Marina Gorbis's Blog, page 1415
May 23, 2014
Why You Probably Won’t Move for a Job
Fewer people are moving for jobs today — and when people do move, not many are citing work as the reason. Wharton's Peter Cappelli is inclined to believe that the reason for this "has something to do with employment practices," and he lists a couple. One: Long-distance commuting is on the rise – people are taking new jobs without uprooting their families. Two: There's no such thing as lifetime employment anymore; when companies rebalance their workforces, adding employees at one site and cutting back at another, "it's easier to let people go in the down location and hire new ones in the up location. And they do that a lot." Most workers, he posits, understand the new dynamics: "If you were offered a new job in another city where you have no ties or networks, and you suspected that the job would probably not last more than three years (which is a good guess), how much of a raise would they have to give you to get you to move? … I suspect it would be a lot more than most employers are willing to pay."
Moral and Financial The Case for ReparationsThe Atlantic
This is the most important thing you will read this week (if not this decade, written without hyperbole), particularly if you live in or do business in the United States. An excerpt:
"Having been enslaved for 250 years, black people were not left to their own devices. They were terrorized. In the Deep South, a second slavery ruled. In the North, legislatures, mayors, civic associations, banks, and citizens all colluded to pin black people into ghettos, where they were overcrowded, overcharged, and undereducated. Businesses discriminated against them, awarding them the worst jobs and the worst wages. Police brutalized them in the streets. And the notion that black lives, black bodies, and black wealth were rightful targets remained deeply rooted in the broader society. Now we have half-stepped away from our long centuries of despoilment, promising, 'Never again.' But still we are haunted. It is as though we have run up a credit-card bill and, having pledged to charge no more, remain befuddled that the balance does not disappear. The effects of that balance, interest accruing daily, are all around us."
Look BusyNo Time: How Did We Get So Busy?The New Yorker
It’s the norm in many of America’s elite professions — management, consulting, medicine, the law, certainly journalism — to work and work until you can’t see straight, then to go to bed and get up and work some more, day after day, even weekend after weekend. Are we nuts? Wasn’t the whole point of entering an elite profession that you wouldn’t have to work like a dog? John Maynard Keynes thought so. In 1928 he predicted that in a couple of generations, when capitalism matured, people in developed countries would need to work only about three hours per day.
In a new book, Overwhelmed, Brigid Schulte looks at why Keynes turned out to have been so wrong, and she finds unexpected nuances. As Elizabeth Kolbert writes in a review in The New Yorker, lower-wage workers have indeed experienced increased leisure time, while high earners have reported intense time pressure. Maybe it’s all about money: At the top of the wage scale, putting in more hours can mean getting a lot more pay. Or maybe we’re too susceptible to the hard-work mystique — to the “busier than thou” attitude that’s so pervasive these days. Or, as The Atlantic's Derek Thompson rebuts, maybe we're not as busy as we think we are. —Andy O'Connell
Fine by Me Kill the Cover Letter and RésuméNew York Magazine
If I had a dollar for every time a friend delivered an impassioned rant about the loathsome act of writing a cover letter, I would have so much money that I would never need another job and thus would never have to write a cover letter again. Exaggeration aside (and, you know, I quite like my work), Jesse Singal does a splendid job of rounding up the research-backed evidence against "the packet" — the résumé and cover letter. One of the most important criticisms is that companies’ traditional system of basing decisions on packets, while designed to be objective, is fraught with bias. And then there’s the question of whether packets are a good predictor of the skills a potential employee brings to the table. Singal outlines alternatives companies are turning to; but unless — or until — business makes a major shift, let me suggest reading this.
Give It UpHow Warren Buffett Made Me Smarter About Charity Forbes
We give a few bucks to this charity and a few to that, but are we really helping to make the world a better place? Richard Eisenberg writes in Forbes about a six-week online course he took on charitable giving and how it changed his thinking. Don’t be misled by the article title: Warren Buffett had nothing to do with it, though his sister did. Doris Buffett’s Learning by Giving Foundation partnered with Northeastern University to offer the course, which taught students how to evaluate nonprofits according to, among other things, their management and operational excellence.
But good luck trying to get that kind of information from nonprofits. Eisenberg was “surprised — no, disappointed — by how few provided the kind of specifics about their financials and staffing that would let prospective donors make informed decisions.” One important lesson: Don’t discount a charity simply because it pays its executives well. Another: If you’re going to give, be a sustained giver, making repeated donations to the same organizations. That helps ensure a steadier, more predictable income stream. —Andy O'Connell
BONUS BITSA Little Privacy, Please
Why Companies Should Compete for Your Privacy (Working Knowledge)
Welcome to the New, Monetized Internet, Where Privacy Is Going to Cost You (Pacific Standard)
Fine Line Seen in U.S. Spying on Companies (The New York Times)
Adaptive Strategy Is a Cop-Out
Managers today are all obsessed with VUCA, an ugly acronym encapsulating the notion that business faces more volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity than ever before, requiring an entirely new kind of approach to strategy.
That new way comes under many terms: discovery-driven strategy, emergent strategy, lean strategy, agile strategy, to name just the best known. They all hold, more or less, that in this VUCA world, you just have to try stuff, see how it works, and adjust. Thinking about strategy before doing something is so retrograde, so pre-VUCA.
I just don’t buy it.
There is really no actual evidence that ours is a more VUCA world than previous ones. In fact, every generation claims that its times are the most turbulent ever. Partly this is because the past is known and understood, so we forget how uncertain everything seemed at the time.
But do we think that the world didn’t feel really VUCA when the Black Death was killing 25% of its inhabitants? Do we think that the world didn’t feel VUCA when we discovered that the planet was definitively not flat? Do we think that the world didn’t feel VUCA when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor? Of course not: VUCA is not only with us now, it has always been with us, a constant companion.
A logical implication of this truth is that forward planning has always had limited effectiveness. That rather undercuts any argument that traditional strategy doesn’t work because you can’t plan for anything these days. Why would we ever have thought it worked in the VUCA of the 1970s or 1980s if we don’t think it will work in the VUCA of today?
My point is this: people arguing that strategy needs to change are making the fundamental mistake of assuming that strategy is planning. This has never been the case. Strategy, as I argue in my book, is and always has been about making an integrated set of choices that determine where the firm should play and how it should win there.
My gripe with the new strategy-as-fast reaction thinking is that it’s a cop-out. Making prior choices about where to play and how to win is really hard and uncomfortable. I’m not trying to say that you should never adapt. Any good theory gets adapted. The point is that you have to make a prior choice that you can adapt. The temptation with adopting adaptive strategies is that you never make that prior choice.
Bottom line, I believe the fad for adaptive strategy models is an excuse for not making hard, dangerous choices. We argue that because they are impossible to make, the best course is to continue doing what we’re doing until we have a clear reason not to. And what are we doing today? Well, we’re probably making plans, because that’s what we know how to do, what we’re comfortable doing. Which brings us full circle to what we know doesn’t really work.
To see if you’re stick in this trap, take a look at this self-assessment I’ve developed.
When Innovation Is Strategy
An HBR Insight Center
How Boards Can Innovate
When to Pass on a Great Business Opportunity
How Samsung Gets Innovations to Market
Is It Better to Be Strategic or Opportunistic?
A Crossroads for India, and Its Business Landscape
For the first time in three decades, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has won so many seats (282 out of 543) in India’s recently-concluded general elections that it can hope to be in office for the next five years without the support of another political party. Not only does that give the BJP an unequivocal mandate for change, but also, it allows the right-of-center party to adopt a long-term perspective while making policy decisions. Most Indians are jubilant, the stock market has shot up by 20%, and, in the week after the results were announced, the Indian rupee appreciated the most among 78 currencies that Bloomberg tracks.
Although Narendra Modi, the 63-year-old former chief minister of the western state of Gujarat, will take over from an economist, Manmohan Singh, as India’s prime minister on May 26, fixing the Indian economy will, ironically, have to be the new leader’s top priority. After all, India’s growth has slowed to a crawl, with GDP expanding by less than 5% in the last two years compared to 9% per annum in the five years before 2008.
Some of the causes are well-known, such as the government’s fiscal profligacy and runaway inflation, but there has also been a fall in foreign, private, and public investment, especially in infrastructure, mining, and manufacturing, recently. That’s partly because a deadly mix of policy paralysis, rampant corruption, and bureaucratic inertia has plagued the Indian economy for the last five years.
Almost every CEO I’ve talked to, before and after the polls, believes that Modi is a shrewd, pragmatic, and decisive leader, who can kick-start economic growth and development in India by fostering a more business-friendly policy environment. What exactly does that mean in a mixed economy like India’s?
India has recently become one of the most challenging places in the world in which to do business. This is partly due to the arbitrary interpretation of tax laws by venal revenue authorities. No one can forget how the Singh government amended a law in 2012 with retrospective effect from April 1962 to force the telecom giant, Vodafone, to pay a $2-billion tax bill. Tax claims have also resulted in the closure of Nokia’s flagship factory in Chennai with the consequent loss of 5,000 jobs. Don’t expect excesses of that sort under the Modi administration; he publicly decried the previous government’s “tax terrorism” during his campaign. That should come as a relief for multinational companies that can cope with unhelpful policies, but not with policy reversals.
It’s widely believed that Modi, just as he did in Gujarat, will try to tame India’s sclerotic, corrupt, and self-serving bureaucracy by eliminating archaic laws and regulations, and by using technology to eliminate their discretionary powers. That should result in faster clearances of investment proposals, especially those from foreign companies, by the central government. However, local governments have to provide many clearances today, so the ease of doing business will differ from one Indian state to another.
Over the past five years, India developed a reputation for being the most corrupt of the major economies, but that should diminish under the new administration. Most businesspeople agree that Gujarat under Modi was less corrupt than most other states were. Modi has vowed to crack down on corrupt politicians and he will hold the bureaucracy more accountable. However, many rules, regulations, and approvals are state-level or local matters, so the mega scams may go away, but demands for bribes and speed money will not.
India could finally have elected a central government that focuses on improving its infrastructure over the next five years. Modi has said, time and again, that infrastructure development, particularly electricity generation, railroad expansion, and road building, will be his top priorities. He has a good track record in that area, with Gujarat boasting some of the country’s best infrastructure, so that may not be empty rhetoric.
At the macro level, Modi will probably strive to build a globally competitive manufacturing sector that will become India’s much-needed job-creation engine. As China’s cost competitiveness gets eroded, and global corporations reduce their dependence on manufacturing there, there’s an opportunity to get foreign companies to move their production bases to India. Given his nationalist zeal, Modi will do his best to capitalize on that opportunity. The U.S. may be on the defensive because it denied Modi a diplomatic visa in 2005, but American multinationals, like all foreign companies, will find him extremely approachable.
While the BJP government will be receptive to foreign investors, it will also pursue India’s “self-interest.” For instance, while global pharmaceutical companies and governments have been demanding stronger patent protection and an end to the compulsory licensing of drugs in India, that’s a tough call to make for the government of a relatively poor country. Similarly, India’s need to revitalize its manufacturing sector will require policy changes including reducing local content requirements and preferences for locally made goods in government purchases. Whether Modi will bite those bullets isn’t clear.
Similarly, foreign companies’ access to sectors such as multi-brand retailing, defense production, and insurance may improve more slowly than the world might wish due to the BJP’s ideological compulsions. In these contentious matters, the government will maintain a fine balance between being compliant with its obligations to the WTO, on the one hand, and doing what’s best for local business interests on the other.
Hopefully, the Modi administration will engage in a dialogue with foreign companies and governments, and search for win-win solutions rather than announce decisions unilaterally. As a result, friction on trade and investment matters should fall substantially, and economic ties with the U.S., Japan, and Europe should expand.
Thus, optimism is warranted, but euphoria is not. The Modi government, despite its mandate for change, doesn’t have a magic wand at its disposal. It has inherited high inflation, a huge fiscal deficit, and large welfare programs and subsidies that will be hard to rein in. Besides, India’s federal system ensures that state governments deal with key issues such as power distribution, education, and land acquisition. That may prove to be a problem in the 17 states where the BJP is not in power. The BJP also lacks a majority in India’s upper house, so some major policy changes, such a national goods and services tax and the reform of labor laws, could be slow.
If we were to think of the Indian economy as a flywheel, its current rotation in the wrong direction should be arrested quickly, within a year, as business and consumer confidence grows, investment picks up, and the government pursues sensible fiscal and monetary policies. However, major reforms and strengthening institutions will take time, so the flywheel may not gather speed in the right direction for the next five years.
Still, India has a chance to return to the path of rapid economic development. China has been a growth engine for the past 20 years for many multinational companies, and many are now looking for the next China. No other country is better positioned to play that role than India, where relatively modest changes in the policy environment can unleash a torrent of investment, entrepreneurship, and prosperity.
Reference-Check Your Future Boss
What do you wish you had known about your manager before you started your current job? Work style? Personality? Approach to management? Ability (or inability) to empathize? Most advice around job searching and interviewing has become common knowledge: Research the company, ask questions about the company culture, send a thank you note, and so on. But while this routine might inform you (and get you excited) about any given company, it doesn’t really tell you about the person you’ll be working under.
My advice: Reference-check your future boss.
Think about it: Do you want to work for a tyrant? A know-it-all? A manipulator? Or do you want to work with a great coach? A developer of people? A thought-leader? You may know exactly what you want, but it’s difficult to pick up on these traits in an hour-long interview — especially when you’re the interviewee. All the stars might be aligning for you (promising company with great growth, dream job description, attractive compensation and benefits), but one person (your manager) could affect your career more than everything else combined.
Potential employers certainly aren’t shy when it comes to asking about your background. From cover letters and on-sites to criminal background checks and logic challenges, you’re more or less asked to bare your soul. Why? They want to get to know you — to make sure you’re the right fit. Shouldn’t you be doing the same? And couldn’t you be using some of the same tools?
Hence, reference-checking your future boss. Don’t believe it’s a viable option? Well, we recently had a candidate ask for references – from his potential manager’s colleagues and direct reports – and have seen others do the same in the past.
While we don’t see this strategy all the time (and it’s usually just for senior level roles), it raises the question: Why don’t more people take this approach? It not only shows how seriously the candidate is considering the decision, but it also establishes a more transparent, bi-directional conversation between both sides.
We’d be remiss if we suggested this as a one-size-fits-all tactic. Our candidate — who is now an employee — was able to successfully reference-check his manager both because of the relation to the position he was applying to and the fact that Medallia is simply more open to unconventional hiring approaches. But plenty of proxies exist for a reference check. You can ask other interviewers what it’s like to work with that person. You can use LinkedIn to find your potential boss’s former direct reports or business partners and reach out for their thoughts. Social media can help you identify shared connections and point you to who can give you insights. Through both digital and analogue means, you can also find out if he or she is in any clubs, associations, or alumni groups where you have contacts and can seek information.
Your job hunt should never be thought of as anything but a two-way decision. You will be investing your time, skills, and passion into a company and spending untold hours and energy working with a future boss. Make sure you’re making a good investment by asking the right questions and doing the right research. If that means asking for references, go for it. Otherwise, you might find yourself looking for a new job… to escape your new job.
Manage Your Time Without Annoying Your Coworkers
A lot of time management advice is about saying no to meeting invites or checking email less often. But those actions can cause conflict with your colleagues. Is it possible to set the boundaries you need to get your work done without negatively impacting the rest of the office? How can you manage your time while keeping relationships intact?
What the Experts Say
“Time management is essentially about how you organize work, so, except in very rare cases, it’s going to affect others,” says Ben Dattner, an organizational psychologist and author of The Blame Game. With any new approach, it’s critical to think about how it will impact those around you. But that shouldn’t stop you from trying, says Julie Morgenstern, a time management expert and author of Never Check E-Mail in the Morning. “Our biggest trap when it comes to time is getting caught up in a sense of service to others,” she says. The solution, says Elizabeth Grace Saunders, a time coach and author of The 3 Secrets to Effective Time Investment, is to “focus on the long-term goal of doing your job.” Here’s how to get your work done — while keeping your coworkers happy.
Prioritize work over availability
To start, make sure you’re filtering your time effectively. If you’re overly focused on pleasing others, you’re probably sacrificing productivity. “Your greatest value isn’t accessibility,” says Morgenstern. “It’s your ability to solve problems and get things done.” Saunders agrees: “Think less about people’s feelings and more about the strategic goals of the organization.” Your job is to complete your highest value work.
Get input from your colleagues
Of course, this doesn’t give you permission to implement whatever time-management approach you like. “Don’t be unilateral,” says Dattner. “Don’t come in on Monday and say, ‘I went to a seminar and the workshop leader said to only check email once a day so that’s what I’m going to do.’” Experiment with different techniques to see what might work for everyone. “Come up with some initial ideas and share them with your team,” says Dattner. “You might say, ‘Which would you all prefer: that I don’t check email in the morning or that I take one day off of email each week to focus on projects?’” Also acknowledge the impact your actions might have on others. Dattner suggests saying something like, “I acknowledge that this is going to save me three hours, but there’s going to be a cost of an hour to you. What can I do to make it up to you?”
Take risks
You may worry that others aren’t going to respond well to a new technique, but Saunders says that’s often not true. “Most of the time this limitation is in your head,” she says. “When my clients try new approaches, 99% of the time they work out great.” Morgenstern agrees: “Take the leap of faith and others will often experience the payoff.” This might require bucking the system. “People are so used to being overwhelmed and stressed that you can feel quite guilty taking steps to better manage your time,” says Saunders. “But you need to be willing to exit the craziness.”
Make clear what you’re doing and why
Once you’ve decided on a time-management approach, share your reasoning with your colleagues. For example, if you want to decline meeting invites, Saunders suggests you explain why — you’re working on another big initiative, other members of your team are already attending, you aren’t currently focused on that area, and so on. Or if you’re blocking out time on your calendar to concentrate on an important project, send an email to your colleagues explaining why you won’t be available. These sorts of techniques allow you to respect others’ needs and save you time.
Train people on what to expect
Sometimes just telling people what you’re going to change isn’t enough; you have to help them relearn how to interact with you. “If you answer email every three minutes, you’ve trained people that you’re always going to be there,” says Morgenstern. When you change it up, make sure to tell everyone — key clients, your immediate team, your boss — how and when they can now expect to reach and hear from you.” Saunders says that some of her clients have had luck putting up an auto-responder. For example, it might read, “I’m responding to email every 24 hours. If you need something more urgently, call or text me.” This wouldn’t work for everyone, but the idea is to experiment with different approaches until you find some tactics that work for you.
Choose the right time
Changing how you work can be disruptive. Dattner advises timing your new approach wisely. “Make sure it’s not in a sensitive crunch period,” he says. You also want to be sure that you’re well positioned to request the change to your routine. “You want to be performing well and be in people’s good graces. When things are going well, you have social capital to spend,” says Dattner.
Do it together if you can
One of the benefits to changing your approach is that you’ll be modeling better time management for your team. “Managers need to be time leaders,” Morgenstern advocates. “They need to set a pattern for their departments.” Dattner recommends having “a conversation with your team about how the entire group could manage time better.” Maybe you all agree to check email less frequently or to meet less often or for less time. Just remember that the same techniques don’t work for everyone. “Some people think what works for them should work for everyone else, but there is no one size fits all,” says Saunders.
Principles to Remember
Do:
Explain to others how and why you’re changing your habits
Propose several techniques to see which will work best for you and your coworkers
Become an evangelist for better time management on your team
Don’t:
Assume that you’re better at your job if you’re constantly available
Take a unilateral approach — involve others in your decisions
Try to implement a new technique during an especially busy time or when you’re not in peoples’ good graces
Case study#1: Make the reasons clear
Jessica Tucker, a sales analyst at a consumer goods company, found that after six months in her new job, long and inefficient meetings were becoming an impediment to getting her work done. She decided to try declining more invites. “I was inspired by my manager’s manager who has a hard policy about not attending meetings unless there is a clear objective and agenda and she has something to offer and/or gain,” she says. Before she made the change, she told her manager that she was going to try the new approach, then discussed it with her team, and informed her coworkers in other groups as well.
Initially, there was some concern. Other groups were worried that that they’d miss pertinent information if she wasn’t there (Jessica provides sales reports to other teams). But this proved to be a non-issue. Jessica started to share updates with a point person on her team, who would report back to the larger group. “I aim not to put more work on my colleagues but sometimes it is a give and take. I definitely try to be fair. If a colleague goes to a meeting one week, I’ll go the next.” And now that she’s not as tied up, Jessica also responds to coworkers’ requests more quickly. “Ultimately, I have more time to spend on the aspects of my job that matter.”
Jessica has also found that she’s now more disciplined about the meeting invites she sends. “Sometimes I don’t send invites because I realize certain people don’t need to come to the meeting or I realize it’s something I can discuss with one or two people and don’t need a formal time.”
Case study #2: Be flexible with your new approach
Andrew Watson, a business unit manager for an aerospace company, didn’t have enough time to get his work done. Between attending many meetings and making himself “always available” to his team of program managers and functional leads, he was fully booked. “I had little time left to actually do stuff,” he says. Working with his administrative assistant, he decided to block off his calendar for the same hour every day of the week. “She would not make that time available in my calendar unless a higher authority called a priority,” he says. Since Andrew had a reputation for being approachable and available, he was concerned that the change would disappoint his team and cause them to feel as if their issues were being put on hold.
At the team’s next weekly meeting, Andrew explained the change in his calendar to everyone, making it clear that he was going to do it for a trial period and then would check in. He told them that while his door wasn’t open during that hour, they could interrupt him for important or urgent matters. He also asked for their feedback. “The team was satisfied since I gave them the reasons for the change, and also the opportunity to influence how it was implemented.” Even though the hour was occasionally interrupted (usually by his boss or peers but rarely by his direct reports), the approach enhanced Andrew’s productivity. He was able to focus on important projects but was still available to his team when absolutely necessary.
Narcissists Can Be Manipulated into Caring About the Environment
Although narcissists tend not to care about the societal benefits of pro-environmental activities, their attitudes change if their “green” behaviors are likely to be seen and admired by others, say Iman Naderi of Fairfield University and David Strutton of the University of North Texas. For example, narcissists considered an environmentally friendly laptop computer to be more attractive when they were told it was for use in public, rather than at home (3.7 versus 2.7 on a seven-point scale). Narcissism may be on the rise in the U.S., the researchers say: A nationwide analysis shows that college students’ scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory rose steadily between 1982 and 2009.
What It’s Like Being a Business Traveler in Iran
It is not easy to visit Iran these days – less than a thousand visas have been granted to Americans over the past 12 months. But with a sense that a new dialogue may be happening between this remarkable culture and the West, about a dozen CEOs from the U.S., U.K., and Canada with extensive experience in emerging markets persevered to take a closer look. We were secured in something of a bubble seeing sometimes what our guides, some explicitly working for the government, wanted us to see. Still, throughout our ten days this month in Tehran, the religious center of Qom and historic Kashan, Isfahan, and Shiraz, little of what we experienced was expected.
We came, of course, colored by the Western news cycle narrative. Iran, for us, was the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis from our youth, decades of Cold War diplomatic tit-for-tats, and a regime bent on suppressing its own people while actively supporting instability in the region. But after spending the past two years traveling across the Arab world (and writing a book about innovation and entrepreneurship in the region), I also knew how younger generations and new technologies can redefine business and engagement across the board.
We almost immediately learned that Iran is an astoundingly lovely place, with very little of the deep poverty one sees intertwined into the societies of most emerging markets. We visited some of the greatest historic and cultural centers we have ever seen. There is an excellent education system – their engineering, in particular, is globally competitive. We didn’t see a fraction of the religious tension we expected. Everywhere we went, people (especially young people) came up to us even on the streets, tourist spots and restaurants to say hello, to thank us for being there, to express affection.
We met with a wide cross-section of Iranian business leaders, start-up entrepreneurs, clerics, students, and others, and we heard very different perspectives. When history came up at all, which was infrequent, they recalled western-backed coups, our willingness to turn a blind eye to the corruption and human rights violations of leaders we supported, our policies of regime change and our inconsistent follow-through in the region up to the present day.
At the same time their frustration at their own top-down government weight of the last 40 years was equally palpable. Even while we were often monitored, we regularly heard across generations a sense of deeply missed potential and yearning for different futures. “You are impressed by what you’ve seen, that it is better than you expected,” one CEO of a large enterprise told me, “But I can’t help wondering where we’d be today without the tensions, the sanctions, and the missed opportunities.”
Sanctions have clearly had a significant toll – devaluations have had enormous impact on purchasing power, job opportunities across the board are limited, and inflation is improbably high at over 30% – but we were told repeatedly that the banking sanctions were the most effective. For manufacturing equipment, building materials, and consumer goods, however, there were myriad ways (legally and illegally) to work around them, especially through Turkey and Dubai. Coke and Pepsi were everywhere. In oil and gas, where Iran ranks fourth and first in the world respectively, alternative non-western markets have kept their economy marginally afloat for the time being. China was everywhere in big ways and small – sadly it was near impossible to find a real Iranian piece of jewelry or textile in the ancient and bustling bazars.
Stuxnet, the computer virus that attacked much of their security apparatus several years ago, was a wakeup call and the country has since invested significantly in their technology infrastructure. Today, in a country of roughly 70 million, there is well over 100% mobile penetration – meaning many people have more than one “dumb” phone – but 3G is coming and their over 60% Internet penetration is rising (albeit service speed is slow by western standards.)
Even the government has become more proactive in supporting innovation through dozens of tech “incubators” emphasizing technology that fits their economic planning for oil, gas, agriculture, education and city infrastructure. At the same time, there is a rising independent start-up community as well. The recent “Startup Weekends” have attracted nearly 2,000 kids in Tehran looking to learn entrepreneurship and innovate. And despite the sanctions and difficulty in buying apps, we were told that there are some 6.5 million iPhones in the country. Despite government restrictions for access to social networks, every young person we saw has found works-arounds to access Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and more.
One executive said, making an analogy to one of the fastest growing emerging markets of the last twenty years: “Think of us like Turkey a decade or two ago – only Turkey with enormous oil and gas reserves and a hungry and highly educated new generation wanting different lives and to move more quickly.”
And here lies the most central point.
I found that in Iran the difference in outlook between the older and the younger generations could not be wider. The new generations were born after the taking of our Embassy, so it’s not part of their world-view. They have little interest in their parents’ politics or religion, and in being told what to do. They experienced a rigged election five years go and the subsequent brutal crackdown when they protested, and they mistrust anything they cannot prove. They see what other young people are doing around the world with and through technology, and they want to do the same things.
What would happen if Iran’s and Western policymakers embraced this potential, bubbling just an inch below the surface? There are risks. We can’t know precisely what Iran will do in the coming months or years, but we do know with complete certainty that there will be a lot more technology in a lot more hands of the new generation. Bottom up, they will solve problems with new tools and build new economic futures for themselves. The risk in opening up dialogue to be on their sides thus also offers a staggering opportunity – for Iran, the region and globe.
May 22, 2014
How to Manage Wall Street
Sam Palmisano, former CEO of IBM, on striking a balance between running a company for the long term and keeping investors happy. For more, read the interview, Managing Investors.
Find Quiet (and Maybe Even Peace) at Work
My uncle has a farm in Meriwether County, Georgia. When I was a kid, I spent weekends there camping, fishing, and spending time with family and friends. It was my place to wonder and wander. In a time before mobile devices, I could lie in the grass looking up at the stars and experience real solitude and silence. There were no car engines or text message alerts. The silence created space for reflection and imagination.
On a recent workday, in contrast, a venue near my office held an all-day rock concert that shook the windows in my office with sound checks and live music from 9 a.m. until I went home. The previous day I’d made a day trip to New York — a 16-hour cacophony of jet engines, pilot announcements, car horns, and strangers talking loudly into mobile phones. My experiences are not unique. Most of us now live and work in noisy environments. The ubiquity of electronic devices and the density of the cities in which we live mean that few of us regularly experience silence.
All this noise is bad for us. Julian Treasure, chairman of the Sound Agency, has documented a number of these impacts in detail (PDF), noting, for example, that according to the World Health Organization 40% of Europe is exposed to noise levels that could lead to disturbed sleep, raised blood pressure, and potentially increased incidences of heart disease. The European Commission has estimated the total health and productivity costs of road traffic noise in Europe alone at €30–46 billion. And one study indicates that one in three Americans now suffers hearing impairment as a result of noise in the environment. Stephen A Stansfeld and Mark P Matheson (PDF), in a similar roundup of the health impacts of noise, note many of those highlighted by Treasure as well as high incidences of good old-fashioned “annoyance” in adults and children.
Some studies also link noise to decreased performance in the workplace or classroom. Treasure, for example, claims that open office environments in which workers overhear other conversations can reduce productivity by 66%, and classrooms with high noise levels may prevent kids from hearing 50% of what is taught. Aircraft noise near schools has been associated with impaired reading comprehension.
Yet, for all of this evidence, most of us remain ensconced in noisy environments. So what can we do to recapture silence and, in doing so, our health and productivity? Here are a few suggestions:
Properly design your home or workplace. Open office environments may have a number of benefits for collaboration, efficient space usage, and office culture. But due to noise levels and interruptions, they can negatively impact concentration. Similarly, air conditioners, heating units, and electronic devices are critical modern conveniences, but the background noise they create can hinder performance and health. Proper design offsets these impacts. As Cornell’s Lorraine Maxwell notes (PDF), if an office is going to be open, it should contain small, closed spaces available for periods of intense focus. And choosing the right carpeting, furniture, and even ceiling height at home or work can mute the impact of increased noise. The “architectural option” might seem extreme, but for organizations or individuals so motivated, it could work wonders.
Close the door; turn off the TV. Recently, I noticed a bad habit I’ve developed when traveling for business: Almost as soon as I’d get into the hotel room, I’d turn on the TV, just to have a little background noise. Speaking with friends and colleagues, I’m not alone. Many of us reflexively fill silent spaces with music, radio programs, or television shows. Or, we allow the well-intentioned temptation to maintain an “open door policy” in the workplace to prevent us from quietly focusing with deep concentration on the task at hand. There are times for TVs, open doors, and stereos. But there are also times for silence, and to be healthier and more effective, we’d do well to make space for both.
Put in your earplugs. A classic response to unwanted noise is to replace it with wanted noise. As a student, for example, I commonly played everything from ‘90s rock to classical music in my dorm room while studying. And music can have its benefits. At least one study suggests Mozart for those seeking focus, and music has been linked to stress relief and relaxation. But additional research shows that while emotionally satisfying, music may actually decrease a person’s capacity for recall. So for common noise relief, the simplest answer may be to block it with earplugs or noise-canceling headphones.
Take a noise retreat. Even if you can’t cut down on the noise in your daily life, you can find periods of respite. For me, that’s still escaping to my uncle’s farm, to the beach, or to the North Georgia mountains. For others, it’s taking advantage of “silent retreats,” where participants go to actively avoid speaking or experiencing other man-made sounds. Ecologist Gordon Hempton has found only 12 spots in the U.S. free of human-made noise for intervals of 15 minutes or more, but there are a number of resorts that promise as much escape from noise as possible without a long hike into the Alaskan wilderness.
It’s ironic that, as more of our tasks become mental, our environments make the concentration so necessary for intellectual labor more difficult. The noise permeating our environments can impact our health, concentration, and happiness. As silence becomes rarer and more valuable, we’d be wise to seek it out.
Conflict Can Jeopardize Your Health
People who said in response to a survey that they “often” or “always” experienced conflicts with people in their lives were 2 to 3 times more likely than average to be dead 11 years later, according to a Danish study of nearly 10,000 middle-aged adults. The deaths were generally from illnesses such as cancer, heart disease, and alcohol-related liver disease, according to The Atlantic. So although isolation is a risk factor for disease and death, social interaction isn’t a good antidote if it’s fraught with conflict.
Marina Gorbis's Blog
- Marina Gorbis's profile
- 3 followers
