate in a semantic economy where everything is connected. The most important assets are no longer the ones we control, but those that reside in ecosystems that we access through platforms. That changes the game entirely.
read more…
