@ The Ruins of Macchu Picchu in the Guardhouse, 814pm
The Ruins at Macchu Picchu are surprisingly simple. There´s farmland, an enormous main square, many temples, a guardhouse, an observatory, urban residential area and it´s hidden deep in the Andes Mountains to be insulated from intruders. That´s presumably all the stuff that REALLY mattered to them. There are no shops nor hospitals nor athletic stadiums. I consider it a window into the Incan mindset and value system.
It makes me wonder, what do our cities say about us? Our homes? Our website history? Even the stuff we generally carry on our persons.
These things tell a lot about who we are: what we spend our time on, the things we leave behind and the stories we tell. I hope they reveal good things.
Now to consider, what matters to me given my time, my possessions and/or legacy and stories?
---Just got back to Cusco. Our hostel is like a freshman dorm full of people who have cabin fever, and there´s a bar upstairs called the Crazy Llama. Uh oh.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Confianza
5.27.09, 517pm Car Station, Cusco, en route to Ollantaytambo
As soon as we got off the plane in cusco this morning, in pure misguided tourist fashion, we stopped at a tourist stand. We asked hima bout getting to Ollanta. He connived us out of $30, dropped us off in downtown cusco and told us to meet him in front of a particular museum at 5pm. We didn´t get his name or phone number. And we didn´t hold our moolah in escrow.
So we showed up at 5pm, and we waited. What else could we do?
We were growing cynical at around 510pm, he was late. None of us showed it, but I think all of us-Andrew, Adam and myself- were all a little nervous. At 515 a boy...I thought, but he was 21 and had my demeanor...started speaking Spanish in an out-of-breath flurry. His boss sent him to recieve us after giving him a description of our appearances. He told us to come with him to a car station. So we went. Again, what else could we do?
There was a lot of trust in play today. We expected others to be trustworthy and we were vulnerable. Others had to earn our trust. But we also had to GIVE our trust. The opportunities to make or break trust exist everyday and those opportunities are all somewhat sacred because who knows what can happen next, right? The moment matters.
Now were in the car, whizzing through the mountains with aggressive speed through turns. It feels like a rollercoaster back here for the three of us. I´m trying to trust, but our driver just steam-rolled a ferral dog. Heaven help us.
Quotes, post-Journey:
"That was straight up fight or flight, I had so much adrenaline pumping through me..." - Andrew
"Did we just hit a kid?" - Neil
"That was seriously the worst experience of my life, bar none. I would pay $100 to never have to do that again" - Adam
"On the positive, the scenery was beautiful...LAS VISTAS DE LAS MONTAÑAS!" - Andrew
As soon as we got off the plane in cusco this morning, in pure misguided tourist fashion, we stopped at a tourist stand. We asked hima bout getting to Ollanta. He connived us out of $30, dropped us off in downtown cusco and told us to meet him in front of a particular museum at 5pm. We didn´t get his name or phone number. And we didn´t hold our moolah in escrow.
So we showed up at 5pm, and we waited. What else could we do?
We were growing cynical at around 510pm, he was late. None of us showed it, but I think all of us-Andrew, Adam and myself- were all a little nervous. At 515 a boy...I thought, but he was 21 and had my demeanor...started speaking Spanish in an out-of-breath flurry. His boss sent him to recieve us after giving him a description of our appearances. He told us to come with him to a car station. So we went. Again, what else could we do?
There was a lot of trust in play today. We expected others to be trustworthy and we were vulnerable. Others had to earn our trust. But we also had to GIVE our trust. The opportunities to make or break trust exist everyday and those opportunities are all somewhat sacred because who knows what can happen next, right? The moment matters.
Now were in the car, whizzing through the mountains with aggressive speed through turns. It feels like a rollercoaster back here for the three of us. I´m trying to trust, but our driver just steam-rolled a ferral dog. Heaven help us.
Quotes, post-Journey:
"That was straight up fight or flight, I had so much adrenaline pumping through me..." - Andrew
"Did we just hit a kid?" - Neil
"That was seriously the worst experience of my life, bar none. I would pay $100 to never have to do that again" - Adam
"On the positive, the scenery was beautiful...LAS VISTAS DE LAS MONTAÑAS!" - Andrew
Culture - Lessons from the Catholic Church, The Spanish Inquisition, Taxis and Backpacker Hostels
5.27.09, 30,000 ft above Central Peru, 830 am-
Upon leaving Lima Peru, I´ve come to think differently about culture. Not on the traces of culture like race, popular media or idiosyncracies, but on the essence of culture...perhaps? Furthermore, the prevailing school of thought in the circles I tend to socialize in is mistaken about culture, I think. In their desire to be "inclusive" and in their application of the concept.
A culture should not strive to be inclusive, to attempt as such is not only impossible but undesireable as well. The best, most productive and most brilliantly vibrant cultures are not defined by their inclusivity, but by their distinctivness. Take the example of the monks in the order of San Francisco. Touring the monastery, the values of the place are clear: God is Supreme, a life (and death) devoted to god is honorable, Peruvian influence and heritage is important and with limited exception we are one before god. These values are extracted from the artwork, memorials and crypted catacombs in the monastery. The distinctiviness of the culture is ever-present. Those who don´t "fit in" wouldn´t want to be a part of it. This sounds crude, I don´t mean it that way.
And it is better that way, though. Beacause of the distinctiveness of the culture, the devoted stay and accomplish the aims of the culture to the fullest extent. If the culture tried to bring in everyone through a doctrine of inclusivity-for-no-reason, there would be no culture and if there were, it certainly would not be as distinct and defined...it´d be bland cause it would have no core values.
However, this does not comment on the diversity within cultures, in fact the ideas are separate. Inclusivity only leads to diversity if the culture is trying to superfically circumvent narrowmindedness. Rather, I think a strong culture-note the use of culture instead of "cult"- WOULD be diverse, so long as the aims of the culture were virtuous and morally sound, which I´m assuming here. (A culture with mal-intent or impact is not a culture, but a cult, in my opinion) So to summarize, a culture must have clear boundaries that people can voluntarily stay inside or outside of. Cultures cannot be "inclusive" in the sense that everyone can be a part of them without ANY qualification. To do so would lead to a culture with no values or would be completely paralyzed to act in a virtous and moral way...in the long run, I think. In a sentence, cultures must have culture.
But while they remain committed to defining themselves distinctly, cultures most also engage with other cultures because of the size and interconnecteness of our civilization. To claim otherwise can be dismissed out of hand. if cultures neglect to engage with others, xenophobia occurs. Why does xenophobia matter? Because it leads to conflict. In some cases its really bad. Sometimes people die as a result. Sometimes, many thousands perish or live lives that are forcibly inhumane because of culture clash.
The Spanish Inquisition is an example of culture clash, rather than cultural discourse. Two cultures met and were different. The spanish decided to interrogate, torture and kill their so called heretis and did so with delusions of justification from a higher authority.
Indeed, when it comes to cultures, a choice emerges between division and discourse. History has repeated itself in this regard. The outcomes are porr when we choose division of distinct cultures instead of discourse. Division is a choice we must avoid, it is not a solution of culture clash, but exactly that, an avoidance of the problem. Peruvians and other colonialized countries can attest to this.
Surely this is hard. Once we choose to reject division we have another choice. Should we try to come to peacable co'existence with one another or should we do the bare minimum to get by. A wonderful taxi driver we had, Raul, laid it out clearly (in spanish) - when people cannot understand eachother, there are problems. That being said, we had a wonderful time exchanging our stories on a 25 minute trip. We took another trip that day which lasted 25 minutes and now, I couldnt tell you the name of the cabby. We still reached our destination, I suppose.
Nevertheless, there´s a joy in trying, even if its difficult or unsuccessful. Staying in a backpaper hostel has been one of the best, most hopeful experience of my life so far. We came together from all over the world and sometimes a lot was "lost in translation" , but we made friends, even if they werent lifelong. And it was exhilirating to engage in cultural discourse. But it isn´t easy.
I thinkw e can have strong and drastically different cultures. But if we do, we cannot walk away from discourse and trying really hard to engage in that discourse. There´s certainly join in the journey to do so. And best of all, it´s something that´s possible. Call me an optimist, but I don´t think any culture clash can´t be resolved. We have it in us. We´re damned if we don´t get it out of us.
Just landed in Cusco, on to Ollantaytambo, time for an adventure.
Upon leaving Lima Peru, I´ve come to think differently about culture. Not on the traces of culture like race, popular media or idiosyncracies, but on the essence of culture...perhaps? Furthermore, the prevailing school of thought in the circles I tend to socialize in is mistaken about culture, I think. In their desire to be "inclusive" and in their application of the concept.
A culture should not strive to be inclusive, to attempt as such is not only impossible but undesireable as well. The best, most productive and most brilliantly vibrant cultures are not defined by their inclusivity, but by their distinctivness. Take the example of the monks in the order of San Francisco. Touring the monastery, the values of the place are clear: God is Supreme, a life (and death) devoted to god is honorable, Peruvian influence and heritage is important and with limited exception we are one before god. These values are extracted from the artwork, memorials and crypted catacombs in the monastery. The distinctiviness of the culture is ever-present. Those who don´t "fit in" wouldn´t want to be a part of it. This sounds crude, I don´t mean it that way.
And it is better that way, though. Beacause of the distinctiveness of the culture, the devoted stay and accomplish the aims of the culture to the fullest extent. If the culture tried to bring in everyone through a doctrine of inclusivity-for-no-reason, there would be no culture and if there were, it certainly would not be as distinct and defined...it´d be bland cause it would have no core values.
However, this does not comment on the diversity within cultures, in fact the ideas are separate. Inclusivity only leads to diversity if the culture is trying to superfically circumvent narrowmindedness. Rather, I think a strong culture-note the use of culture instead of "cult"- WOULD be diverse, so long as the aims of the culture were virtuous and morally sound, which I´m assuming here. (A culture with mal-intent or impact is not a culture, but a cult, in my opinion) So to summarize, a culture must have clear boundaries that people can voluntarily stay inside or outside of. Cultures cannot be "inclusive" in the sense that everyone can be a part of them without ANY qualification. To do so would lead to a culture with no values or would be completely paralyzed to act in a virtous and moral way...in the long run, I think. In a sentence, cultures must have culture.
But while they remain committed to defining themselves distinctly, cultures most also engage with other cultures because of the size and interconnecteness of our civilization. To claim otherwise can be dismissed out of hand. if cultures neglect to engage with others, xenophobia occurs. Why does xenophobia matter? Because it leads to conflict. In some cases its really bad. Sometimes people die as a result. Sometimes, many thousands perish or live lives that are forcibly inhumane because of culture clash.
The Spanish Inquisition is an example of culture clash, rather than cultural discourse. Two cultures met and were different. The spanish decided to interrogate, torture and kill their so called heretis and did so with delusions of justification from a higher authority.
Indeed, when it comes to cultures, a choice emerges between division and discourse. History has repeated itself in this regard. The outcomes are porr when we choose division of distinct cultures instead of discourse. Division is a choice we must avoid, it is not a solution of culture clash, but exactly that, an avoidance of the problem. Peruvians and other colonialized countries can attest to this.
Surely this is hard. Once we choose to reject division we have another choice. Should we try to come to peacable co'existence with one another or should we do the bare minimum to get by. A wonderful taxi driver we had, Raul, laid it out clearly (in spanish) - when people cannot understand eachother, there are problems. That being said, we had a wonderful time exchanging our stories on a 25 minute trip. We took another trip that day which lasted 25 minutes and now, I couldnt tell you the name of the cabby. We still reached our destination, I suppose.
Nevertheless, there´s a joy in trying, even if its difficult or unsuccessful. Staying in a backpaper hostel has been one of the best, most hopeful experience of my life so far. We came together from all over the world and sometimes a lot was "lost in translation" , but we made friends, even if they werent lifelong. And it was exhilirating to engage in cultural discourse. But it isn´t easy.
I thinkw e can have strong and drastically different cultures. But if we do, we cannot walk away from discourse and trying really hard to engage in that discourse. There´s certainly join in the journey to do so. And best of all, it´s something that´s possible. Call me an optimist, but I don´t think any culture clash can´t be resolved. We have it in us. We´re damned if we don´t get it out of us.
Just landed in Cusco, on to Ollantaytambo, time for an adventure.
Monday, May 25, 2009
First Impressions
Miraflores, Peru - Backpackers Family Hostel. May 25, 2009 @ 830am
Ricardo, our cab driver from Lima´s Intl Airport was holding a sign. He greeted us casually but warmly and led us outside to the taxi stand. It smelled, like something I had smelled before...New Delhi. But with a sweeter lingering and less abrasive feel.
We started to chat. He asked us if we spoke Spanish. We said no and he continued with a good command of the English language. We asked him questions and he was a trove of knowledge of Peru. The whole country. This was my first impression, Peruvians love Peru. Not in a backhanded or zealous way like an Indian, or blindly and critically like an American. Genuinely, greenly, almost in a quietly jovial way.
In America, we seem like we have three school sof thought when it comes to patriotism. First, the Ani DiFranco approach, summarized by the first lyric of her track Grand Canyon --I love my country, by which I mean I am indebted joyfully to all the people throughout it´s history who have fought the government to make right.
Second, the approach advocated by flag-pin lapelers. Where there is dogmatic and unqualified love and support for the US of A and willful doublespeak in its defense if necessary. I am troubled by both because they are sentiments that do not support an affirmation of America´s timless values and principles, which I believe are one of our nation´s two greatest assets.
The Peruvians howver, have both approaches simultaneously, manifested inthe aspiration for the public good and a pride for a national culture.
What´s more impressive is the depth of this love. Ricardo told us about his town AND Lima. He spoke so excitedly about it all and gave hints about sacrifices that residents of Peru and Lima have made to advance the nation. Any, they have experienced their country.
Still more impressive was that he did not discriminate against other parts of Peru. That is to say he didn´t engage in the regional snobishness that we Americans too often display.
There are many adventures ahead, but I like that I´ve learned something already.
Ricardo, our cab driver from Lima´s Intl Airport was holding a sign. He greeted us casually but warmly and led us outside to the taxi stand. It smelled, like something I had smelled before...New Delhi. But with a sweeter lingering and less abrasive feel.
We started to chat. He asked us if we spoke Spanish. We said no and he continued with a good command of the English language. We asked him questions and he was a trove of knowledge of Peru. The whole country. This was my first impression, Peruvians love Peru. Not in a backhanded or zealous way like an Indian, or blindly and critically like an American. Genuinely, greenly, almost in a quietly jovial way.
In America, we seem like we have three school sof thought when it comes to patriotism. First, the Ani DiFranco approach, summarized by the first lyric of her track Grand Canyon --I love my country, by which I mean I am indebted joyfully to all the people throughout it´s history who have fought the government to make right.
Second, the approach advocated by flag-pin lapelers. Where there is dogmatic and unqualified love and support for the US of A and willful doublespeak in its defense if necessary. I am troubled by both because they are sentiments that do not support an affirmation of America´s timless values and principles, which I believe are one of our nation´s two greatest assets.
The Peruvians howver, have both approaches simultaneously, manifested inthe aspiration for the public good and a pride for a national culture.
What´s more impressive is the depth of this love. Ricardo told us about his town AND Lima. He spoke so excitedly about it all and gave hints about sacrifices that residents of Peru and Lima have made to advance the nation. Any, they have experienced their country.
Still more impressive was that he did not discriminate against other parts of Peru. That is to say he didn´t engage in the regional snobishness that we Americans too often display.
There are many adventures ahead, but I like that I´ve learned something already.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Going to Peru
Headed to AA in about 12 hours.
Then to DC on Saturday.
Then to Lima in the evening on Sunday, May 25.
Then to Cusco/Macchu Picchu
May 27 - Fly to Cusco/Ollantataytambo
May 28 - Aguas Calientes
May 29 - Macchu Picchu - Back to Cusco
May 31 - Back to Lima
June 1 - Fly to USA late at night.
June 2 - Arrive in DC and drive back to AA.
Will try to e-mail/post updates. Hit me back!
Then to DC on Saturday.
Then to Lima in the evening on Sunday, May 25.
Then to Cusco/Macchu Picchu
May 27 - Fly to Cusco/Ollantataytambo
May 28 - Aguas Calientes
May 29 - Macchu Picchu - Back to Cusco
May 31 - Back to Lima
June 1 - Fly to USA late at night.
June 2 - Arrive in DC and drive back to AA.
Will try to e-mail/post updates. Hit me back!
Nobody must remain alone
I believe it's important for people to have time by themselves, but a person should never have to be alone.
I was sitting in a friend's kitchen the other day. We were chatting, as we always do, about lots of different things--U-M, the future, gender in leadership, food, etc. We also talked about our families, which was the hardest topic to discuss because both of us have a few difficult circumstances when it comes to our immediate familial relations. It was clear that family stuff had been bothering both of us quite a lot for an extended period of time.
But we sat, hand in hand, and it was better. We didn't talk a tremendous amount, more than anything we were just there. Not alone about it anymore. Indeed, we choose not to let eachother be alone over it anymore. And that didn't make the problems go away, not by a longshot, but it did make it seemingly more possible to move forward...to reconcile our fears and frustrations a little bit...which is exactly what we needed.
Being by yourself and struggling a little bit is important to "grow", I think. It builds character, resourcefulness and obviously independence. But being alone is totally unnecessary. At our most vulnerable state, nobody should have to fly solo. It's too cruel to damn someone to that fate. Circumventing alone-liness should at least be offered. Our civilization is too sophisticated to leave people out.
There are many that are alone and thus forgotten. Leaving those folks alone is something we cannot allow. We should be ashamed if we do. It's not humane and I don't think it's something human either. Strangers or not, awkwardness or not, frustration or not sticking together is something too important to gaffe.
I have to get to sleep pretty quickly, but this is just a quick thought. It's something I've believed for a long time but never really verbalized, only have tried to do. It's hard to do, alone-liness is hard to discover, expose, understand and then act upon.
I was sitting in a friend's kitchen the other day. We were chatting, as we always do, about lots of different things--U-M, the future, gender in leadership, food, etc. We also talked about our families, which was the hardest topic to discuss because both of us have a few difficult circumstances when it comes to our immediate familial relations. It was clear that family stuff had been bothering both of us quite a lot for an extended period of time.
But we sat, hand in hand, and it was better. We didn't talk a tremendous amount, more than anything we were just there. Not alone about it anymore. Indeed, we choose not to let eachother be alone over it anymore. And that didn't make the problems go away, not by a longshot, but it did make it seemingly more possible to move forward...to reconcile our fears and frustrations a little bit...which is exactly what we needed.
Being by yourself and struggling a little bit is important to "grow", I think. It builds character, resourcefulness and obviously independence. But being alone is totally unnecessary. At our most vulnerable state, nobody should have to fly solo. It's too cruel to damn someone to that fate. Circumventing alone-liness should at least be offered. Our civilization is too sophisticated to leave people out.
There are many that are alone and thus forgotten. Leaving those folks alone is something we cannot allow. We should be ashamed if we do. It's not humane and I don't think it's something human either. Strangers or not, awkwardness or not, frustration or not sticking together is something too important to gaffe.
I have to get to sleep pretty quickly, but this is just a quick thought. It's something I've believed for a long time but never really verbalized, only have tried to do. It's hard to do, alone-liness is hard to discover, expose, understand and then act upon.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Exploring Fear
What is it that makes us afraid? Where does fear come from? - Note to self, I do realize how incredibly abstract and pretentious this is going to be. But, it's been on my mind.
Not of the petty things, like being fearful of forgetting a tube of lip balm or being late for an important appointment. I mean the big stuff. The sort of fears that make your heart race in broad daylight amongst your closest friends. I mean the sort of fear that doesn't go away with a glass of whiskey, a good book, or both. I mean the stuff that ghastly fears that we can only ignore if we're lucky.
I don't understand where fear even comes from. Why is it natural to be fearful? If we weren't taught to understand fear as a paralyzing force, would we do it? Fear seems like more of the response we have to our surroundings, and not something inherent within us. If fear is a reaction, then is it really that "natural", as if the world activates fear hidden within us? Is what we're afraid of coded into our biology? If it is, much of what we're fearful of must be social/contextual...it seems common that people are fearful if they have a rough experience doing something or if someone else tells them it's scary. For example, I was afraid of heights for a long time, I suspect because my mother is afraid of heights and roped me along with her. After riding a roller coaster, I realized the fear was only in my head.
What I am realizing is that fear doesn't seem to be that different between people. At it's root, I think we're all afraid of the same things. Things outside us that hurt, or things within us that hurt. That we'll be alone or of the unknown. What fear seems to come down are things that put us farther way from what we want, love and need and closer to realities that are dangerous, uncertain or unexpected. Fear, I think, is that state of mind where we believe our desired reality and our actual reality can't align. It's seeing a world we would've never wanted to imagine coming true. Which is why it makes sense that someone who fears lonliness and someone who fears getting close to others can relate. For each of those people, that's a scary place to be.
But that leaves me optimistic that fear can be conquered. Because, if it's a matter of misalignment, we can work to make those worlds co-exist. We can fight like hell to make it so that what we dream and what we are have a shot at being the same. At the very least, we can build bridges between misaligned realities so we can cope.
Instead of naming our blessings, I think naming our fears is the best first step we can take to conquer our fears because it identifies the misalignment. By naming our fears we can see exactly how different our desired reality and our actual realities are and then start bringing them together.
Loneliness is mine, and death by extension. A world alone is one that I would never want to live in. I'm damn sure that fear isn't natural, I know exactly where it comes from.
But, even if I understand fear more clearly now, this wishy-washy idea of "alignment" isn't any easier. But luckily, we're human. I'm convinced that the human spirit is strong enough to do almost anything. In fact, when the human spirit triumphs, it makes me feel fearless. Even if only for a quickly passing moment.
Not of the petty things, like being fearful of forgetting a tube of lip balm or being late for an important appointment. I mean the big stuff. The sort of fears that make your heart race in broad daylight amongst your closest friends. I mean the sort of fear that doesn't go away with a glass of whiskey, a good book, or both. I mean the stuff that ghastly fears that we can only ignore if we're lucky.
I don't understand where fear even comes from. Why is it natural to be fearful? If we weren't taught to understand fear as a paralyzing force, would we do it? Fear seems like more of the response we have to our surroundings, and not something inherent within us. If fear is a reaction, then is it really that "natural", as if the world activates fear hidden within us? Is what we're afraid of coded into our biology? If it is, much of what we're fearful of must be social/contextual...it seems common that people are fearful if they have a rough experience doing something or if someone else tells them it's scary. For example, I was afraid of heights for a long time, I suspect because my mother is afraid of heights and roped me along with her. After riding a roller coaster, I realized the fear was only in my head.
What I am realizing is that fear doesn't seem to be that different between people. At it's root, I think we're all afraid of the same things. Things outside us that hurt, or things within us that hurt. That we'll be alone or of the unknown. What fear seems to come down are things that put us farther way from what we want, love and need and closer to realities that are dangerous, uncertain or unexpected. Fear, I think, is that state of mind where we believe our desired reality and our actual reality can't align. It's seeing a world we would've never wanted to imagine coming true. Which is why it makes sense that someone who fears lonliness and someone who fears getting close to others can relate. For each of those people, that's a scary place to be.
But that leaves me optimistic that fear can be conquered. Because, if it's a matter of misalignment, we can work to make those worlds co-exist. We can fight like hell to make it so that what we dream and what we are have a shot at being the same. At the very least, we can build bridges between misaligned realities so we can cope.
Instead of naming our blessings, I think naming our fears is the best first step we can take to conquer our fears because it identifies the misalignment. By naming our fears we can see exactly how different our desired reality and our actual realities are and then start bringing them together.
Loneliness is mine, and death by extension. A world alone is one that I would never want to live in. I'm damn sure that fear isn't natural, I know exactly where it comes from.
But, even if I understand fear more clearly now, this wishy-washy idea of "alignment" isn't any easier. But luckily, we're human. I'm convinced that the human spirit is strong enough to do almost anything. In fact, when the human spirit triumphs, it makes me feel fearless. Even if only for a quickly passing moment.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Corporate Social Responsibility: maybe nice guys don't exactly finish last?
A few people have posted some really provocative comments. I think I'll hash out some of the ideas presented tomorrow or Saturday.
I had a thought while walking Apollo--my dog--this afternoon; I was ruminating on an blog post I read here: Straight Talk About Corporate Social Responsibility. The piece came from Robert Stavins, a faculty member at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and was published on the website of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at KSG.
The post offered four questions to ask when thinking about firms and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and some analysis about each of the questions: may they, can they, should they, and do they?
The post also asserted that in many (if not most) cases a CSR-friendly firm--the nice guy, so to speak--does not reap substantial benefit from that choice. Moreover, the firms that do benefit from the move are often existing market leaders. (Of course, the preceding summary is rough, read the post for the author's exact idea...don't worry it's short).
Which got me thinking about nice guys. Why does the adage go, "nice guys finish last"? Well, I don't think nice guys always finish last, it just depends on the length of the race. If companies are competing against eachother in the short-term the company built for short-term results will surely win. If companies are competing against eachother in the long-term, the company built to last will surely perform better. Just like two different world-class runners: one a sprinter, the other a marathoner, the length of their race will determine who wins. If they race in a 200m dash, the sprinter will surely win. If they race a longer distance, the marathoner will surely win. Anecdotally, the "nice guy" successfully courts girls interested in building a long-term relationship, but fouls up with women who are looking for the opposite.
Firms that engage in CSR are firms investing in their long-term health, on balance. I don't exactly know if this is true, but let's assume that the majority of said firms are choosing to engage in CSR for longer-term reasons, relative to firms not engaging in CSR as rigorously.
These CSR-friendly firms are the "nice guys" that succeed in long-term initiatives. It doesn't pay to be CSR-friendly unless it's a long-term business strategy...perhaps a move that changes the competitive landscape over time or will dramatically reduce variable costs in 35 years. Maybe the socially responsibile activities require investment in the short to medium term, but pay dividends in the long-term. Maybe CSR is something that changes the culture of the company, but never leaves a direct mark on stock price. In summary, firms conscious of CSR--and I mean ones that do serious stuff, not off-setting carbon footprint as a PR stunt--might not have any benefit doing so in the short-run. CSR-friendly firms are the marathoners, not the sprinters.
This presents a problem for advocates of CSR, whether the advocates are firms, policy-makers or issue publics, if success is measured in the short-term. Which it seems like it is. Quarterly earnings reports, stock-price, etc. are measures that incentivize behaviors which yield short-term gains, right?
CSR-friendly firms are like marathoners trying to beat a sprinter in a 200m dash. Imagine if there were respected measures of corporations' performance that emphasized long-term vitality. Would that change the actions of companies? Would the changes be drastic? Are there measures of long-term vitality used for evaluating companies now?
Nice guys will certainly finish last in races that don't play to their strengths. But if they change the parameters of the race, maybe they'll win. I think this applies to firms and to nice-guys, generally. Rather, I hope so.
I had a thought while walking Apollo--my dog--this afternoon; I was ruminating on an blog post I read here: Straight Talk About Corporate Social Responsibility. The piece came from Robert Stavins, a faculty member at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and was published on the website of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at KSG.
The post offered four questions to ask when thinking about firms and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and some analysis about each of the questions: may they, can they, should they, and do they?
The post also asserted that in many (if not most) cases a CSR-friendly firm--the nice guy, so to speak--does not reap substantial benefit from that choice. Moreover, the firms that do benefit from the move are often existing market leaders. (Of course, the preceding summary is rough, read the post for the author's exact idea...don't worry it's short).
Which got me thinking about nice guys. Why does the adage go, "nice guys finish last"? Well, I don't think nice guys always finish last, it just depends on the length of the race. If companies are competing against eachother in the short-term the company built for short-term results will surely win. If companies are competing against eachother in the long-term, the company built to last will surely perform better. Just like two different world-class runners: one a sprinter, the other a marathoner, the length of their race will determine who wins. If they race in a 200m dash, the sprinter will surely win. If they race a longer distance, the marathoner will surely win. Anecdotally, the "nice guy" successfully courts girls interested in building a long-term relationship, but fouls up with women who are looking for the opposite.
Firms that engage in CSR are firms investing in their long-term health, on balance. I don't exactly know if this is true, but let's assume that the majority of said firms are choosing to engage in CSR for longer-term reasons, relative to firms not engaging in CSR as rigorously.
These CSR-friendly firms are the "nice guys" that succeed in long-term initiatives. It doesn't pay to be CSR-friendly unless it's a long-term business strategy...perhaps a move that changes the competitive landscape over time or will dramatically reduce variable costs in 35 years. Maybe the socially responsibile activities require investment in the short to medium term, but pay dividends in the long-term. Maybe CSR is something that changes the culture of the company, but never leaves a direct mark on stock price. In summary, firms conscious of CSR--and I mean ones that do serious stuff, not off-setting carbon footprint as a PR stunt--might not have any benefit doing so in the short-run. CSR-friendly firms are the marathoners, not the sprinters.
This presents a problem for advocates of CSR, whether the advocates are firms, policy-makers or issue publics, if success is measured in the short-term. Which it seems like it is. Quarterly earnings reports, stock-price, etc. are measures that incentivize behaviors which yield short-term gains, right?
CSR-friendly firms are like marathoners trying to beat a sprinter in a 200m dash. Imagine if there were respected measures of corporations' performance that emphasized long-term vitality. Would that change the actions of companies? Would the changes be drastic? Are there measures of long-term vitality used for evaluating companies now?
Nice guys will certainly finish last in races that don't play to their strengths. But if they change the parameters of the race, maybe they'll win. I think this applies to firms and to nice-guys, generally. Rather, I hope so.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
K.I.S.S - Keep it simple, stupid.
I don't know when or where I came across this acronym (K.I.S.S: Keep it simple, stupid), probably in a business book. But it makes a lot of sense.
I suspect that questions about how one should live life, is one that rests on the minds of many. You know, variations on "How to live a meaningful life?" or "What does it mean to be a good person?", all that jazz. Ideas about "figuring out life", you know what forms of expression these ideas take.
I used to think questions like this were pretty complicated, and hard to understand and in turn hard to figure out. But, I'm not so sure anymore. It might be pretty simple. I mean, it's easy to find answers to how to live a good life, it's almost painfully obvious. And, maybe this is easy for someone who has had a privileged upbringing to say...I acknowledge that. But let's assume these for the privileged, even though I think it's still pretty simple regardless of background.
Be nice. Make good friends. Don't lie. Learn. Diet and exercise. Play. Spend time outside. Adhere to the golden rule. Show respect. Don't be too selfish. Work hard. Have a reasonably good attitude. These are only a few examples. The list goes on, but I'm sure it's not too hard too add many many more ideas. We all know how this list goes. It's like fishing in a barrel to list them out.
So, what are the forces that hold people back from living by these simple ideas?
Well it seems like there are 3 things than can happen.
1. Lack of action - Knowing something and doing something are different. In other words, apathy and/or laziness. Simple enough.
2. Aversion to risk - It's hard to be bold, and transforming ones behavior/attitude requires a sufficient amount of risk. In other words, fear holds people back.
3. Pleasure - Some people seem like they over-aggress and take advantage of the folks who keep it simple. For example, why diet and exercise if lyposuction is an option? Why not cheat if you get the same results but can "have fun" with all the time is saved. In other words, hedonism gets in the way.
For the record, I find keeping it simple and doing the "simple things" pleasurable.
I think points 1 and 2 are not a big deal, those are leadership problems. People can be coached through apathy and fear. But, I can't figure out how to deal with the pursuit of pleasure, especially the short-term, less costly pleasures.
Although, I don't think it's "natural" to be hedonistic and pleasure seeking... so, would it really be that hard to coach others out of being scrupulously and viciously utilitarian? I guess I don't see the state of nature exactly as Hobbes did.
Nontheless, hedonism is more difficult because it's not a leadership problem, it's a deeply individual choice I think...something that leadership alone can't intervene in. It requires...as Joey says...for everyone to be "leaders". It requires a culture building and culture changing.
Which get's me to a question that I often consider: what does it take to reform, recreate or reaffirm a culture?
How does one combat hedonism? Or even leverage it for virtue instead of selfishness?
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Purpose: Accept or Create?
"Purpose...It's that little flame that lights a fire under your ass." - Avenue Q
I had the privilege of chatting with my very great friend, Nick, yesterday afternoon at Michigan State University. Over the course of conversation we covered several topics, per usual. He's a wise friend, so I threw him a question I've been gnawing on. I don't remember the question exactly, but it was about purpose.
In asking this question, I identified two ways of finding purpose, I think both are legitimate framings of the task. I suppose even this frame was a valuable use of the conversation, even if no conclusions were drawn. Basically, I asked him "how did you find your purpose?". He's found his calling. he's currently working for the Orthodox Christian Fellowship, in Indianapolis, even though he's still in school. He'll continue after graduation.
Here's a breakdown of the ways to find purpose, as I see them. Obviously elements of both are at play, but the "both factors matter" analysis doesn't really satiate because it doesn't examine the underpinnings of the ideas. Time to explore.
1) Accept your purpose
An individual has a duty to do what they are good at/serves the public good. You do what you will be most useful at in life. Of course, enjoyment in work matters, but only because people who aren't happy in their work can't excel. You do what you can excel at and benefit the public good in this way. Circumstances choose you and its up to you to accept or reject them.
2) Create your purpose
You blaze your own trail--and hopefully leave a path for others--in the best way you can. You figure out what you are good at and what you want, and thrust yourself into those areas. You make an assertion, about the world perhaps, and make it happen. The individual is the primary agent in determining his/her future, rather than the public good. Circumstances don't choose the individual the individual chooses the circumstance. The individual's decision is not to accept or reject the opportunities they are presented...the individual's decision is to create and ensure the opportunities they want most.
What Nick suggested is roughly the following. You cast yourself in a general direction, the direction in which you want to catch opportunities, and then make the most of the opportunities you have on the table. It's a bit of a combination of the two ideas above. First, the individual has agency (e.g. YOU decide if you want to be a science major or an arts major). Then, the individual has a bit of freedom in accepting or rejecting opportunities.
I don't think everyone operates like this. Some I know, desperately want to work in New York City--so much for letting circumstances totally choose you. But also, there are some that go whichever way the wind blows.
And, I'm not so sure it's that simple as being open to opportunities while also training in a certain area. What I really am asking then is: which comes first...accepting purpose or creating purpose? Surely both matter, as they ought. But, which leads and which follows?
This is why it matters. Think of the Lois Lowry's book, The Giver. In the novel, children are assigned a job, for the good of the collective. The main character is chosen to be the "receiver of memory", whereas his sister is chosen to be a nurturer or something. This epitomizes the idea of accepting a purpose.
Imagine another scenario where all create their own purpose. In my high school it would've meant that roughly 5% of all the people I graduated with would've become art or music majors...because that was the path they wanted to create. Which is cute, but the world probably would be a little bit more better off if less than 5% of all high school graduates were artists or musicians...substitute your own percentage.
(And yes, for the record I do think scientists, engineers, mathematicians, social workers, teachers, civil servants, lawyers, entrepreneurs, business managers, social sector employees etc. probably are a more primary need than musicians...though I think its great the people who pursue the arts, do so. But my point is...to have 20 million of the people currently studying other disciplines switching to arts probably isn't the best allocation of talent).
These two scenarios are gravely different, and would ultimately lead to societies being constructed radically differently. Both these approaches would put people in different places in different proportions. Personally, I think our country is a little bit more like the Giver scenario. Incentives/pay and education systems tend to shuffle people to areas with the most public need. I think its really hard to blaze a trail as I've described...but I digress.
Both these have problems. The first approach allows for the wasting of talent. What if that "golden opportunity" never comes or its not identifiable...then what does one do. If you "miss the boat" on your calling...then do you live a life of mediocrity? What if circumstances never call? The first approach doesn't really allow burning ambition--a really powerful force--to drive people, i think. If you're just doing what your duty is, it seems tricky to stay motivated, doesn't it?
The second is problematic, because...as a human how do you know you choose a path for the right reasons? What if you choose a path but it leads away from the public good or it's totally not suited to you? Isn't it possible that some streak of selfishness can take hold of a person's choice of profession?
I really don't know which approach leads which, but what I do know is that effort is required. Either way, the individual or community needs to seek out a purpose for himself or his neighbor, respectively. What's most useless is someone who wastes their potenial or whose community allows them to waste or never activate their potential.
Of course, this presumes everyone does have a purpose, or that its even possible for everyone to have a purpose. So, regardless of whether purpose is accepted or created perhaps another issue is more important at the moment. Allowing everyone to have a purpose, that's reasonably actionable and meaningful. If that does happen, the question of "accepting" or "creating" a purpose might not matter so much.
A company's truck drivers have just as much purpose as company's CEOs, I think. I wonder if both parties realize that.
I had the privilege of chatting with my very great friend, Nick, yesterday afternoon at Michigan State University. Over the course of conversation we covered several topics, per usual. He's a wise friend, so I threw him a question I've been gnawing on. I don't remember the question exactly, but it was about purpose.
In asking this question, I identified two ways of finding purpose, I think both are legitimate framings of the task. I suppose even this frame was a valuable use of the conversation, even if no conclusions were drawn. Basically, I asked him "how did you find your purpose?". He's found his calling. he's currently working for the Orthodox Christian Fellowship, in Indianapolis, even though he's still in school. He'll continue after graduation.
Here's a breakdown of the ways to find purpose, as I see them. Obviously elements of both are at play, but the "both factors matter" analysis doesn't really satiate because it doesn't examine the underpinnings of the ideas. Time to explore.
1) Accept your purpose
An individual has a duty to do what they are good at/serves the public good. You do what you will be most useful at in life. Of course, enjoyment in work matters, but only because people who aren't happy in their work can't excel. You do what you can excel at and benefit the public good in this way. Circumstances choose you and its up to you to accept or reject them.
2) Create your purpose
You blaze your own trail--and hopefully leave a path for others--in the best way you can. You figure out what you are good at and what you want, and thrust yourself into those areas. You make an assertion, about the world perhaps, and make it happen. The individual is the primary agent in determining his/her future, rather than the public good. Circumstances don't choose the individual the individual chooses the circumstance. The individual's decision is not to accept or reject the opportunities they are presented...the individual's decision is to create and ensure the opportunities they want most.
What Nick suggested is roughly the following. You cast yourself in a general direction, the direction in which you want to catch opportunities, and then make the most of the opportunities you have on the table. It's a bit of a combination of the two ideas above. First, the individual has agency (e.g. YOU decide if you want to be a science major or an arts major). Then, the individual has a bit of freedom in accepting or rejecting opportunities.
I don't think everyone operates like this. Some I know, desperately want to work in New York City--so much for letting circumstances totally choose you. But also, there are some that go whichever way the wind blows.
And, I'm not so sure it's that simple as being open to opportunities while also training in a certain area. What I really am asking then is: which comes first...accepting purpose or creating purpose? Surely both matter, as they ought. But, which leads and which follows?
This is why it matters. Think of the Lois Lowry's book, The Giver. In the novel, children are assigned a job, for the good of the collective. The main character is chosen to be the "receiver of memory", whereas his sister is chosen to be a nurturer or something. This epitomizes the idea of accepting a purpose.
Imagine another scenario where all create their own purpose. In my high school it would've meant that roughly 5% of all the people I graduated with would've become art or music majors...because that was the path they wanted to create. Which is cute, but the world probably would be a little bit more better off if less than 5% of all high school graduates were artists or musicians...substitute your own percentage.
(And yes, for the record I do think scientists, engineers, mathematicians, social workers, teachers, civil servants, lawyers, entrepreneurs, business managers, social sector employees etc. probably are a more primary need than musicians...though I think its great the people who pursue the arts, do so. But my point is...to have 20 million of the people currently studying other disciplines switching to arts probably isn't the best allocation of talent).
These two scenarios are gravely different, and would ultimately lead to societies being constructed radically differently. Both these approaches would put people in different places in different proportions. Personally, I think our country is a little bit more like the Giver scenario. Incentives/pay and education systems tend to shuffle people to areas with the most public need. I think its really hard to blaze a trail as I've described...but I digress.
Both these have problems. The first approach allows for the wasting of talent. What if that "golden opportunity" never comes or its not identifiable...then what does one do. If you "miss the boat" on your calling...then do you live a life of mediocrity? What if circumstances never call? The first approach doesn't really allow burning ambition--a really powerful force--to drive people, i think. If you're just doing what your duty is, it seems tricky to stay motivated, doesn't it?
The second is problematic, because...as a human how do you know you choose a path for the right reasons? What if you choose a path but it leads away from the public good or it's totally not suited to you? Isn't it possible that some streak of selfishness can take hold of a person's choice of profession?
I really don't know which approach leads which, but what I do know is that effort is required. Either way, the individual or community needs to seek out a purpose for himself or his neighbor, respectively. What's most useless is someone who wastes their potenial or whose community allows them to waste or never activate their potential.
Of course, this presumes everyone does have a purpose, or that its even possible for everyone to have a purpose. So, regardless of whether purpose is accepted or created perhaps another issue is more important at the moment. Allowing everyone to have a purpose, that's reasonably actionable and meaningful. If that does happen, the question of "accepting" or "creating" a purpose might not matter so much.
A company's truck drivers have just as much purpose as company's CEOs, I think. I wonder if both parties realize that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)