![]() ©2004 – The Caring Enterprise Coach
I‘ve been approached by a major US book publisher to write a book on New Collaborative Enterprises, with the rather unwieldy working title shown above, and also by several universities to develop a Distance Learning program on the same subject, based on my experience advising over 100 entrepreneurial businesses. Given my new priorities, I don’t know when, or even if, this will get done, but in the meantime, I’m going to blog on the subject from time to time. Recently I’ve written about Avoiding Landmines and about Innovation, two of the 15 steps in ‘The Process’. Today’s article is an overview of Viral Marketing, the principal way that successful entrepreneurs find new customers. With every additional business scandal, the public becomes more cynical about advertising, PR and product claims. The concept of viral marketing is not new: Seven years ago Jeff Rayport of Fast Company introduced its six fundamental principles: Use stealth and subtlety to convey your message, give stuff away free up-front, exploit peer-to-peer networks to spread the message, make the message memorable and ‘sticky’, exploit the strength of weak ties, and work to reach a ‘tipping point’. But last year Rayport’s message caught fire when Malcolm Gladwell’s book The Tipping Point became a best seller, provided more detailed evidence of how well and how broadly these six principles work, and gave detailed instructions on how to employ them. These two factors — the increased distrust of corporate messages and the new recipe for ‘doing’ viral marketing, are taking viral marketing mainstream — it’s no longer just a technique for those that can’t afford advertising, but a technique to replace advertising. Using these principles isn’t difficult, risky, expensive or demanding of great patience or energy. In my earlier posts I explained that one of the biggest landmines for entrepreneurs is getting into ‘copycat’ businesses where it is next to impossible to differentiate your product or service from the next guy’s, and also explained that the innovation process starts with listening to the (current or prospective) customer. So if you’ve done your research, and you have a small group of customers who agree that your product or service is innovative — better or cheaper or faster or in some way significantly distinguishable from everyone else’s, then all you need to do is to deliver to that group of customers, and let them be your marketing team. As Gladwell’s Tipping Point describes, some of the most successful books and records, some of the most infectious ideas, and some of the fastest growing new products, like TiVo, basically found their market without a penny spent on advertising or promotion. Let’s look at an example. I know two people who went into the same business — plastic decking products — one successfully and the other unsuccessfully. The unsuccessful guy started the business in the 1980s. He brought the technology from Europe, where it had been used in specialized military and other niche market applications, and knew that it had enormous potential in the consumer marketplace. But because he was an engineer, and more comfortable with the manufacturing process, he started with the product instead of the customer. He spent a lot of money perfecting the process and then tried to sell it to major hardware and home stores. He had no customers, no leverage to persuade the stores there was a market for the product. In fact, in those days plastic was considered a shoddy material, his product’s light weight and simple assembly was a disadvantage in the minds of the purchasing managers he spoke to. The business never got off the ground. Now flash forward a few years. The successful guy started the business in the 1990s. He didn’t know anything about how to engineer the product. What he did know was that there was now a need. The cost of wood products was soaring. People didn’t have time to maintain wood fences any more. And there was a new scare: Creosote, the chemical mix wood was soaked in to preserve its life and reduce maintenance, was now considered a carcinogen, and was starting to be banned in children’s playgrounds, so there was a new acceptance of the newer, more durable plastics in swing sets and other outdoor furniture for children. So our successful entrepreneur brought in from Europe small quantities of a new plastic decking material, and went and visited contractors, not retail stores. He resold the material at cost to the contractors, who were able to offer it to their customers at the same price as their heavier, higher-maintenance, carcinogenic products. Not surprisingly, they were a great success. Our entrepreneur brought in some larger quantities, and began talking with the European manufacturer about setting a plant in North America. He didn’t make a single sales call — the contractors spread the word for him, among themselves, and the end-customers also showed off their slick and unique new decks to their neighbours. By the time our intrepid entrepreneur went to visit the big hardware and home stores, they had already been besieged with requests for the product and no selling effort was needed. The European manufacturer helped the entrepreneur build the North American plant, the banks, already aware of the demand for the product, offered very low-cost financing for its construction, and all the entrepreneur had to pay was a small royalty on sales to the European company. This success is due entirely to innovation focused on recognizing and responding to a customer need, and on viral marketing. There was virtually no risk, no selling effort, and no out-of-pocket traditional marketing (advertising). Although you can get the impression from browsing the Internet that viral marketing is a Web-based advertising process, or even that it involves mass e-mailing. This is a misrepresentation of what viral marketing, as described by Jeff Rayport and Malcolm Gladwell, is all about. It is nothing more than spreading the word about your product or service by customer word-of-mouth. Talk to the most successful contractors you know, and you’ll likely find they turn away excess business, and do no advertising or stuffing of mailboxes. Their new customers come entirely from referrals from existing satisfied customers. They do no selling and no marketing. This brings us to the most critical precondition for successful viral marketing: Reputation. Nothing will sabotage and choke off viral marketing success faster than a sudden reputation for poor quality or poor service. If our decking entrepreneur had used poor contractors to do the work, or had failed to correct any early product quality issues quickly, he would not have succeeded. Probably the most important of Rayport’s six principles is the fourth one: making your ‘message’ memorable and ‘sticky’. Viral marketing requires your product or service to come up in your customers’ conversations with others. That means, like TiVo, there needs to be something about it that people will want to talk about. And a picture is worth a thousand words. That’s why those amateur photos at Abu Ghraib have done so much more to turn public opinion against Bush’s war than the much more dangerous Patriot Act, the abrogation of the Geneva Conventions, and all of the other more profound but less visceral evidence of executive deceit and abuse. And why the decks set up at the home shows, and on display in your neighbour’s yard, are so much more compelling than the glossy brochures that tell you about the low maintenance and the safety of the product’s composition. |
May 24, 2004
VIRAL MARKETING
May 23, 2004
WHY IS KERRY HOLDING BACK ON BUSH’S DISREGARD FOR THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS?
![]() There has been a lot of discussion lately, at least in moderate and left-wing circles, about the growing evidence of the Bush Regime’s deliberate abrogation of the Geneva Conventions, on the basis that respecting it compromises the ‘war on terror’. The best report was Friday on Bill Moyers NOW on PBS, which included a lengthy interview with Scott Horton, the lawyer for the NY Bar Association, about the Association’s report on the Bush Regime’s arguments for ignoring the Conventions, and their implication for the safety of American troops, and the integrity of international law. The report was commissioned in part because of concerns expressed by the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) office about alarming and inconsistent instructions that military personnel were receiving about non-application of the Conventions. These concerns stemmed from a whole series of classified memoranda from the very top of the Bush Regime, justifying widespread setting aside of the Conventions on flimsy grounds, notably a memo from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo developed to pre-justify systematic contravention of the Conventions. Or as Newsweek puts it “a legal framework to justify a secret system of detention and interrogation that sidesteps the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions.” There is a great deal more on this story. The NOW site above has links to additional stories. And Joe Conason at Salon.com has a good summary of it this week. So the question is: Why is John Kerry not raising this as a serious campaign issue, a defining distinction between his policy and Bush’s? In the interview with NOW, Horton says that all the major media, especially the TV networks, have refused to provide significant coverage of this issue because “it is too complex to be understandable or of interest to the public.” This is an astonishing position for the media to take, and a total abrogation of their journalistic responsibility. So, for the benefit of these media, allow me to make it simple, so that even a media mogul could understand it:
So we have a government that, by its actions, is threatening the lives and safety of American troops, peacekeepers, and civilians worldwide, and putting themselves outside and above the law by commissioning illegal acts. Surely this is simple enough for anyone to understand, and surely it is grounds for Kerry to express outrage, demand an impartial and unimpeded investigation (not another of these farcical and impotent commissions we have seen so far), and in fact seek criminal charges against the people responsible. The NY Bar Association believes there are ample grounds for this, and they should know something about the law. If we reserve our outrage and only prosecute those on the front lines that follow the orders they are given, and even then only when there are provocative photos, and if by our inaction we actually encourage those that commission the illegal and dangerous acts, give the orders, and then hide behind executive privilege and secrecy, what does that say about us? It’s time for John Kerry to speak up. Photo: Interrogation room at Guantanamo, where Bush has declared that no prisoners are protected by the Geneva Conventions. |
May 22, 2004
ESSENTIAL READING
Here are five amazing articles, all from great writers and/or great investigative reporters:
George Soros on The Bubble of American Supremacy — Soros argues that “the supremacist ideology of the Bush Administration stands in opposition to the principles of an open society” and is hence doomed to spectacular and devastating failure. Thanks to Gary Lawrence Murphy for the link. Teaser: The Bush doctrine, first enunciated in a presidential speech at West Point in June of 2002, and incorporated into the National Security Strategy three months later, is built on two pillars: the United States will do everything in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy; and the United States arrogates the right to pre-emptive action. In effect, the doctrine establishes two classes of sovereignty: the sovereignty of the United States, which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations; and the sovereignty of all other states, which is subject to the will of the United States. This is reminiscent of George Orwell’s Animal Farm: all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
To be sure, the Bush doctrine is not stated so starkly; it is shrouded in doublespeak. The doublespeak is needed because of the contradiction between the Bush Administration’s concept of freedom and democracy and the actual principles and requirements of freedom and democracy. Talk of spreading democracy looms large in the National Security Strategy. But when President Bush says, as he does frequently, that freedom will prevail, he means that America will prevail. In a free and open society, people are supposed to decide for themselves what they mean by freedom and democracy, and not simply follow America’s lead…It is ironic that the government of the most successful open society in the world should have fallen into the hands of people who ignore the first principles of open society. Kurt Vonnegut on Cold Turkey — The guy who declared Bush II certifiably psychopathic a year ago (and no one refuted his argument) is frothing over America’s addiction to oil, and to power. Thanks to Gary for this link too. Teaser: Power corrupts us, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Human beings are chimpanzees who get crazy drunk on power. By saying that our leaders are power-drunk chimpanzees, am I in danger of wrecking the morale of our soldiers fighting and dying in the Middle East? Their morale, like so many bodies, is already shot to pieces. They are being treated, as I never was, like toys a rich kid got for Christmas.
[Bush] and his cohorts have as little to do with Democracy as the Europeans had to do with Christianity. We the people have absolutely no say in whatever they choose to do next. In case you haven’t noticed, they’ve already cleaned out the treasury, passing it out to pals in the war and national security rackets, leaving your generation and the next one with a perfectly enormous debt that you’ll be asked to repay. Nobody let out a peep when they did that to you, because they have disconnected every burglar alarm in the Constitution: The House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, the FBI, the free press (which, having been embedded, has forsaken the First Amendment) and We the People. Seymour Hersh on The Gray Zone — The much-cited article that clearly links Rumsfeld, and hence Bush, to direction and foreknowledge of the torture and atrocities at Abu Ghraib. This guy has done as much to show the dangers, lies and fraud of the Bush Regime as Daniel Ellsberg revealed in the Pentagon Papers, which led to the end of Richard Nixon, the last American Tyrant President. My bet is that Hersh will be either arrested or assassinated before November. James Grant on Low Rates, High Expectations — An explanation of why low interest rates suck for all but the very rich, and how they seduce us even more into the dangerous spiral of greater and greater consumption, greater and greater debt. Teaser: The Fed will raise its rate, though grudgingly and gradually. It will act in this fashion not only out of conviction but also, perhaps, out of a guilty conscience. It knows that its 1 percent rate drove many risk-averse people into stocks and bonds because they could no longer afford to live on the meager returns of their savings. That is at one pole of the spectrum of financial sophistication. At the other, hedge funds borrowed at ultra-low rates to speculate in everything from gold to lead. Just the prospect of a slightly higher borrowing rate has brought about disturbances in the temples of high finance.
The Fed has another reason to be conscience-stricken. It knows, or should know, that by trying to make the dollar cheaper, it has precipitated even more borrowing in an economy heavily encumbered. The greater the debt, the more deflation-prone the economy. And the more deflation-prone the economy, the more the Fed is apt to try to cheapen the dollar. The truth is that the central bank of the United States is chasing its tail. Brian Bergstein and Randy Herschaft on Seisint’s ‘Matrix’ Terrorism Quotient Database — This duo did some digging into the abominable and unethical tactics that Seisint, a company founded by a reputed millionaire drug smuggler, used to arbitrarily and libellously finger 120,000 people as ‘possible terrorists’, some of whom were arrested as a result, and which gave the corporation an exclusive bid on a $12 million defense department contract — even though the database methodology was shown to be bogus and the database was ordered scrapped (the ACLU says there is no evidence it has in fact been scrapped). Teaser: A records request by the AP in Florida turned up “briefing points,” dated January 2003, for a presentation on Matrix to Vice President Dick Cheney and other top federal officials delivered jointly by Seisint, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida’s top police official. One of the items on Seisint’s agenda: “Demonstrate HTF with mapping.” Matrix meeting minutes from February 2003 say Cheney was briefed along with Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and FBI Director Robert Mueller.
In May 2003, the Justice Department approved Seisint as sole data contractor on the project, citing the company’s “technical qualifications,” including software “applying the ‘terrorism quotient’ in all cases.” “The quotient identifies a set of criteria which accurately singled out characteristics related to the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks and other terrorist events,” said a memo from an Office of Justice Programs policy adviser, Bruce Edwards. “This process produced a scoring mechanism (that), when applied to the general criminal population, yields other people that may have similar motives.” |
May 21, 2004
HELP YOURSELF
Here’s a small potpourri of helpful hints and links:
Increase your personal intellectual capital: Jay Cross at Internet Time has these suggestions for thinking and acting smarter:
Measure your ecological footprint: Phil Vassar points out this simple quiz to measure your personal ecological footprint from Redefining Progress (the folks that brought you the Genuine Progress Indicator to replace the outmoded and ill-conceived GDP). The quiz is not as sophisticated or precise as the one in Radical Simplicity, but it’s quick and quite accurate, and goes on to give you ideas on how to lessen your footprint. Increase your emotional intelligence: While some people think EI is simply leadership ‘skill’ or the ability to motivate people, this article in Boss magazine gives some hints on how you can increase yours. Some highlights:
What Joan said: Joan Armatrading was one of the most underappreciated musicians of the 1970s and 1980s. She was perhaps the progenitor of the flowering of women singer-songwriters in the last decade. Her lyrics were always powerful, at once vulnerable and courageous. Here’s what she said about helping yourself – a very moving, human and delightfully ambiguous song: If you’re going to do it do it right – don’t leave it overnight
If you’re going to help me help me now – another ten minutes will be too late Like a crying child I need comfort now Don’t pick me up when the tears are dry on my face I need someone to help me – but not you, you’re not ready Seems you have trouble helping yourself It takes time to notice but you don’t seem to know time keeps moving What you’re doing is wasting my time You would help me more, help me more if you helped yourself You want to get yourself together, don’t you want to put yourself to right I said get yourself together, don’t you want to put yourself to right I said no, don’t apologise, you’ve done your best Seems it still ain’t right, leave me alone, no more to be said To get it right you got to do it yourself I’m going out to help myself – Help Myself If you’re going to say it say it now – don’t leave it overnight If you’re going to hold me hold me tight – I don’t want to leave, not if it seems all right You’ve got to govern the situation, but not you, you’re no, and anyway, hold up Hold up, hold up, you’re trying to sort out your mind You’ve got to get it together It would help me more, help me more if you helped yourself. |
May 20, 2004
THINKING OUT LOUD
A good friend told me it’s time for me to stop procrastinating, stop writing about 1000 different subjects, focus, and get off my ass and do something. I left my employer of 27 years, five months ago, because I could no longer stand the stupidity, the greed, the politics, the suffocating hierarchy, the imaginative poverty, and being a part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
But after the initial exhilaration, I’ve been caught in analysis paralysis. The things I would be best at doing, the Meeting of Minds opportunities that immediately dropped into my lap, are not that dissimilar from what I was already doing, and though they’d pay well, they’re not what I want to do. The things I’d really like to do, the things on my How to Save the World Roadmap, the things that would make a difference, are either way outside my competencies, or would (probably) be strictly volunteer work, and I’m not independently wealthy enough, even though we have reduced our footprint significantly in the past year, to work for free. Or, perhaps more honestly, I’m not courageous enough to work for free, and just see what happens. Another good friend, a pragmatist and a brilliant man, told me I should pick two things, one from the List 1 (yes, I have lists, you know me that well) of things I do well that pay well, the Meeting of Minds stuff, and one from the List 2 of things I really want to do, and spend half my time doing each. If I could get past my bull-headedness and idealism, I would follow his advice. But I keep hoping that something will come up that will be up in the top right corner of the chart, the career, the calling I have been waiting for all my life. The first good friend said “What do you really want to do?” and I replied that I’d like to write my novel, the idyllic future state story of humans living in balance and harmony with the rest of life on Earth, and then dedicate the rest of my life to making it come true. He said “If you wrote the book, what’s the very next thing you’d want to do?” He brushed off my ‘buts’ and insisted I answer the question — “What’s at the rightmost end of your chart?” I blathered through some List 2 possibilities — studying and becoming an expert in interspecies communication, or human fertility, or storytelling, making my novel into a film, working for Greenpeace or some other environmental activist organization, working in politics to get taxes shifted from income and employment to resource consumption and waste, running a renewable energy co-op, inventing animal-free foods that are nutritious and taste great — and finally came up with two things that topped them all:
My friend’s advice was simple. “Write the damn book. Now. Get it finished, get it out there. Then decide if you can afford, on your own terms, to do either or both of your two Next Things. If you can’t, pick the thing from List 1 that gives you the most money, and/or the most spare time to keep working on the plan, and the skills development, that you need to do the two Next Things, and do it, for as long as you have to.” That is what I’m going to do, I think. Thank you for listening. |
THAT DON’T IMPRESS ME MUCH
I never knew a guy who carried a mirror in his pocket Oh-oo-oh, you think you’re special That don’t impress me much – Shania Twain The gentleman and two ladies above visited our front lawn yesterday. Wild turkeys are permanent inhabitants in our community, but this gang was unusually bold. He was cruisin’ and no dumb blogger with a digital camera and a mongrel in tow was going to stop his show. The ladies, alas, seemed underwhelmed by the display. Now if only he had a good sense of humour… |
May 19, 2004
CANADA’S DEMOCRATIC BALANCING ACT
![]() Recently I lamented the US Supreme Court’s legitimization of the heinous process of gerrymandering — the rigging of the boundary-setting of political constituencies in each state by the party in power so that even unpopular incumbents are guaranteed re-election and so that most voters are effectively disenfranchised — and I suggested any country whose judiciary could find such a travesty was constitutional was effectively no longer a democracy. Democracy Watch is a 10-year-old non-partisan, non-profit Canadian organization whose mission is “to empower Canadians in their roles as voters, citizens, taxpayers, consumers and shareholders, and help reform Canadian government and business institutions to bring them into line with the realities of a modern, working democracy.” Its Directors have worked closely with Ralph Nader. It played a significant role in the introduction and passage in Canada (this January) of one of the most progressive campaign finance reform laws in the world, effectively ending the ability of corporations, unions and special interest groups to fund and hence ‘buy’ political parties, campaigns or candidates. Not content to rest on its laurels, Democracy Watch is now working on a 20-step Program For a Modern Working Democracy:
Today, I am proud to report that the Canadian Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to Canada’s election law, and specifically a clause which severely limits political advertising by special interest groups during election campaigns. The challenge was brought by the arch-right-wing National Citizens Coalition, an organization that espouses reducing government authority, business deregulation, reducing taxes, ‘family values’ and other conservative agenda programs, some of them quite extreme. The NCC was planning on a huge conservative-issues promotion during the upcoming Canadian federal election campaign. The NCC used to be led by — surprise! — federal Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper. Had the constitutional challenge been successful, it would have made a mockery of the new campaign finance reform laws. And the case was problematic: It’s difficult to say with great clarity what constitutes ‘political advertising’ when it doesn’t come from a political party or candidate, and hard to argue why ads that are acceptable at other times unduly influence public opinion during elections. And the very principle of banning advertising that isn’t fraudulent is troubling. But the Court struck a delicate balance, and their argument in support of their decision is compelling, pragmatic, and, well, utterly Canadian. I’m not bragging, though. Canada still lags behind most European countries in the introduction of proportional representation, and majority governments in Canada have a frightening amount of power (though so far, except for the Mulroney debacle, they have had the sense not to abuse it). The Liberals have been in power so long that they got lazy and complacent and allowed some civil servants to rob them (and Canadian taxpayers) blind. And as I’ve reported, an unholy alliance of animal testing labs, corporate farmers and hunting organizations have been able to strong-arm Canada’s unelected Senate three times to scuttle a modest, government-supported strengthening of Canada’s 100-year-old, shamefully inadequate animal protection laws. But compared to the situation in some countries I need not mention, we don’t look too bad. Postscript: Today the Canadian government also approved the over-the-counter sale of the ‘Morning After Pill‘ without a prescription. In George Bush’s repressive America, of course, this is illegal. But it is legal in America to buy semi-automatic weapons, and you don’t need a prescription for them. Is it just me, or that seriously twisted? |
May 18, 2004
ASSESSING YOUR OWN JOB PERFORMANCE
Most employees anticipate the annual ‘performance review’ with dread. The fact that this is a ‘fear of the unknown’ dread says a great deal about how poorly most managers communicate job performance to their staff. John Lees, an HR professional in England, suggests ways you can use to assess your own job performance, so that you’re better prepared, and possibly less likely to be surprised, when that time comes around again. More importantly, John suggests ways you can improve your personal job performance. Here is a summary, with my own elaborations and additional ideas thrown in for good measure:
Assess congruence between what you do best and what your employer needs most. Understand the drivers, needs, and priorities of your employer, and assess where your personal strengths, skills and current activities contribute to them. Learn as much as possible about what your employer does, well beyond your own area of responsibility and department. How could you change or expand your work activities, emphasis, visibility and role to increase this congruence, and how it is perceived by your employer? Assess your relationship with your employer as if you were a supplier, not an employee. What do you have to sell, and how could you improve your ‘product’ to better meet your employer’s needs? Are you taking for granted that your employer values and cares about your ‘offering’, or do you need to remarket yourself, both to your immediate ‘buyer’ (your direct report) and to others in the company? Is your ‘offering’ over- or under-priced? Is the department you work in, and the company you work for, the best ‘customer’ for your most valuable ‘products’? Assess what motivates you. Talk to people (inside and outside the company) about what you think, and what they think, are your strengths and weaknesses, and what you like to do and hate doing. What can you change, in your existing relationship with your employer, that would improve your motivation, lessen the aggravations and the impediments to performance, and exercise and emphasize your strengths better? Assess how you’re doing the little things that count. Are you spending enough time with your networks, helping subordinates, explaining things and bringing creative ideas and solutions to more senior people? Is your written communication clear, concise, professional and relevant? In one-on-one meetings, group meetings, and formal presentations, do you make a good impression? Are you a good listener, a good explainer, a good persuader? Do you have the qualities that those in your networks appreciate and value: patience, aggressiveness, energy, enthusiasm, creativity, attention to detail, articulateness, fairness, teamwork, orderliness, promptness, problem-solving acumen, presence? Assess what you’ve done that is memorable. Most people have short memories and their impressions of people are often (and unfairly) based on one or two especially memorable events. That’s what makes career-limiting moves so disastrous, and unexpected, positive events where you shine, so powerful. Focus maximum effort and attention into creating two or three especially memorable activities each year. Be imaginative in doing this — they may not be events on your regular agenda, but volunteer or even extra-curricular activities. Assess your image. Pick three adjectives that you think co-workers would use to describe you to someone you hadn’t met. Are they positive or negative, assets or liabilities in the organization you work for? If someone used those three adjectives to describe someone you had never met, would you be inclined to want to work with that person, or interview them for a job working for you? Dress a little above your level in the organization, but not too conspicuously. Assess your employer by what they do, not by what they say. The company Strategic Plan may be interesting, but its behaviour is much more important. Who is getting hired, promoted, fired, and what does that tell you about their values? How much do you ‘resemble’ the people who are getting ahead fastest? Assess the strength of your network. Who you know, both inside and outside the organization, is far more important than what you know. Are you ‘working’ your network, investing time and energy in giving and getting useful value from members, building strong relationships? Are the right people in your networks to be valuable to you, or are they clogged with complainers, hangers-on, and the disenfranchised? Do you have the right mix of people inside and outside the company in your networks? Assess your long-range career plan. Don’t expect to get ahead just by doing what you’re told competently. Seize control of your own career path and plan it, flexibly, as far ahead as you can imagine. Don’t get discouraged by setbacks — learn from them and persevere. What do you need to learn, who do you need to get to know, to get to the next step, and the step after that? Start working on acquiring that knowledge and those contacts now. Working in a medium or large organization isn’t for everyone. But if you’re there, and expect to stay in that environment, these self-assessment steps should help you be happier and more successful. And if you decide to (or already do) run your own business, you can use these same nine assessment criteria to evaluate and improve your relationships with your customers. (Thanks to fellow Torontonian Jen at Circadian Shift for the link to John’s article) |
May 17, 2004
CULTURAL METAMORPHOSIS
![]() Regular readers of this blog know that I believe we’re headed for ecological catastrophe, driven by the double whammy of overpopulation and accelerating resource consumption (depicted on the charts above, with the red and green lines marking maximum and ideal sustainable levels respectively), and they know that my ‘Roadmap‘ for heading off this catastrophe is a set of 27 actions (technological, social, political and economic), with a more radical backup ‘Plan B‘ if it turns out we’re unable or unwilling to follow the Roadmap. Many others seem to share my alarm about our current situation, but there is no clear consensus on what we should do about it. Over the past year I’ve described at least eight prescriptions for ‘saving the world’:
This past weekend I’ve been reading about yet another approach, in the work of Elisabet Sahtouris (EarthDance) and Gary Alexander (eGaia), both of whom use the caterpillar-to-butterfly radical transformation metaphor, to call for what I’d describe as a human ‘Cultural Metamorphosis’. I’d like to thank Don Dwiggins for bringing this thinking to my attention. In EarthDance, Elisabet lays out an 11-part prescription to bring about this ‘metamorphosis’ (the numbers in brackets are cross-references to the equivalent elements in my 27-point Roadmap):
Gary’s eGaia is consistent with Elisabet’s prescription. After outlining his case for change, he introduces a series of principles based on the achievement of peace, cooperation and sustainability (replacing war, competition and growth, the fuels of our current culture). He then presents a future state vision, much as my upcoming novel will do, with vignettes from individuals’ lives in a balanced and harmonious future world (though his future world is much less radically transformed than the one my novel depicts). A highlight of his book is his description of Italy’s Federation of Damanhur, a fascinating and pragmatic 800-person community built on self-sufficiency and cooperation that exists right now. It’s a little too spiritually-based for my tastes, but it demonstrates that modern, self-organized, self-managed communities can work for long periods very effectively and very successfully. This reading has modified my thinking somewhat on the Roadmap, and I will be making some changes to the Roadmap as a result. But the more I read about our current situation, the more pessimistic and radical I get in my thinking, and the less persuaded I am that any voluntary program of human behaviour and way-of-thinking changes, legal, economic and political changes, and creative problem-solving, will be substantial enough, or come soon enough, to deal with the crisis we face today. I am increasingly convinced that the momentum of 6 billion people’s (and doubling every 60 years) insatiable desire to acquire more, is just too much to overcome in time. And the more I read and think about the natural crisis behaviours of all living creatures in extreme overcrowding and resource scarcity conditions, the more I am persuaded that, if we could take the lid off the population/scarcity pressure cooker, the other social, political, economic, psychological and ecological problems we now face might actually solve themselves. Here’s why I think this: Imagine for a moment two very large islands, A and B, somewhere in time and space. The people of both islands believe they are alone on their world, and in the universe, and that, since they’ve looked for it in vain for years, each group of islanders believes there is no other land on their world. Now imagine that both islands are in crisis situations — badly overpopulated and polluted, with massively inequitable distribution of resources, power and wealth, and constant war, violence and bloodshed. Suppose that the human population of island A is growing at 1% per year — doubling every sixty years, every average lifetime. But there is a new virus on island B, taking the lives of 3% of the population each year, in an apparently random way, so that island’s population is actually dropping by 2% each year. On island B, I believe, any of the prescriptions for change I’ve listed above — from Ghandi’s ‘be the change’ to Quinn’s ‘walk away, build a new culture and others will follow’, or even a Cultural Metamorphosis — will probably work, because the population pressure that underlies all of the other problems is being alleviated, and creating the opportunity for a new start, the building of a new evolutionary culture that will prevent these problems from arising again. In fact, such a metamorphosis might not only be possible on this island, it might be inevitable, because the scarcity necessary to sustain war, violence, the hoarding of resources and the power and authority of the rich elite will quickly and simply dissipate. The people of island B can, and will, ‘walk away’ from the dysfunctional culture and economy that they will blame for the passing crisis, and build one, or many, diverse and sustainable cultures better suited to their new reality. But on island A, there is no such opportunity. There is no time, and no space, to try out evolutionary change, no breathing room for widespread public debate or to create awareness of the urgent need for lower fertility, simpler living, less consumption and more equitable distribution of resources. The rich will keep spending more and more of their money and resources protecting what they have from ever-increasing numbers of ever-more-desperate poor, seeing and dealing with only the symptoms (e.g. suicide bombers) of the crisis, and not its underlying cause. The poor will remain convinced that large families — the labour of which is the only resource they have and can control, the only asset they have of value — are a critical means of support and survival. On the television stations of island A, the news will all be about current wars, corporate corruption, epidemic disease, the need for more growth, and parochial politics — there will be no widespread awareness of the crisis, let alone intelligent discussion of its causes and possible solutions. On island A, like on our world today, there is not enough time, and there is no reasonable way out. So I’m intrigued and enlightened by the Cultural Metamorphosis solution. But I despair that its chrysalis can survive the coming winter, and fear that its butterfly is doomed to be still-born. (Graphic above is from Thank You For Not Breeding, a film and flash animation by Nina Paley) |
May 16, 2004
PAYBACK
There is something diabolical about the pleasure we humans receive in exacting revenge. We love to see someone who we think has wronged us get their come-uppance. We flock to movies and get suckered in by television programs that set us up by creating a straw man who is pure evil, and then in the most blatant manipulation of base human emotion, allow us to revel in the anger, violence and vicarious joy of seeing the protagonist exact revenge. We espouse “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, tacitly or explicitly in our teachings of children, in our religions, and in our moral and ethical codes, in our personal lives and in business. We embrace capital punishment as a means for the families of victims to ‘see justice done’ and ‘bring closure to their grief’.
Only humans, to our knowledge, seek, relish and celebrate revenge. Why? Charles Taylor, in Friday’s Salon.com, expands on his review of the new Denzel Washington/Tony Scott film Man on Fire to try to answer this question. He describes the long history of Hollywood’s celebration and veneration of the revenge of heroes. He then goes on to suggest that what was played out at Abu Ghraib, and in thousands of less publicized acts of war retribution around the world, and throughout human history, may not be isolated acts of overzealous and unusually unbalanced individuals, but rather an endemic living out of revenge fantasies, the personal version of the vicarious experience of revenge fantasies that draws millions to blockbuster movies to witness brutal, horrifically violent, yet retaliatory and hence ‘righteous’ acts. Does our fierce desire for revenge — over 9/11, over the damned Iraqi insurgent ingrates who won’t accept us as liberators, over every indignity and rebuff and psychological atrocity inflicted on us personally, or on ‘our people’, however broadly or narrowly we define that term — cause us to take quiet pleasure in acts of revenge by ‘our people’ — whether they be manipulative Hollywood renditions or real life retaliations against ‘others’? In our minds, in our search for blood vengeance, are we all too willing to substitute Saddam Hussein for Osama Bin Laden, and the nameless naked Iraqis in Abu Ghraib for the cowards who killed and publicly displayed the bodies of innocent Americans? And to substitute the latest one-dimensional evil character in the latest Hollywood film for every monster who ever caused us or those we love grief, pain, or humiliation throughout our lives? Taylor goes on: If it hasn’t already, the brutality at Abu Ghraib is sure to be branded not an aberration but business as usual for America and the military. And clearly, there are many who support the war who think that there’s not much to worry about if it is business as usual — who think that it should be business as usual. Both sides are arguing for accepting a vision of America that exceeds the self-hating one of the Vietnam years — America with the brakes off, with all pretense of restraint and all ideas of honorable conduct abandoned. This is an argument for America not as representing a better possibility, but as meting out justice that aims to equal any violence done to it. This is self-hatred as the road to self-celebration, an embrace of our worst impulses in the name of strength and unity…[The impulses of the torturers] are not alien to us…We have all been the heroes of the vigilante movies playing in our minds.
Taylor concludes by commending the television series ’24′ because, unlike Man on Fire and most of the Hollywood revenge movies, it at least forces us to question our fascination, our fantasization, our grim pleasure in taking part in or witnessing a savage and brutal act of vengeance. I have described before in these pages the theory that human violence is an expression of psychological illness brought about by abuse, neglect and/or repression during our vulnerable youth, our formative years, which in turn is ultimately caused by the ubiquitous stress of overpopulation, scarcity and “the fear of not having enough”. In that context it seems plausible to me that the pleasure we take in witnessing the misery and suffering of those we hold responsible for heinous acts against us, or those we love, could be merely an extension of that mental illness. So enjoying watching Dirty Harry or Walker Texas Ranger or Denzel Washington blowing away the ‘bad guys’ in the most gruesome and painful way possible, would then be a sign of madness, the same madness that caused the frightened, empowered, indoctrinated young men and women to torture prisoners at Abu Ghraib with such obvious delight. Are we all in serious denial over the sheer depravity to which we have sunk, a species in such adrenal overload that we cannot see, or feel, what we are doing to ourselves, each other, and this fucked-up world? Recently a friend reminded me about one of my favourite TV shows of all time, the mid-1960s one-season Emmy-winning series called The Rogues. This brilliant series featured a global cast (Charles Boyer, David Niven and Gig Young from France, UK and US respectively, pictured above, as well as Gladys Cooper and Robert Coote) who each week used their wiles to undo a tyrant, a thief, or a con-man, by taking back from him or her exactly what they took from their victim, and returning it to the victim. Since the baddies were usually wealthy, the Rogues also exacted a small additional amount as compensation for their effort. The show was clever, charming, and satisfying, but unlike newer revenge programs and films there was no violence, no humiliation (though there was sometimes some embarrassment of the baddie in front of his/her peers). The Rogues never showed anger, there was no emotional manipulation of the audience, and retribution was attained by trickery, by intelligence, never by force. Some might say the punishment never quite equalled the crime, though the baddie’s vices (greed, corruption, ego) were always cleverly used against them to redress the wrong they had perpetrated. Maybe we need Hollwood to help us in our healing, instead of pandering to our psychological illness, by bringing back The Rogues and other series that teach us intelligent responses to malicious actions and events. Maybe then we could stop thinking so much about payback for wrongs, and start thinking about paying forward the positive things — the compliments, the kind gestures, the favours, the acts of gentleness and courtesy and good will — that serve to make our world a better place. |



Here are five amazing articles, all from great writers and/or great investigative reporters:
Here’s a small potpourri of helpful hints and links:
A good friend told me it’s time for me to stop procrastinating, stop writing about 1000 different subjects, focus, and get off my ass and



Most employees anticipate the annual ‘performance review’ with dread. The fact that this is a ‘fear of the unknown’ dread says a great deal about how poorly most managers communicate job performance to their staff. John Lees, an HR professional in England, 

There is something diabolical about the pleasure we humans receive in exacting revenge. We love to see someone who we think has wronged us get their come-uppance. We flock to movies and get suckered in by television programs that set us up by creating a straw man who is pure evil, and then in the most blatant manipulation of base human emotion, allow us to revel in the anger, violence and vicarious joy of seeing the protagonist exact revenge. We espouse “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, tacitly or explicitly in our teachings of children, in our religions, and in our moral and ethical codes, in our personal lives and in business. We embrace capital punishment as a means for the families of victims to ‘see justice done’ and ‘bring closure to their grief’.


