Month: April 2012

Transformational Leadership

Standard

I’ve always admired entrepreneurs. To me, entrepreneurship epitomizes American risk-taking, pioneering behavior. They’re problem solvers always on the look out for new opportunities, creating profitable solutions that address challenges large and small. Someday I hope to take the plunge, and embark on the road to become a successful entrepreneur that has a positive impact on society, but until then, and for the past couple of years, I’ve been like a sponge soaking up all things entrepreneurship.

HBR came out with this great 2×2 matrix that I really like on the different types of entrepreneurship, including a new type of entrepreneurship they call transformational entrepreneurship, which HBR defines as entrepreneurs who create innovative solutions to the world’s biggest problems that are scalable, sustainable, and systematic.

 

I like HBR’s definition of transformational entrepreneurship. It’s certainly aspirational, which I like, but I’m inclined to believe combining social and high-growth entrepreneurship into a profitable and scalable model is a lot easier to think and plan for than it is to actually execute.  At this point though, I struggle to think about which companies, if any, sit in the transformational category.

Social Media and Digital Communication

Standard

Over the past couple of weeks, several articles have been published regarding social media’s role, specifically Facebook, in modern society. NYT did a great article on how technology has enabled us to sacrifice conversation for mere connection.  The Atlantic came out with a fantastic article on increased loneliness despite increased connectivity.  With Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, and dozens of other social media websites, it’s pretty effortless to maintain dialogue between those already in our life, or to initiate conversations, albeit virtually, with those we’ve just met in real life, if at all. Not to forget the other forms of communication: skyping, texting, emailing, instant messaging, and of course communicating face-to-face.

Why then, given all these tools within our communication arsenal, do we feel lonelier then ever? The article raises a number of points, two of which really resonated with me: controlled distance and self-editing.

It’s hard to imagine life without digital communication. I remember when the only form of communication for the masses was through face-to-face interaction or a landline telephone. Back then, when someone wanted to talk to you, that interaction was instantaneous. No delayed response. Fast-forward to today, and it seems like most forms of communication enable for delayed responses. We get busy. We may forget to reply. Texts, messages, emails and posts can all go unanswered for hours or even days, a practice that while annoying, is generally accepted in today’s constantly on-the-run society. Technology has enabled us to dictate how, when, and with whom we communicate.

I find how we communicate, especially using technology, to be particularly interesting. Technology has given us the power to edit what we choose to communicate.  Certainly we can edit what we communicate when speaking, but digital communication enables for greater awareness before we actually communicate; e.g., it’s easy to review something written in its entirety before hitting publish, post, or send, than it is to edit what we’re saying in real-time.

Like controlled distance, technology has given us greater control over what we choose to present. We can present to others what we want known. I think this is a positive improvement on the way we’re able to communicate. At the same time, I think that choosing what we want to communicate can also be detrimental. It’s easier to communicate successes than it is to freely disclose our challenges. This in turn, I believe, creates a warped perception of others living the “good” life, which can lead to feelings of missing out or even feeling depressed.

However, as The Atlantic writes, social media does have a positive role in human relationships. I for one took some time to see the value of social media as a valued form of digital communication. Growing up in the late 90s and 00s, my preferred means of digital communication was AIM. I still prefer instant messaging (on gchat) but I’ve grown to realize that not everyone shares my preferences. Texts, emails, direct messages, and wall posts are all valuable alternatives to digital communication, especially when finding a mutual time to connect is such a challenge.

I’d like to close by saying that in this age of modernity, no matter how many avenues to connect technology provides, they are at the end of the day just tools to facilitate conversations. This excerpt from The Atlantic article really sums up my views on the use of social media:

“Facebook can be terrific, if we use it properly. It’s like a car. You can drive it to pick up your friends. Or you can drive alone. How we use these technologies can lead to more integration, rather than more isolation.”

Surfing the Sea of Uncertainty

Standard

The world is a chaotic place. Plans provide a guide amidst the chaos. In reality though, it’s impossible to control for life’s uncertainties. Uncertainty is scary, at least for me. How do you overcome uncertainty? Through planning. Not just one plan. A Plan B is an absolute must. It’s also worth thinking about a Plan C.

For most of my life, I thought plans were necessary in order to accomplish anything. Not just rough guidelines, but the whole works. Tasks. Checkpoints. Deadlines. All crucial to ensure goals are achieved. Sometime over the past year though, I’ve come to believe that plans, while helpful, should at best serve as a guide, not followed verbatim. Why?

Life happens. Current actions certainly influence the likelihood of future circumstances, but the future is never a sure thing until it is the present. As much as I’d like to believe, it’s impossible to ensure everything will run according to plan (or plans).

I haven’t completely thrown out the usefulness of planning. I still do it all the time. I still believe it’s better to have a plan than no plan at all. One of my favorite bloggers wrote recently,

“We are not walking a path, but surfing a sea.” Leo Babauta

I completely agree. Plans help us navigate the sea of uncertainty. They provide a path, at best a sense of direction, to our goals; however, life has a habit of throwing us off our compass. It took me a long time to realize this. It took even longer to figure out how to overcome these unforeseen challenges.

Sachs vs. Easterly

Standard

After reading The Bottom Billion, I really wanted to get a grasp on the spectrum of perspectives development economists have towards foreign assistance. To this end, I just finished reading two more books on economic development: Jeffrey Sach’s The End of Poverty and William Easterly’s The White Man’s Burden. At 350+ pages per book, both authors pack a lot of information. However, the crux of both authors’ arguments is essentially:

Sachs: Advocates for international development through an approach he calls Clinical Economics. Doctors diagnose patients to improve their wellbeing; Sachs argues international development professionals should similarly conduct a multi-pronged assessment of the conditions of undeveloped countries in order to prescribe and execute a comprehensive plan to promote economic development.

Easterly: Planners, folks who believe economic development can be solved through strategic planning and implementation, are not the solution to economic development. Believes the real solution to economic development comes from searchers – folks from the country in question – who learn through doing, in turn promoting economic development from within.

If simplified even further, Sachs advocates a planned-approach while Easterly believes in the power of a markets-based approach to economic development.

Both Sachs and Collier cite a huge problem if the development community relies on a market-based approach: the economies of the most undeveloped countries often don’t offer goods or services that the rest of the world is interested in trading with. Even if these countries have goods of interest, typically natural resources, a variety of issues, such as those cited by Collier, continues to hinder undeveloped countries from getting a foot hold on the first rung on the economic development ladder.

Both authors provide valid arguments; however, if I’d have to choose a camp, I’d have to side with Easterly. I’m not completely sold on believing that searchers and a market-based approach is the key to international development, but I do believe a more entrepreneurial-from-within approach is needed.

Ironically though, my experiences volunteering with Generation Enterprise has taught me that entrepreneurship already is happening everywhere in the undeveloped and developing worlds. Perhaps hustling or hawking might be a better descriptor, but nonetheless, what’s happing on the ground is entrepreneurship. If hustling is already happening, than it’s clear, at least in my opinion, that a complete market-based approach is likely not the final solution to promoting systemic change and widespread improvements in the economies of the undeveloped world.