There is an argument put forth by philosophers of technology that asks the improbable question - did the clock cause capitalism? The motivation, I believe, is to show how seemingly benign technologies can have profound and far reaching impacts on our lives. Yet, as unlikely as it seems that there is any connection at all between advances in timekeeping technology and the rise of a new economic model, the argument that they offer is difficult to dismiss. I will sketch it our here and leave it to those more diligent than I to look up references. You can find the basics of this argument, if you are so inclined, in the works of Lewis Mumford.
In the Middle Ages timekeeping devices such as the tower clocks in monasteries were improved as the residents of monasteries wished to keep a regular schedule and perform their devotions at the right time. The villages around the monasteries could hear the bells tolling as the hours passed giving the residents a growing sense that time was, indeed, a real thing and that it could be accurately measured.
The measurement of time led to another new idea that one could not only measure time but measure the amount of work done in a unit of time. In earlier days, when time could not be accurately measured this idea would have been preposterous. Today we would call this notion of work done per unit of time productivity. And it didn't take long before people began to think that producers should be rewarded from productivity. The most productive should be rewarded and move to the top. The less productive should receive less rewards and move to the bottom. It is a small step from this fundamental notion to the tenets of capitalism.
A secondary effect of these more precise timepieces was an advance in instrumental realism. The clocks were made to measure a phenomenon, that is - time. But after a while the clocks themselves became more real than the phenomenon they were measuring. If you ask anyone today what a day is, they will say 12 hours. But, the days nature creates vary greatly and can best be described as the time between sun up and sun down. Today we view those widely varying and imperfect days created by nature as secondary, whereas the perfect days created by our time keeping devices are the real ones.
While on this thread of unexpected effects of technology, one could argue that the telephone caused skyscrapers. The gist of this argument is that considering the number of messages going in and out of offices in buildings, it would not be practical to have buildings more than a dozen or so stories high if messages had to be carried in and out by couriers. But, allowing electronic transmission of messages removes that bottleneck and allows for the tall buildings that we have today.
One has to ask, did the clock cause capitalism or did it allow capitalism. Similarly one could ask die the telephone causes skyscrapers or did it allow them. I would lean toward allowing rather than causing. But, semantics aside, the point is that seemingly benign and unrelated technologies can have a major impact on our lives and our worldview.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Friday, March 21, 2014
Playing to Your Strengths
Marcus Buckingham (with some co-authors) has made some impressive contributions to positive psychology with a series of books First Break all the Rules , Now, Discover Your Strengths , and Go Put Your Strengths to Work as well as other books and other media. I refer to this as the StrengthsFinder movement as a convenient shorthand because StrengthsFinder is the name of a book, a test, and a website derived from the research. I would encourage people to read these books as my very brief synopsis will not do justice to the richness nor importance of the ideas coming out of this movement.
Nonetheless, Buckingham asserts that the dominate model of performance review used in most organizations today is flawed. Typically, a employee will talk to his or her manager who will identify the employee's weaknesses and encourage said employee to work on those weaknesses over the course of the next year. This, according to Buckingham, will, at best, lead to adequate organizations but not high performance organizations. Each person has strengths which need to be identified, developed, and used to the advantage of both the employee and the organization. And, rather than work on one's weaknesses, one should work on one's strengths.
There is more justification for this than I have room to go into here. But, a simple example can provide a plausibility argument. On a typical football team, the quarterback excels at passing, runs adequately, and it likely to be rather poor at blocking or tackling. If the football team were run like a typical organization, the quarterback would be called into his annual review and the weaknesses in blocking would be pointed out. The quarterback would then spend the next year trying to raise the quality of his blocking. This is silly on the face of it. But, it is how modern organizations run. In order for an organization to be high performance, individuals must figure out what they are good at (we call these strengths) and find out ways to employ their strengths in the pursuit of organizational goals.
I have taken the test and my first strength is Futuristic. I am good at seeing the future. If you have been reading this blog for a while, you know that it is all about predicting the future. There are, as one might expect, also things that I am not good at. For example, I am not particularly good at schmoozing other people and making them feel comfortable. Nor do I particularly care. One of my other blogs DrArtz-RantingAndReflecting provides ample evidence of these weaknesses. But, when I am thinking about the future it is effortless and sublime.
Unfortunately, we tend to hide our strengths to avoid the criticisms of other. This is a carryover of industrial age thinking where conformity is valued more than uniqueness. If I am good at predicting the future and others are not then there must be something wrong with them or wrong with me. Usually, people see this as something wrong with me. They get tired and annoyed when I talk about the future. But this isn't about me. It is about our inability to accept strengths and uniqueness in others. We don't like people who can effortlessly talk to strangers at parties. We don't like people who can remember names. People who strive to keep things on an even keel are just annoying. And those who care deeply about others, well, there just aren't words to describe the contempt that feel for them. So, when people are good at things, others, who are not good at those things like to downplay their importance.
But, we can't avoid the fact that when people are using their strengths they are more productive and more satisfied. So, while this reorientation that Buckingham is talking about may take some time, it will definitely happen. And, all of the pieces I have been bringing together about the nature of work will help that happen.
Nonetheless, Buckingham asserts that the dominate model of performance review used in most organizations today is flawed. Typically, a employee will talk to his or her manager who will identify the employee's weaknesses and encourage said employee to work on those weaknesses over the course of the next year. This, according to Buckingham, will, at best, lead to adequate organizations but not high performance organizations. Each person has strengths which need to be identified, developed, and used to the advantage of both the employee and the organization. And, rather than work on one's weaknesses, one should work on one's strengths.
There is more justification for this than I have room to go into here. But, a simple example can provide a plausibility argument. On a typical football team, the quarterback excels at passing, runs adequately, and it likely to be rather poor at blocking or tackling. If the football team were run like a typical organization, the quarterback would be called into his annual review and the weaknesses in blocking would be pointed out. The quarterback would then spend the next year trying to raise the quality of his blocking. This is silly on the face of it. But, it is how modern organizations run. In order for an organization to be high performance, individuals must figure out what they are good at (we call these strengths) and find out ways to employ their strengths in the pursuit of organizational goals.
I have taken the test and my first strength is Futuristic. I am good at seeing the future. If you have been reading this blog for a while, you know that it is all about predicting the future. There are, as one might expect, also things that I am not good at. For example, I am not particularly good at schmoozing other people and making them feel comfortable. Nor do I particularly care. One of my other blogs DrArtz-RantingAndReflecting provides ample evidence of these weaknesses. But, when I am thinking about the future it is effortless and sublime.
Unfortunately, we tend to hide our strengths to avoid the criticisms of other. This is a carryover of industrial age thinking where conformity is valued more than uniqueness. If I am good at predicting the future and others are not then there must be something wrong with them or wrong with me. Usually, people see this as something wrong with me. They get tired and annoyed when I talk about the future. But this isn't about me. It is about our inability to accept strengths and uniqueness in others. We don't like people who can effortlessly talk to strangers at parties. We don't like people who can remember names. People who strive to keep things on an even keel are just annoying. And those who care deeply about others, well, there just aren't words to describe the contempt that feel for them. So, when people are good at things, others, who are not good at those things like to downplay their importance.
But, we can't avoid the fact that when people are using their strengths they are more productive and more satisfied. So, while this reorientation that Buckingham is talking about may take some time, it will definitely happen. And, all of the pieces I have been bringing together about the nature of work will help that happen.
Friday, March 14, 2014
Wikinomics, Free Agency and the End of Tribal Corporations
A few years ago I read a very thought provoking book called Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams. I highly recommend it. It makes some very compelling argument for a new economic model in which people who work for corporations are slowly being replaced by free agents who compete for the work over the web. There is more to it than that but it sparked my thinking so I wanted to give it credit for the spark. About a year or so later I read another book Free Agent Nation: The Future of Working for Yourself by Daniel Pink which further solidified my thinking in this area by revealing the extent to which free agents already participate in the job market. After extensive contemplation, I came to some conclusions about how this might play out. The following is my vision of the future of work. I am moving cautiously here because I want to give credit where credit is due while not attributing any of my crazy speculations to the sources of inspiration.
Although there are some very significant counter examples in the world today, most citizens of modern, developed, autonomous nations have long ago for gotten their tribal origins. I would draw an analogy between tribal allegiances and corporate allegiances. That is to say that there was a time when tribal allegiances were a necessity for the workings of society and the protection of individuals. Similarly, there was a time, when corporate allegiances were necessary for the workings of the economy and the protection of individuals. Except for some significant counter examples in today's world, tribal allegiances have all but faded into history. And it won't be long before corporate allegences will fade as well. Imagine someone today asking you what tribe you belong to. For most people this question would sound silly. In the future the similar question - what company do you work for - will sound equally as silly. When somebody asks - who do you work for - you will answer "I work for myself, just like everybody else does."
Why do we work for corporations or government agencies today? I think there are two primary reasons. First, working for an entity gives you a place to go to meet with your co-workers. And, second, inherent in the management of the entity is a control structure which directs work and manages productivity. But, neither of these features is part of the fabric of reality and both can change as our reality changes.
The first is easy. Telecommunications has made co-location irrelevant as I argued in the Visualization of YOU. The second takes a little more explanation. Think about tribal structures which had control structures as well. There was probably a chief, some warriors, maybe a shaman, and the like. Those job were replaced by governments (local and federal) and professions (doctors, soldiers, teachers, etc). It is possible, maybe even likely, that corporate roles will follow the same path. In other words, managers and executives will be replaced by similar roles that are not limited to a given entity, possibly an industry or even a nation instead.
"What will happen to the workers?", you might ask. My guess is that they will all become free agents, bidding for pieces of work that are tendered on the Internet. So, when work needs to be done, industry executives will dole it out online, individuals will bid on it, complete their tasks and get paid for the work they did by the industry entity. Presumably, if one believes in an efficient economy, workers will bid on the work that they do the best as to get maximum return for their efforts. From the industry side, worker will be chosen based on their efficiency at completing tasks as desired. One side effect of this is a maximally efficient economy as everyone does exactly what they do best and each job goes to the best worker. There is more to it than that as this must occur along with other trends. But, I don't want to get too far ahead of myself.But, if the analogy holds, tribal members eventually became free citizens and corporate workers will become free agents.
Although there are some very significant counter examples in the world today, most citizens of modern, developed, autonomous nations have long ago for gotten their tribal origins. I would draw an analogy between tribal allegiances and corporate allegiances. That is to say that there was a time when tribal allegiances were a necessity for the workings of society and the protection of individuals. Similarly, there was a time, when corporate allegiances were necessary for the workings of the economy and the protection of individuals. Except for some significant counter examples in today's world, tribal allegiances have all but faded into history. And it won't be long before corporate allegences will fade as well. Imagine someone today asking you what tribe you belong to. For most people this question would sound silly. In the future the similar question - what company do you work for - will sound equally as silly. When somebody asks - who do you work for - you will answer "I work for myself, just like everybody else does."
Why do we work for corporations or government agencies today? I think there are two primary reasons. First, working for an entity gives you a place to go to meet with your co-workers. And, second, inherent in the management of the entity is a control structure which directs work and manages productivity. But, neither of these features is part of the fabric of reality and both can change as our reality changes.
The first is easy. Telecommunications has made co-location irrelevant as I argued in the Visualization of YOU. The second takes a little more explanation. Think about tribal structures which had control structures as well. There was probably a chief, some warriors, maybe a shaman, and the like. Those job were replaced by governments (local and federal) and professions (doctors, soldiers, teachers, etc). It is possible, maybe even likely, that corporate roles will follow the same path. In other words, managers and executives will be replaced by similar roles that are not limited to a given entity, possibly an industry or even a nation instead.
"What will happen to the workers?", you might ask. My guess is that they will all become free agents, bidding for pieces of work that are tendered on the Internet. So, when work needs to be done, industry executives will dole it out online, individuals will bid on it, complete their tasks and get paid for the work they did by the industry entity. Presumably, if one believes in an efficient economy, workers will bid on the work that they do the best as to get maximum return for their efforts. From the industry side, worker will be chosen based on their efficiency at completing tasks as desired. One side effect of this is a maximally efficient economy as everyone does exactly what they do best and each job goes to the best worker. There is more to it than that as this must occur along with other trends. But, I don't want to get too far ahead of myself.But, if the analogy holds, tribal members eventually became free citizens and corporate workers will become free agents.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Virtual Worlds and the Virtualization of YOU
I would like to begin with an analogy as analogies are one of the patterns one uses to get some purchase on the future. And I am going to use this analogy to make two key points.
In the early days of the World Wide Web, the economics of the web made it not only a viable alternative to business as usual but a serious threat to business as usual. There are many, many examples. Companies who sent out brochures to customers would spend several dollars per customer. Allowing customers to access the same information on a web sites dropped that marginal cost to pennies. If you sent out catalogs, the savings were even more dramatic. Software distributor could distribute software more cheaply. Customer service became much easier as customer could access the website for information about products. If products required some training, videos could be posted. The economics of the web made it silly to do things the old way.
The second point in this analogy is that when we step back and look at the web from a more abstract level we can see that the web is a large interactive document that made the location of information irrelevant. It used to be that you had to know where to find stuff. And locating information often meant a trip to the library, courthouse, agency or business where the information was located.
Applying the first part of this analogy to virtual worlds we can see enormous economic benefits of using virtual worlds. Several years ago I attended a professional conference in Second Life. I got up that morning, made a cup of coffee, logged in to Second Life and attended the conference. Had I attended the conference for real I would have lost a day traveling to the conference and a day traveling back. Further, if there were dead spots in the conference during which no papers were being presented that I cared about, my time was dead as well. At home, I could just go about my regular business if there were lulls. In addition, to my time there were other expenses. I would have had to pay for airport parking, airfare, ground transportation to and from the hotel, room rental fees, and meals. This could easily add up to thousands of dollar whereas the virtual conference cost me next to nothing. This is one example where the economies of virtual worlds parallel the economies of web technologies.
But, this example is far from the only one. One can use virtual worlds for meetings, tourism, and education with similar economies. I will elaborate on the tourism example. Let's say I wanted to spend a week vacationing in Ireland. Using the old approach, I would fly to Ireland, spend two or three days learning how to get around, two or three days enjoying the country, then a day or two winding down. Once I arrived back home I may realize where I would have liked to have gone but didn't. And I might remember something I decided not to buy but now wish that I did.
Let's look at the same vacation with the benefit of virtual tourism. First, I might visit virtual Ireland several times during the weeks or months leading up to the trip. I am doing this at my leisure and from the comfort of my home. But, during that time I become more acquainted with country an what I want to do there. Then I take the real trip. Since I have already familiarized myself with the country before arriving, I don't have a period of adjustment and I don't make the wrong decisions about what to do. Then when I return home and realized I should have bought those Irish linen sheet, I can just go back into virtual Ireland, find the store and order the sheets. Further there are other places that I might want to see virtually but not actually travel to. So, the virtual world offers touring options that don't even exist today.
On the second point, that of virutalization, I should mention that the web was merely a step in a series of virtualizations where telecommunications technology made the location of things irrelevant. Early steps included such things as coaxial cables which made the location of the computer within a building irrelevant, and on through local area and then wide area networks that made the geographic location of a computer irrelevant. The web and the irrelevance of document location was an important step. And now, with cloud computing, we have make the location of most things irrelevant. Most things, that is, except you. But that is about to change. Virtual worlds will make your location irrelevant. By logging into a virtual world you can be present virtually anywhere. So, not only are computing resources and information virtualized, but you are now virtualized as well.
In the early days of the World Wide Web, the economics of the web made it not only a viable alternative to business as usual but a serious threat to business as usual. There are many, many examples. Companies who sent out brochures to customers would spend several dollars per customer. Allowing customers to access the same information on a web sites dropped that marginal cost to pennies. If you sent out catalogs, the savings were even more dramatic. Software distributor could distribute software more cheaply. Customer service became much easier as customer could access the website for information about products. If products required some training, videos could be posted. The economics of the web made it silly to do things the old way.
The second point in this analogy is that when we step back and look at the web from a more abstract level we can see that the web is a large interactive document that made the location of information irrelevant. It used to be that you had to know where to find stuff. And locating information often meant a trip to the library, courthouse, agency or business where the information was located.
Applying the first part of this analogy to virtual worlds we can see enormous economic benefits of using virtual worlds. Several years ago I attended a professional conference in Second Life. I got up that morning, made a cup of coffee, logged in to Second Life and attended the conference. Had I attended the conference for real I would have lost a day traveling to the conference and a day traveling back. Further, if there were dead spots in the conference during which no papers were being presented that I cared about, my time was dead as well. At home, I could just go about my regular business if there were lulls. In addition, to my time there were other expenses. I would have had to pay for airport parking, airfare, ground transportation to and from the hotel, room rental fees, and meals. This could easily add up to thousands of dollar whereas the virtual conference cost me next to nothing. This is one example where the economies of virtual worlds parallel the economies of web technologies.
But, this example is far from the only one. One can use virtual worlds for meetings, tourism, and education with similar economies. I will elaborate on the tourism example. Let's say I wanted to spend a week vacationing in Ireland. Using the old approach, I would fly to Ireland, spend two or three days learning how to get around, two or three days enjoying the country, then a day or two winding down. Once I arrived back home I may realize where I would have liked to have gone but didn't. And I might remember something I decided not to buy but now wish that I did.
Let's look at the same vacation with the benefit of virtual tourism. First, I might visit virtual Ireland several times during the weeks or months leading up to the trip. I am doing this at my leisure and from the comfort of my home. But, during that time I become more acquainted with country an what I want to do there. Then I take the real trip. Since I have already familiarized myself with the country before arriving, I don't have a period of adjustment and I don't make the wrong decisions about what to do. Then when I return home and realized I should have bought those Irish linen sheet, I can just go back into virtual Ireland, find the store and order the sheets. Further there are other places that I might want to see virtually but not actually travel to. So, the virtual world offers touring options that don't even exist today.
On the second point, that of virutalization, I should mention that the web was merely a step in a series of virtualizations where telecommunications technology made the location of things irrelevant. Early steps included such things as coaxial cables which made the location of the computer within a building irrelevant, and on through local area and then wide area networks that made the geographic location of a computer irrelevant. The web and the irrelevance of document location was an important step. And now, with cloud computing, we have make the location of most things irrelevant. Most things, that is, except you. But that is about to change. Virtual worlds will make your location irrelevant. By logging into a virtual world you can be present virtually anywhere. So, not only are computing resources and information virtualized, but you are now virtualized as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)