A Singular Economy

The problem with our economic system is that it is based in the assumptions and theories of a different age. New technology, shifting values and patterns of behavior have conspired to create the situation in which we find ourselves.

The Web represents a medium that reduces transaction costs - or "friction" - in the economy to zero. Conversely, the value gained from the knowledge available on the web is rising asymptotically to infinity. Therefore, the concept of an "information singularity," defined as a point at which all encoded value may be shared ubiquitously is nearly upon us. Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but if so then clearly we have not worked proactively to avoid the obvious consequences.

If we accept the premise that one function of currency is to serve as a medium of exchange, the singularity removes the need for the medium. It's like discovering that air travel eliminates the need for land as a medium of transportation. The term "the Web" can be considered as a pseudo-metaphor, or perhaps one that indicates opposite meaning... it isn't about spinning out new connections, but rather eliminating the friction associated with bringing things together. Thus, a "black hole" or information singularity analogy is more apt in describing what is happening to the economy. 

The sucking sound you are hearing from job loss is the Singularity.

You probably do some of the sucking yourself. You download images for free when in the past you would have had to pay a photographer. You watch video clips for free. You read articles for free. You use Wikipedia when before you might have hired an expert. But why? Other experts are posting and making sure what is available is as valid as it can be. All this free media is wonderful for the consumer but devastating for the producers. The customer is king? Sure, but what happens to societies that consume to the point of devastation? Angkor Wat and Easter Island come to mind. 

The Knowledge Age is upon us and we live in an interesting time to be alive and have access to it. However, the producers of knowledge, narrative, media - whatever you want to call it - the sensemaking stuff - will shortly be unable to continue to produce under current economic models. That is, at least those who are not already independently wealthy. But by pulling the ladder up after themselves, has the previous generation truly done us a favor? 

We are at a crossroads. The choice is to either continue to uphold concepts and values that return us to a pre-singularity world, or to embrace the change and figure out a way forward.

Throughout history, people have fought the future and lost. The question is how the pain manifests and instantiates at various systemic levels. Will there be more war? Will there be more crime? More domestic violence, familial and community upheaval? Possibly. Probably unless we get our collective act together and realize that yes, it is the end of the world. But just as the phoenix rises from the ashes, the future will be one that is brighter. One that does not rely on a currency to motivate people, because people can trade value without the need for middlemedia. 

Perhaps it is also time to return the favor to those who refuse change. Certainly there are sectors of the economy where currency plays a different role. Perhaps those roles should be granted greater distinction and recreated digitally. Whatever the new system looks like, we must be careful not to label it with epitaphs of the past.

There are many questions and challenges ahead, but we have remained tethered to the ground by the root of evil for too long. It is time to release our grip on cash and open our hands and hearts to others. There's nothing stopping us but ourselves.

I call upon business leaders, economists and academics to design the new economics of value. One where a "barter economy" is as anachronistic as calling cars "horseless carriages." The Singular Economy is one that focuses the light of value globally, and, perhaps one day, at the stars.

###

P.S. Am remembering a clip from a movie... found this. And this.

What do you think? I realize that this may be too Star Trek for many people to handle, but for those of us who wish to achieve greater visions of the future than our current world, don't we owe it to ourselves to explore and experiment with different ideas? Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past, but help economics to evolve and spring forth new life. If you agree or disagree, why or why not?

The Voice of the Techie

Occasionally I reply in writing to questions from colleagues, clients and social media sites and cc them here.

Question: How do we manage, motivate, influence and inspire technologists? Are they really unique and different from non-technologists? What makes them click?

As an expert in the management of knowledge and innovation, I get to keep a foot in the world of technology. While working with one client, I became frustrated with what I felt was excessive push-back regarding the implementation and adoption of a new social media platform for KM (knowledge management). After several months of assuming I was dealing with technocrats rather than innovators, I learned from one of the risk management experts that there were fundamental flaws in some of the technology that would put the organization at risk, so there were security issues at play that made sense. No one had bothered to disabuse me of my assumption, and in truth I should have questioned it myself since most "techies" that I know get into it because of the new and exciting capabilities that technology affords. That they have to say "no" to new technology, whether IT or in other areas, goes against their nature.

So I'd say one of the lessons learned from this that dovetails with the academic research on the topic is this: don't make assumptions, but if you do, assume that technologists will push the organization as fast as possible. They will shut down only when they feel their voice is not being heard by management. So it remains imperative that, beyond the "skunk-works" approach to innovation, some foresight around how the technology will be reintegrated into the business model requires that those on the frontiers of discovery remain in the loop. At the point of decision this can become more complex depending on the decision-making process.

Finally, I'd say in this day and age we are all "techies" to some degree, so let's not label and dismiss. Moreover, if you are ever labeled an expert in technology you will come to understand how limited your knowledge truly is. Which is why we specialize. Which is why we need cross-functional teams. Which is why communications and systemic feedback loops - especially difficult conversations among people of different specialties and levels of seniority - remain essential to the evolution of innovation.

A Conversation with Dr. Kull

In this interview conducted by a colleague I share my story and purpose for pursuing an academic career.

Is Anthropology a Science? Let's Start at the Beginning...

In response to a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education questioning the legitimacy of anthropology as a "science," I posted the following:

As academics, one of our responsibilities is to hold social convention up to the light of reason. This is why we define our terms as neatly as possible.

Define "science."
Define "discipline."

You start to see the problem.

I went through this exercise when asking whether or not Knowledge Management was an emerging business "discipline." Not a lot of literature on the subject - everyone "just knows," which is counter to intellectual rigor. So I created a framework for doing that in my 2002 dissertation, "Stories of Knowledge Management: The Search for Coherence in a Community of Practice," basing much of it on Thomas Kuhn's work around the history and structure of science.

Conclusions: a "discipline" is largely whatever community of practice members agree upon that it is. With no intersubjective definition of science (is it repeatable or simply methodologically sound?) anthropologists should blow-off the criticism as more pecking-order BS of single paradigm-laden status-seekers. Yes, we'd all like to be famous for our research, but not by diminishing others who practice research innovation and pursue valid efforts to develop a greater understanding of our world by pushing and/or questioning epistemological boundaries.

That said, we should not waive our linguistic rights to categorize and weigh meritorious work based on those categories. I simply point out the need to put the horse before the cart and define our terms before excluding fields of inquiry... and, when in doubt, opt for more inclusion than exclusion to foster creativity and passion.

Comedy... at Yale?

http://chronicle.com/blogs/tweed/harvard-yale-and-the-non-apology-apology/27846

My response to the "That's Why I Chose Yale" video by Harvard students and the backlash over a remark some criticized as insensitive of the bizarre murder of a student.

I teach organizational and business communications. My observation is that this concept of sensitivity has gotten out of hand. People need to be more accepting of the generally good intentions of others, especially those trying to lighten things up though attempts at comedy or humor in the workplace.

I applaud the video. It's obvious to me that the comment, while perhaps in poor taste to some, was intended to be funny. For those who lack a sense of humor, often people laugh at statements that are deliberately offensive. So no, an apology is not warranted, though this by no means suggests the students made a personal attack at the victim's family, any more than the fake mugging later on in the reel is made to poke fun at those victims.

When judging these things, ask yourself what kind of society you want to live in. One where people are constantly walking on eggshells or one where people are given tacit permission to be creative, unconventional and/or improvisational.

The students may want to apologize for choosing Yale, but that's not my problem. No offense to the parents who have to write the check. Ha ha.

The Golden Rules of Power and Influence

Many years ago I wrote an article, inspired by Dr. Peter Vaill at George Washington University at the time. I can't find the whole text but thought my audience would enjoy the gist of it:

Golden Rule #1: Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You.

I believe this is Biblical and just good sense.


Golden Rule #2: Do Unto Others As Others Would Have You Do Unto Them.

This recognizes that people are different and want different things.


Golden Rule #3: Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto Others.

In other words, lead by example.


As we move toward flatter, more democratic organizations and institutions, I hope these three Golden Rules will serve you well. Please post or link stories here where you have found resonance in these principles.

Should I Let My Employer See My Facebook Page?

There's been a lot of talk in recent years about whether or not one should post potentially incriminating photos, opinions, and other personal expressions on Facebook as one's employer might see them and it would make an employee or potential new hire look bad.

Folks, here's the thing: Any employer who uses your personal expressions against you is foolish and not worth your time. Ask yourself if you want to be led by people who demean and shame you for having fun. So you get drunk at happy hours and your buddy caught you praying to the porcelain god. Did you get your work in on time? Yes? Then no problem. NO??? And then you lied about it??? Big problem.

Trust is the glue that holds organizations and communities together. Without trust, people are out for themselves and WIIFM* becomes the driving principle behind your company's culture. Is that what you want?

Certainly, personal habits can get in the way of peak performance. But in the end, performance is what matters. If blowing off some steam and having a good time helps people deal with work they don't enjoy, either work to make the work enjoyable or bring some humor into the workplace. The idea is inclusion, not exclusion. In American business, we like diversity: research shows over and over that the more heterogenous your workforce, the more innovative you are likely to become with the right leadership. Research also shows that executives who have imbibed are more creative then those who have not... I'll show you the citation but you'll have to buy be a drink first. And post it on Facebook. Cheers.

*WIIFM or "What's In It For Me?"