BBC Documentary: What Now Mr. President? (Wake Up, Everybody!)

Here’s a documentary from the BBC’s Panorama.
Here’s how they pitch it:
“Barack Obama takes over as US President with a promise to dramatically change America and make it a fairer place. He is inheriting the worst economic crisis in almost a century, and a country so unequal that 23,000 people die every year because they cannot afford basic healthcare. To close the gap between rich and poor Obama will have to take on the might of the corporate world, which wields enormous influence in Washington. Can he change the world’s most powerful country, and should he?”



Question: ever wonder why this kind of a documentary never makes it to US television?
Wake Up, Everybody! Check out Harold Melvin & the Blue Notes:

Video: Bill Gates on the Future of Aid

UPDATE: You can download the annual letter (PDF) here or read it online here >>
The Economist video interview with BG:

The interviewer has a bit of a chip on his shoulder, but Gates does a convincing job of focusing on the issues. I really think Gates has finally found his true calling.
Sign up for his annual letter >>

Google’s Larry Page Reveals his Success Secrets

This just came in on my N2N (nerd-to-nerd) network. I thought I’d share it w/ everyone. It’s titled: “Secrets of success from Google co-founder Larry Page.”
Here you go – take it as propaganda, if you want, but it is interesting all the same:
# If you have a product that’s really gaining a lot of usage, then it’s probably a good idea.
# When you grow, you continually have to invent new processes. We’ve done a pretty good job keeping up, but it’s an ongoing challenge.
# We built a business on the opposite message. We want you to come to Google and quickly find what you want. Then we’re happy to send you to the other sites. In fact, that’s the point. The portal strategy tries to own all of the information.
# Pretty early on, I saw a newspaper story about Googling dates. People were checking out who they were dating by Googling them. I think it’s a tremendous responsibility. If you think everybody is relying on us for information, you understand the responsibility. That’s mostly what I feel. You have to take that very seriously.
# Part of our brand is that we’re pretty understated in what we do. If you look at other technology companies, they might pre-announce things, and it will be a couple years before they really happen, and they don’t happen in the way they said they would.
# Through innovation and iteration, Google takes something that works well and improves upon it in unexpected ways.
# If you can run the company a bit more collaboratively, you get a better result, because you have more bandwidth and checking and balancing going on.
# The ‘be good’ concept also comes up when we design our products. We want them to have positive social effects. For example, we just released Gmail, a free e-mail service. We said, ‘We will not hold your e-mail hostage. ‘ We will make it possible for you to get your e-mail out of Gmail if you ever want to.
# The dotcom period was difficult for us. We were dismayed in that climate… We knew a lot of things people were doing weren’t sustainable, and that made it hard for us to operate. We couldn’t get good people for reasonable prices. We couldn’t get office space. It was a hypercompetitive time. We had the opportunity to invest in 100 or more companies and didn’t invest in any of them. I guess we lost a lot of money in the short term — but not in the long
term.
# Talented people are attracted to Google because we empower them to change the world. Google has large computational resources and distribution that enables individuals to make a difference.
# We don’t have as many managers as we should, but we would rather have too few than too many.
# We think we’re an important company, and we’re dedicated to doing this over the long term. We like being independent.
# Serving our end users is at the heart of what we do and remains our number one priority.
# It definitely helps to be really focused on what you are doing.
# My experience is that when people are trying to do ambitious things, they’re all worried about failing when they start. But all sorts of interesting things spin out that are of huge economic value. Also, in these kinds of projects, you get to work with the best people and have a very interesting time. They’re not really taking a risk, but they feel like they are.
# From its inception, Google has focused on providing the best user experience possible. While many companies claim to put their customers first, few are able to resist the temptation to make small sacrifices to increase shareholder value. Google has steadfastly refused to
make any change that does not offer a benefit to the users who come to the site.
# You (the Google user) want answers and you want them right now. Who are we to argue?
# Many leaders of big organizations don’t believe that change is possible. But if you look at history, things do change, and if your business is static, you’re likely to have issues.
# If we are not trusted, we have no business. We have such a lot to lose; we are forced to act in everyone’s interest.”
# I would rather have people think we’re confused than let our competitors know what we’re going to do.
# We chose it (the name Google) because we deal with huge amounts of data. Besides, it sounds really cool.
# The ultimate search engine… would understand exactly what you mean and give back exactly what you want.
# Our company relies on having the trust of our users and using that information for their benefit. That’s a very strong motivation for us. We’re committed to that. If you start to mandate how products are designed, I think that’s a really bad path to follow. I think instead we should have laws that protect the privacy of data, for example, from government requests and other kinds of requests.
# Many companies are under pressure to keep their earnings in line with analysts’ forecasts. Therefore, they often accept smaller, predictable earnings rather than larger and less predictable returns. Sergey and I feel this is harmful, and we intend to steer in the opposite direction.
# We think a lot about how to maintain our culture and the fun elements. I don’t know if other companies care as much about those things as we do. We spent a lot of time getting our offices right. We think it’s important to have a high density of people. People are packed together everywhere. We all share offices. We like this set of buildings because it’s more like a densely packed university campus than a typical suburban office park.
# We’re trying to use the web’s self-organizing properties to decide which things to present. We don’t want to be in the position of having to decide these things. We take the responsibility seriously. People depend on us.
# Google is organized around the ability to attract and leverage the talent of exceptional technologists and business people. We have been lucky to recruit many creative, principled and hard working stars. We hope to recruit many more in the future. We will reward
and treat them well.
# By always placing the interests of the user first, Google has built the most loyal audience on the web. And that growth has come not through TV ad campaigns, but through word of mouth from one satisfied user to another.
# You don’t want to be Tesla. He was one of the greatest inventors, but it’s a sad, sad story. He couldn’t commercialize anything, he could barely fund his own research. You’d want to be more like Edison. If you invent something, that doesn’t necessarily help anybody. You’ve got to actually get it into the world; you’ve got to produce, make money doing it so you can fund it.
# Invariably we try 10 things that don’t quite work out in order to do one thing that’s successful. And we learn a lot in doing the 10 things that didn’t quite work.
# We have a mantra: don’t be evil, which is to do the best things we know how for our users, for our customers, for everyone. So I think if we were known for that, it would be a wonderful thing.
# It is an advantage being young. You don’t have as many other responsibilities.
# If you have a great product that meets people’s needs, they start telling their friends, especially when it’s a search engine, which is something that everybody has to use. So we’ve actually been growing 20 per cent per month, compounded, for our whole history,
and without spending any significant money on advertising. It’s an incredible phenomenon.
# We were, I guess, lucky enough to be trying to be profitable long before it was fashionable, and that was a really good decision. I think it’s more luck than real insight on our parts, but Sergey and I really felt a lot better about having a business that could actually make money. So we figured that once we were at that stage then not much could hurt the company.
# We are focused on providing an environment where talented, hard working people are rewarded for their contributions to Google and for making the world a better place
# The amazing thing is that we’re part of people’s daily lives, like brushing their teeth. It’s just something they do throughout the day while working, buying things, deciding what to do after
work and much more. Google has been accepted as part of people’s lives. It’s quite remarkable. Most people spend most of their time getting information, so maybe it’s not a complete surprise that Google is successful.
# Our goal is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. That’s our mission. When we started, we had about 30 million Web pages, which was quite large for the time — that was two years ago. Now, we have well over a billion Web pages. So that gives you some idea of how we’ve grown in content. So we try to make more and more stuff available to people. We try to, when you come to Google, fulfill that need that you have as quickly as possible.
# Because of our employee talent, Google is doing exciting work in nearly every area of computer science. Our main benefit is a workplace with important projects, where employees can contribute and grow.
# We’ve actually been very deliberate about making all of our decisions in a way that minimizes the risk that we will go out of business basically. We have pretty conservative financial planning. That turned out to be really smart, and we’ve had tremendous viral
growth anyway, so we haven’t really had any marketing expenses or things like that and we have huge volumes.
# The increasing volume of information is just more opportunity to build better answers to questions. The more information you have, the better.
# You can try to control people, or you can try to have a system that represents reality. I find that knowing what’s really happening is more important than trying to control people.
# In the same way Google puts users first when it comes to our online service, Google Inc. puts employees first when it comes to daily life in our Googleplex headquarters.
# Technology knowledge is going to drive wealth: people’s ability to deal with technology and to build interesting things.
# Always deliver more than expected.
# It is a tremendous responsibility for us to have all eyes focused on what we do and to give people exactly what they need when they ask for it.
# We believe it is easy to be penny wise and pound foolish with respect to benefits that can save employees considerable time and improve their health and productivity.
# Our opportunity and responsibility has continued to expand. It doesn’t feel all that different to me than it did a few years ago.
# The thing that matters is experience. We have lots of executives from failed companies; they learned a lot from these things. They say, ‘We can’t do that — we tried that and it didn’t work.’ So failure is useful.
# When you have basic technology you find interesting things to do with them, and if you’re lucky they’ll turn into something big.

Effectiveness and Efficiency: Making Government Accountable – The Role of the Chief Performance Officer

We all know that the role of government is different from the role of business. To pretend, like the Republicans do, that government should be run like a business is to a mistake of gargantuan proportions. Business and government have different functions. One to maximize and sustain profits, the other to “insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, etc. etc.”
So how do we go about measuring performance in government? And how can we manage government strategically?
Let’s start by looking at the functions of government ( from the Preamble):
1. To form a more perfect Union
2. To establish justice
3. To insure domestic tranquility
4. To provide for the common defense
5. To promote the general welfare
6. To secure the blessings of liberty
Now let’s adapt these functions for each government agency. For fun, let’s start with the IRS Without a fair tax system, we aren’t going to have 1 through 6. So how do we look at what the IRS needs to do to become more effective and efficient? For starters, the tax code has to become more equitable. This means our corporate friends need to start paying their fair share. Loop holes for the super-rich must be closed. We need to stop rewarding companies that ship jobs overseas. And hey, let’s add a carbon tax so we know we’re going to be building sustainable industries.
I’m only half kidding.
Each agency will have to create a scorecard of what “performance” means. And it will have to be measured against delivered results. WaPo has a cute article about this.
The real task is to manage government strategically. Here’s a fun chart from Nancy Killefer herself:
strategic governance
Read: How can American government meet its productivity challenge?
In the end, you can’t manage what you can’t measure (including intangibles). So here’s to the future of transparent, accountable government. Bring it, Obama!

The Limits of Green: Environmental Branding gets Messy

Prediction: 2009 will get “greenwashing” companies into hot water.
The danger in cause-related marketing is that it causes more harm to a company than good, especially when companies get involved in less than good faith.

This can happen, for example, when a company like P&G gets overzealous in its PR and engineers its own green awards.

And the slope gets slippery when the Sierra Club gets involved with Clorox.

Or when SC Johnson creates its own Greenlist(TM) process – and logo! Does anyone really believe that Windex is a green product?

Or when Dell claims it’s carbon neutral.

The simple question for business is can we trust youThe answer, so far, is no.

After eight years of laissez-faire, perhaps we are finally entering into a new phase of corporate accountability. And it’s not just about greenwashing.

Rebooting America

A similar tune from both Friedman and Krugman at the NYTimes
Here’s Friedman:
My fellow Americans, we can’t continue in this mode of “Dumb as we wanna be.” We’ve indulged ourselves for too long with tax cuts that we can’t afford, bailouts of auto companies that have become giant wealth-destruction machines, energy prices that do not encourage investment in 21st-century renewable power systems or efficient cars, public schools with no national standards to prevent illiterates from graduating and immigration policies that have our colleges educating the world’s best scientists and engineers and then, when these foreigners graduate, instead of stapling green cards to their diplomas, we order them to go home and start companies to compete against ours.
To top it off, we’ve fallen into a trend of diverting and rewarding the best of our collective I.Q. to people doing financial engineering rather than real engineering. These rocket scientists and engineers were designing complex financial instruments to make money out of money — rather than designing cars, phones, computers, teaching tools, Internet programs and medical equipment that could improve the lives and productivity of millions.
For all these reasons, our present crisis is not just a financial meltdown crying out for a cash injection. We are in much deeper trouble. In fact, we as a country have become General Motors — as a result of our national drift. Look in the mirror: G.M. is us.

and Krugman:
So what are the lessons for the Obama team?
First, the administration of the economic recovery plan has to be squeaky clean. Purely economic considerations might suggest cutting a few corners in the interest of getting stimulus moving quickly, but the politics of the situation dictates great care in how money is spent. And enforcement is crucial: inspectors general have to be strong and independent, and whistle-blowers have to be rewarded, not punished as they were in the Bush years.
Second, the plan has to be really, truly pork-free. Vice President-elect Joseph Biden recently promised that the plan “will not become a Christmas tree”; the new administration needs to deliver on that promise.
Finally, the Obama administration and Democrats in general need to do everything they can to build an F.D.R.-like bond with the public. Never mind Mr. Obama’s current high standing in the polls based on public hopes that he’ll succeed. He needs a solid base of support that will remain even when things aren’t going well.

Go Barack, Barack!

Farewell Harold Pinter

An interview,

and this statement:

A legislator of mankind…
P.S. see also: this and this >>
P.P.S. fun quote: “I do think the American President [Dubya] and our Prime Minister [Blair], the Prime Minister of this country, are gangsters” – Harold Pinter

The Financial Crisis: Perspectives from China and India

James Fallowsinterview with China’s Gao Xiqing, president of the China Investment Corporation is an eye-opener:
– “People, especially Americans, started believing that they can live on other people’s money. And more and more so. First other people’s money in your own country. And then the savings rate comes down, and you start living on other people’s money from outside. At first it was the Japanese. Now the Chinese and the Middle Easterners.
– “If you look at every one of these [derivative] products, they make sense. But in aggregate, they are bullshit. They are crap. They serve to cheat people.
– “I have to say it: you have to do something about pay in the financial system. People in this field have way too much money. And this is not right.
– “Today when we look at all the markets, the U.S. still is probably the most viable, the most predictable. I was trained as a lawyer, and predictability is always very important for me.
– “Americans are not sensitive in that regard. I mean, as a whole. The simple truth today is that your economy is built on the global economy. And it’s built on the support, the gratuitous support, of a lot of countries. So why don’t you come over and … I won’t say kowtow [with a laugh], but at least, be nice to the countries that lend you money.
– “Talk to the Chinese! Talk to the Middle Easterners! And pull your troops back! Take the troops back, demobilize many of the troops, so that you can save some money rather than spending $2 billion every day on them. And then tell your people that you need to save, and come out with a long-term, sustainable financial policy.”
and then there’s the Indian perspective:
– “In India, we never had anything close to the subprime loan,” said Chandra Kochhar, the chief financial officer of India’s largest private bank, Icici. (A few days after I spoke to her, Ms. Kochhar was named the bank’s new chief executive, in a move that had long been anticipated.) “All lending to individuals is based on their income. That is a big difference between your banking system and ours.” She continued: “Indian banks are not levered like American banks. Capital ratios are 12 and 13 percent, instead of 7 or 8 percent. All those exotic structures like C.D.O. and securitizations are a very tiny part of our banking system. So a lot of the temptations didn’t exist.”
– ” “We recognize it as a problem of plenty. It was perpetuated by greedy bankers, whether investment bankers or commercial bankers. The greed to make money is the impression it has made here. Anytime they wanted a loan, people just dipped into their home A.T.M. It was like money was on call.”
Serious business this.

The End of Chinamerica

Interesting commentary from Harvard’s Niall Ferguson:
With China decoupled from America—relying less on exports to the U.S. market, caring less about its currency’s peg to the dollar—the end of Chimerica would have arrived, and with it the balance of global power would be bound to shift. No longer so committed to the Sino-American friendship established back in 1972, China would be free to explore other spheres of global influence, from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, of which Russia is also a member, to its own informal nascent empire in commodity-rich Africa.
Yet commentators should hesitate before prophesying the decline and fall of the United States. It has come through disastrous financial crises before—not just the Great Depression, but also the Great Stagflation of the 1970s—and emerged with its geopolitical position enhanced. That happened in the 1940s and again in the 1980s.
Part of the reason it happened is that the United States has long offered the world’s most benign environment for technological innovation and entrepreneurship.

Read all about it >>

Girl Scouts: Sell This!

One of my pet peeves with the Girl Scouts of America is their exploitation of children:
“…they have to sell 40 boxes of cookies at $3.00 apiece just to make $20.00. The other $2.50 goes to the Girl Scout Organization.”
What a rip-off.
Instead of selling cookies, the Girl Scouts troops should be selling these. And keeping the PCs.
Why can’t www.laptop.org donate or sell PCs to poor schools in the US as well as the rest of the world? C’mon St. Nicholas (Negroponte)!

The Death of Venice?

veniceflood.jpg
Last year, at about this time, we were visiting Venice, admiring its art and artifacts, as well as the fiestiness of its people… what a difference the flooding makes.
Venice is just one of 21 coastal cities that will have to contend with the impacts of rising sea levels. Learn more >>

Strategic Cost Reduction: How to Trim the Federal Budget using the Pareto Principle

JH3 is a big fan of the 80/20 principle:
The 80/20 rule provides the foundation for a relatively simple exercise for executives. It involves answering the following questions:
* Which 20% of the products or services generate 80% of the profitability?
* Which 20% of the customers generate 80% of the profitability?
* Which 20% of the geographies generate 80% of the profitability?
* Which 20% of the assets generate 80% of the profitability?

These are powerful and revealing questions, yet few companies today are able to answer these questions given the way their accounting and information systems are set up.

I wonder if the same approach could be applied to the Federal Budget. Obama, are you listening?
The pareto questions might look something like this:
– Which 20% of our costs take up 80% of the budget?
– Which 20% of our services impact 80% of the tax-paying public?
– Which 20% of our geographies require 80% of our aid?
– Which 20% of our public generate 80% of our tax revenues?

Betcha these could be eye-openers!

Accenture: How To Create A Culture Of High Performance

Accenture is advertising How To Create A Culture Of High Performance.
I agree with them that “the central attribute of a successful leader is the ability to change the way people think.
But I completely disagree when they say that “Successful leaders get everyone to share the same mindsets.”
I think the opposite is true: successful leaders bring together diverse points of view to challenge each other and present different alternatives, thus helping the leader make informed, effective decisions.
What Accenture is calling “mindsets” is really groupthink. Groupthink is a recipe for disaster, not high performance.
In the course of a two-year investigation, Accenture determined five “mindsets” which matter most in improving business performance:
Mindset 1: Maintain the Right Balance Between Market-Making and Disciplined Execution by Avoiding False Trade-offs and Committing to a Dual Focus on Present and Future.
Mindset 2: Identify and Multiply Talent by Investing a Disproportionate Amount of Time in Recruiting and Developing People.
Mindset 3: Use A Selective Scorecard to Measure Business Performance By Relying on a Simple, Memorable Way of Measuring Success and Using Every Occasion to Share Success Stories Throughout the Organization.
Mindset 4: Recognize Technology as a Strategic Asset by Investing in Technologies that Demonstrably Lead to Better Business Performance.
Mindset 5: Emphasize Continuous Renewal by Ensuring the Organization Understands What to Preserve and What to Jettison.

Seth Godin teaches the New York Times How to Compete

In my line work (consulting) I run into all kinds of executive mindsets. In the publishing world, however, these mindsets tend to be rather stodgy at best, reptilian at worst.
Publishers don’t understand the web. And Seth Godin takes the New York Times to task, pointing out so many obvious misses and near-misses, that you have to ask why. Why don’t publishers get it? Why do they insist on playing it safe, even as their ship sinks below them?
Godin’s answer is right on target: “organizations are run by people who want to protect the old business, not develop the new one.”
This is what VG talks about as well.
In just about any large company, the people running the show are great at yesterday’s business, not tomorrow’s.
Please read Godin’s post >>

Shoshana Zuboff: Obama’s Victory is Capitalism 2.0

Writes Zuboff in BusinessWeek:
“This column is dedicated to the top managers of American business whose policies and practices helped ensure Barack Obama’s victory. The mandate for change that sounded across this country is not limited to our new President and Congress. That bell also tolls for you. Obama’s triumph was ignited in part by your failure to understand and respect your own consumers, customers, employees, and end users. The despair that fueled America’s yearning for change and hope grew to maturity in your garden.”
Years ago I remember reading Zuboff’s In the Age of the Smart Machine and thinking that no one in corporate management really wants real transparency… and that the information value-chain she described was doomed to failure.
Luckily, I was wrong. Now Obama will bring process transparency to government and business.
Asks Zuboff:
“…can we invent a business model in which advocacy, support, authenticity, trust, relationship, and profit are linked?”
“Yes, we must,” she concludes.
Read the article >>
And read her book: The Support Economy: Why Corporations Are Failing Individuals and the Next Episode of Capitalism
>>

Tom Friedman: “Steve Jobs – want to run G.M. for a year?”

Tom Friedman made me laugh today:
“…somebody ought to call Steve Jobs, who doesn’t need to be bribed to do innovation, and ask him if he’d like to do national service and run a car company for a year. I’d bet it wouldn’t take him much longer than that to come up with the G.M. iCar.”
The rest of his column is a bit more serious. But it’s dead on!

Michael Porter: Why America Needs an Economic Strategy

“The stark truth is that the U.S. has no long-term economic strategy—no coherent set of policies to ensure competitiveness over the long haul. Strategy embodies clear priorities, based on understanding the strengths we need to preserve and the weaknesses that threaten our prosperity the most. Strategy addresses what to do, but also what not to do. In dealing with a crisis, experience teaches us that steps to address the immediate problem must support a long-term strategy. Yet it is far from clear that we are taking the steps most important to America’s long-term economic prosperity.”
That’s the Portermeister in BusinessWeek.
What he’s saying is Vote Obama 🙂