August 30, 2013
Pleasure At Pain
The Wall Street Journal (20 August 2013) reviews the book, The Joy of Pain, on this topic.
Schadenfreude is the German word for feeling pleasure at the calamity of others.
And we see people laugh, point, and otherwise gloat when others are hurting physically, emotionally, financially, and so on.
When they fail and you succeed, you feel strong, powerful, self-confidant, and that you were right--and they were wrong!
Feelings of pleasure at other people's pain is partially evolutionary--survival of the fittest.
It is also a function of our personal greed and competitiveness--where we measure ourselves not by how well we are doing, but rather relative to how others around us are faring.
So for example, we may be rich and have everything we need, but if someone else has even a little more than us, we still are left feeling lacking inside.
Thus, we envy others' good fortune and take pleasure in their misfortune.
In a sense, our success is only complete when we feel that we have surpassed everyone else, like in a sport competition--there is only one ultimate winner and world champion.
So when we see the competition stumble, falter, and go down, our hands go up with the stroke of the win!
Anyway, we deserve to win and they deserve to lose--so justice is served and that makes us feel just dandy.
How about a different way--we work together to expand the living standard for all, and we feel genuinely glad for others' success and real empathy for their pain, and they too for us--and we go beyond our pure humanity to something more angelic. ;-)
(Source Photo: here with attribution for Lukas Vermeer)
June 2, 2013
Virtual Government--Yes or Nonsense
The author sees government as menu-driven, like a videogame, by a "rotating dial," where you choose whatever government suites you best.
In this world of virtual government, people are seen turning to private sector alternatives to get capabilities, customer service, and prices that are better than the government's--in some cases, this may actually work, like with private insurance.
However, this article goes beyond this notion to where government is not tied to the physical boundaries of the real world, but rather to virtual jurisdictions, citizenship, and even values held or abrogated.
While I agree that raising the bar on government is a good thing--expect more for less--and partnering with the private sector can make government more efficient, the idea of wholesale shopping government around is quite ludicrous:
- Will we hire mercenaries instead of having an armed forces?
- Will we rely solely on CEOs to conduct our diplomacy?
- Will justice be doled out by vigilantes?
- Will private inspectors alone regulate food, drug, and the financial system?
While compared to an iPad wheel for making service selections, Government is not the same as a library of songs or movies that one scrolls through to pick and choose what one likes and dislikes.
Like the old joke about the difference between family and friends...you can choose your friends, but you can't just choose your family!
While government can provide services virtually, it cannot be a government entirely sliced up by choice--where you opt-in for what you like and opt-out for what you don't--if that were the case, we would all selfishly take and never contribute to the greater good.
For example, "Hey, I like social entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, but I don't particularly care for contributing to space exploration or research and development for certain diseases that I may not be genetically predisposed to."
There is a civic commons where we must share--the prime example is a fire department. If I choose not to contribute, then the fire department still has to come to put out the fire or else it can spread to others.
In the end, we are not just a collective of individuals, but a nation bound together by core values and beliefs, and shared interests and investments in the future--and where by sharing the risks and burdens, we fall or rise together.
Like anything that you are seriously apart of--family, religion, organizations, and work--we take the good and work on the bad, rather than just immaturely throwing it all or in innumerable parts away.
Yes, government should only do functions that are inherently governmental, and we should avail ourselves of all the talent and expertise in the private sector for the rest, but no, we should not wholly think that we can replace government with loose and shifting ties on the Internet and purely profit-driven private sector players.
If Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda serving as modern virtual governments are the best examples of what can be accomplished, then we should all be running (not walking) to good 'ol Democracy of the U.S. of A.
Virtual government as a way to provision services as well as competition and augmentation by the private sector is great, but becoming a stateless state will not solve the large and complex problems we must face, not alone, but together.
Even though bureaucratic waste and abuse is bad, the system of debate, negotiation, checks and balances, basic human rights, and voting is good, and we should not just throw out the precious baby with the dirty bathwater. ;-)
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Virtual Government--Yes or Nonsense
March 28, 2013
Perfect, In An Imperfect World
Please read the article here online.
"Recognize the importance of the journey over that of the goal--and accept the task of working to perfect ourselves, rather than of truly being perfect, or as I learned in Jewish day school, there are no angels here on Earth, only in heaven."
Hope you enjoy! ;-)
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Perfect, In An Imperfect World
November 10, 2012
Out-Tech The Competition
It used to be that kids would work hard to out-dress each other--who has the coolest outfit, the shiniest shoes, even the best piercing, but now tech is outgunning fashion.
In my daughter's school, she says it's no longer about clothes, but about tech devices--who has the latest iPhone 5, the iPad Mini, the thinnest laptop, the coolest apps, and so on.
How you dress today is less important than what technology you use!
For us adults, this message was brought home by an article in Federal Times (5 Nov. 2012) entitled "Jeans and flip-flops at work."
As the President of the American Federation of Government Employees Union Local 22 stated: "It's not about dressing up , it's about dressing down and allowing the creativity to flow." Similarly, the Director of Public Relations for Young Government Leaders was quoted as saying: "Today's young leader feel their work makes a bigger statement than what clothes they wear."
So the pressure is off with the dress code, but what about the technology your using?
Government Executive (1 Nov. 2012) in an article called "Technology Hand-off," points out the trend of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) and as Darren Ash, the CIO of NRC points out "Apple just released the iPhone 5. In the Android market it seems like a new model comes along every month. We can't keep up."
And it's not just the CIOs that are screaming for relief from the incessant change and speed of technology change, everyone is constantly competing for the new technology...from waiting days in line for the next generation Apple device to doing a device refresh every 2-3 years on average, we are addicted to the "latest and greatest."
One CIO, who was the first in an agency to get an iPad, took it proudly to every meeting, especially in front of the executives--first it made him look very progressive and "with it," but then as the iPad envy set in, the whole executive leadership soon were carrying the devices as well.
So out dressing the guy next to you is so blasé, now what's important is whether you can out-tech them!
Whether it's clothes or technology, the competition out there is fierce--and the cultural statement is clear--get with it or get run over by it. ;-)
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Out-Tech The Competition
October 7, 2012
Innovation Echtzing and Krechtzing
It used to be that either you were innovative or not.
Either you came up with out of the box thinking, new paradigms for doing things, cool new designs, and products and services using the latest and greatest technology--or you would eventually be dead in the marketplace and life.
Now as things seem to slow down a little on the innovators front--we're echtzing and krechtzing (hemming and hawing) about what is innovation anyway?
The Wall Street Journal (5 October 2012) wrote about "The Innovator's Enigma"--asking whether incremental innovation is real innovation.
For example, when P&G took the sleepy, drowsy part of the medication of NyQuil and made it into it's own medicine called ZzzQuil--was that innovative or just "incremental, derivative."
The article notes that big periods of explosive upheavals in innovation are often followed by "period of consolidation and then by valuable incremental innovation involving the same product."
It's almost like a lets face it--you can't have the equivalent of the iPhone created every day--or can you?
When after the iPhone, people now ask for an iFighter (WSJ, 24 July 2012) and the real iRobot (like envisioned in the movie with Will Smith)--aren't we talking about applying real breakthrough innovation to every facet of our lives?
With Apple coming forward with the integration model of innovation bringing together hardware and software --the bar has been raised on the expectation for innovation not just being functionally excellent, but design cool. Now, Fast Company states (October 2012), "good design is good business."
But even then innovation is questioned as to its real meaning and impact with Bloomberg BusinessWeek (2 August 2012) stating that "it's easier to copy than to innovate" and "being inspired by a good product and seeking to make even better products is called competition."
Here's another from Harvard Business Review (April 2012) called "Celebrate Innovation, No Matter Where It Occurs" that calls out "adjacencies" as bona fide innovation too, where an adjacency is exploiting "related and nearby opportunities." since inventions are often so large that "inventor's can't exploit them alone" and there are associated opportunities for other (think of new cool iPhone cases for the new cool iPhone).
One more thing I learned recently is that innovation isn't just the great new product or service offering, but how you use it.
With Newsweek (17 September 2012), calling into question the iPhone's "awkward invasion of the lavatory" with "not just phones, but tablets and e-readers and even our laptops" replacing the good 'ol Reader's Digest in the bathrooms around the world, then things have truly changed deep culturally and not just superficially technologically.
This message was brought home last year, when a friend told me how they dropped their iPhone in the toilet leading to a speedy drowning death for the smartphone, now not looking too smart anymore.
So innovation come in all shapes and sizes and can be mega big, incremental small, derivative, or even adjacent--the important thing is that we keep our thinking caps on and working towards better, faster, and cheaper all the time.
Sometimes, I do look back and miss things or ways of doing them from the past, so innovation isn't always--just by definition--a good thing, but what we really come up with and how we apply it perhaps can make all the difference.
The perfect example for me is carving out some genuine space and quiet time to really think about life and innovate in what has become a 24/7 now always-on society that demands innovation but that often squashes it with incessant noise.
Turn down the noise, let innovation thrive afresh, and be sure you make a genuine difference, and whatever type it is that it is not just as they would say in Hebrew school more dreck (junk) or another narrishkeit (foolishness) in the making.
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Innovation Echtzing and Krechtzing
September 8, 2012
We Are Driven!
Some of us to succeed and others, seemingly, to various destructive behaviors that thwart our success.
In the book, The Charge, by Brendon Burchard, he argues that we need to harness our drives to increase our success rate.
Burchard categorizes our drives into baseline and forward drives--and has 10 of them--almost like the Ten Commandments (Cs)--five in each area (or on each tablet).
Baseline drives are those which he says make us happy:
- Control
- Competence
- Congruence
- Caring
- Connection
Forward drives are those which help us evolve:
- Change
- Challenge
- Creative Expression
- Contribution
- Consciousness
Wonderful--10 C's, all nicely packaged.
While I generally agree with these human drives, something is not satisfying about these--they seem academic, stale, and the fodder of a marketing brochure.
Where is the energy of humans to live, love, and laugh?
Where is the longing for spirituality, purpose, and meaning?
Where is the drive to do good and occasionally, to do what we know is wrong.
Where are the vices--the drives to conquer, to own and to hoard, to go crazy at times?
Burchard has provided a very one-sided picture of human nature--maybe the side, we would rather acknowledge and focus on, but in ignoring human frailties and tendencies to veer off to the other extremes as well, he is missing an important point--and that is the human nature is a fundamental push and pull.
Yes, we are driven to happiness and evolution, and on one hand these drives manifest in the rosier side of human nature such as care and contribution, but on the other side, people drives to happiness and evolution may mean their taking what they want, when and how they want it, and to the exclusion of others who are competing with them in a world of limited resources.
It is nicer and easier to envision a world, like the Garden of Eden, where there is plenty for the few, and everything is provided and just a pull from the fruit tree away.
But in the real world, it is wiser to recognize that our happiness and evolution may mean someone else goes hungry tonight--sad, but true; and only when we are real, can we work to overcome this and to provide plenty for all--through safeguarding of basic freedoms and human rights for everyone.
Happiness and evolution can be different for the individual and society--for the individual, one's gain may come at another loses (e.g. the stock market, competing for a spot in top-tier school, or beating out the competition for that plume Wall Street job), but for society, success means creating win-win situations where everyone can go to bed with a full stomach and knowing that they have a fair shot at opportunity tomorrow.
(Source Photo: here with attribution to Beacon Radio)
We Are Driven!
July 3, 2012
I'll Take The Stairs
Thank G-d our automobiles and airplanes aren't as unreliable (generally).
Anyway, I didn't mind walking a little more, and I got a chuckle out of this sign.
Of course, less funny this morning was news of Microsoft's $6.2 billion! dollar writedown on their Internet division.
For a long time, Microsoft has been waiting for the elevator to pick them up and take them to virtual heaven, but instead everyday they try to buy (e.g. aQuantive for $6.3 billion all cash in 2007) their way there, and they end up in a place a lot hotter and nastier.
Microsoft can still make a comeback, but it's past time for them to unleash their creative juices again.
What type of name is Bing (bing-bong) for a search engine, anyway? ;-)
I'll Take The Stairs
April 29, 2012
Strategy, Blue and Red and Successful All Over
Strategy, Blue and Red and Successful All Over
February 3, 2012
Online Presence, Your Calling Card
Whether or not their apprehensions about their privacy being compromised is justified or whether they feel that "it's simply a waste of time" or that they "just don't get it," the impetus for us to all establish and nurture our online presence is getting more important than ever.
In the competition for the best jobs, schools, even mates, and other opportunities, our online credentials are becoming key.
We've heard previously about jobs checking candidates backgrounds on the Internet and even bypassing candidates or even firing employees for their activities online.
Numerous examples of people badmouthing their companies or bosses have been profiled in the media and even some politicians have been forced out of office--remember "Weinergate" not too long ago?
Now, not only can negative activities online get you in trouble, but positive presence and contributions can get you ahead.
The Wall Street Journal (24 January 2012) reports in an article titled No More Resumes, Say Some Firms that companies are not only checking up on people online, but they are actually asking "applicants to send links representing their web presence" in lieu of resumes altogether.
What are they looking for:
- Twitter Accounts
- Blogs
- Short Videos
- Online Surveys/Challenges
The idea is that you can learn a lot more about someone--how they think and what they are like--from their history online, then from a resume snapshot.
Of course, many companies still rely on the resume to screen applicants, but even then LinkedIn with over 135 million members is sometimes the first stop for recruiters looking for applicants.
Is everything you do and say online appropriate or "fair game" for people screening or is this going over some sacred line that says that we all have professional lives and personal lives and what we do "when we're off the clock" (as long as your not breaking any laws or doing something unethical) is no one's darn business.
The problem is that when you post something online--publicly--for the world to see, can you really blame someone for looking?
In the end, we have to be responsible for what we disclose about ourselves and demonstrate prudence, maturity, respect, and diplomacy, perhaps that itself is a valid area for others to take into account when they are making judgments about us.
When it comes to children--parents-beware; the Internet has a long memory and Facebook now has a "timeline", so don't assume everyone will be as understanding or forgiving for "letting kids be kids."
One last thought, even if we are responsible online, what happens when others such as hackers, identity thieves, slanderers, those with grudges, and others--mess with your online identity--can you ever really be secure?
Being online is no longer an option, but it is certainly a double-edged sword.
(Source Photo: here; Image credit to L Hollis Photography)
Online Presence, Your Calling Card
October 29, 2011
PwC Leading Like Idol
PwC Leading Like Idol
May 28, 2011
Perfect Is The Enemy of Good
Perfect Is The Enemy of Good
April 30, 2011
Life Building 101
Life Building 101
March 4, 2011
Balance, Not Brute Force
Balance, Not Brute Force
February 27, 2011
A Shift in Time
A Shift in Time
February 6, 2011
Apple: #1 Super Bowl Commercial Of All Time
Apple: #1 Super Bowl Commercial Of All Time
November 13, 2010
A Spiritual Approach To Material Success
Anyway, I’m reading this book about achieving personal wellbeing and there is a section about a study that was done where people were given two choices:
1) Earn $50,000, while your peers earn $25,000 or
2) Earn $100,000, while your peers earn $200,000
Well, the study found that about half the respondents choose #1—even though they would earn significantly less (i.e. literally half) and be able to afford less in real purchasing power.
In other words, many people choose to be poorer in real terms, in order to be relatively well off compared to their peers.
This is in stark contrast to the notion of collaboration. In leadership classes, books, etc., haven’t we been trained by now to believe that by working together, we can increase “the pie” for everyone? Well, increasing the pie seems appealing to many, only if their slice remains the largest piece!
The question is—why? Is it that people are unabashedly competitive, overwhelming selfish, or endlessly jealous of others? Or is this a survival-based choice, where we are “hardwired” to fight not only to stay alive, but also to achieve status?
Frequently at work—particularly around budget time—we hear people say things like this is “a zero-sum game”—meaning that what goes to one, comes from another. In other words, there is a winner and a loser in every transaction. For example, if I give you the resources, someone else has to give up some resources, so we can achieve our overall budget numbers.
Similarly at performance time, there is typically a “performance pool” with a certain allocation of money available for bonuses. The more that goes to one/some, the less that is available for others.
So despite all the “platitudes” about sharing, in real life a message about competition vs. sharing seems repeated again and again in life, with the doling out of the best education, job opportunities, healthcare, housing, and so on. There are limited/scarce resources and so not everyone is going to get what they want. The message sent to all: you have to compete to get your due—and the more someone else gets, the less that’s available for you.
But is striving for superior status really always desirable?
From a business perspective, there is a compelling case to be made that competition drives performance, and that we need to reward the best performers. At the same time, collaboration and information-sharing can improve our competitive edge. In other words, working with your peers effectively can improve everybody’s chances for success.
However, to many, there is an inherent notion of inequity in promoting competition, because we are all people—all children of G-d—all worthy. Why should some get more than others?
Unfortunately, there is a misperception of what competition is really all about and what it means to succeed.
Many believe or are taught that those that “win the race” are the more deserving—i.e. they are better people, chosen, or selected by fate or DNA; and those that get less are either a lower class or caste, punished or cursed, or that they must simply work less or just don’t try. Many unfair and ridiculous judgments are thus cast on why some have more and less. (Even the people who “lose the race” often feel this way.)
So it is no wonder, when people are asked to choose real or relative wealth, in a way, it is no wonder that so many may choose relative over real wealth—because winning means that they are deserving and therefore better.
If only we could let go of our judgmental attitudes, our superiority complexes, and the notions of entitlements because “we are who we are,” then maybe we could see past the illusion of superiority and move toward a society where we all seek a larger pie for everyone to share and benefit from.
In that world, everyone will chose option #2—to not only do their best, but also to maximize the best for everyone else.
In the end, competition is not with others but with ourselves. And success is helping others succeed, and maybe even being happy for them if they do better than we do.
A Spiritual Approach To Material Success
October 2, 2010
You Can Slow Them Down, But You Can’t Stop Them
What happens when someone does something and you don’t like it—I mean you really don’t like it (and that something is painful—physically, emotionally, or even financially)—you try to get them to stop.
You see it all starts when we are little and growing up and big brother Johnny pulls our hair or takes our toy and we go running to mommy, yelling to make Johnny stop. Mommy comes out standing straight and tall and pointing her sharpened finger at Johnny, and looking Johnny straight in the eyes says stop bothering you’re little sister. Johnny looks down, sulks, and says okay (maybe even expressing a barely audible, and hollow, sorry). But then what happens when mommy leaves the room for a few minutes, Johnny’s at it again.
And that’s what happens when Johnny is doing something wrong…imagine if he believes he is doing the right thing all along, of course, he continues on his merry way doing what he was doing.
Organizations, like people, seek to stop the pain as well and if they can’t compete in the markets, they take it elsewhere.
The Wall Street Journal, 2-3 October 2010, reports “Microsoft Lawsuit Seeks To Slow Google.”
Like Johnny, Google (although technically smaller than Microsoft revenue-wise) is doing something that Microsoft really doesn’t like; Google is walloping Microsoft in smartphones: “Microsoft’s share of the worldwide smartphone market this year is expected to fall to 6.8% from 13% in 2008, while Google is forecast to jump to 16% from less than 1% two years ago, according to IDC.”
Microsoft like the kid, who wants the hair pulling to stop, and they can’t make it stop themselves through a competitive product at this time, is running to “Mommy,” in this case the courts, and seeking relief by suing Motorola, the handset maker for the Android.
As one patent lawyer put it: “My gut feeling is Microsoft is losing the hand-held wars and they’re using their patent portfolio to get some of it back.”
Certainly, Microsoft isn’t alone is using this slowing tactic, for example, recently HP filed to sue Oracle for hiring their ex-CEO Mark Hurd, even though as 24-7 press release notes California tends to favor the free movement of employees and do not enforce non-competition agreements.
While Microsoft believes their new Windows Phone 7 (i.e. the Windows Mobile replacement) is the answer to their smartphone operating system prayers, and will help them to compete against the Google Android (and the Apple iPhone), the market results remain to be seen.
If Microsoft continues with an inferior product, then like a Johnny in the right, Google will continue to go right on beating Microsoft at their own game (unless of course, the courts say otherwise).
You Can Slow Them Down, But You Can’t Stop Them
June 25, 2010
TEAM: Together Everyone Achieves More
People are selfish; they think in terms of win-lose, not win-win. The cost of this kind of thinking is increasingly unacceptable in a world where teamwork matters more than ever.
Today, the problems we face are sufficiently complex that it takes a great deal more collaboration than ever to yield results. For example, consider the recent oil spill in the Gulf, not to mention the ongoing crises of our time (deadly diseases, world hunger, sustainable energy, terrorism).
When we don’t work together, the results can be catastrophic. Look at the lead-up to 9-11, the poster child for what can happen if when we fail to connect the dots.
A relay race is a good metaphor for the consequences of poor teamwork. As Fast Company (“Blowing the Baton Pass,” July/August 2010) reports, in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the USA’s Darvis Patton was on the third leg of the race, running neck and neck with a runner from Trinidad when he and his relay partner, Tyson Gay, blew it:
“Patton rounded the final turn, approaching…Gay, who was picking up speed to match Patton. Patton extended the baton, Gay reached back, and the baton hit his palm. Then, somehow it fell. The team was disqualified.”
Patton and Gay were each world-class runners on their own, but the lack of coordination between them resulted in crushing defeat.
In the business realm, we saw coordination breakdown happen to JetBlue in February 2007, when “snowstorms had paralyzed New York airports, and rather than cancel flights en masse, Jet Blue loaded up its planes…and some passengers were trapped for hours.”
Why do people in organizations bicker instead of team? According to FC, it’s because we “underestimate the amount of effort needed to coordinate.” I believe it’s really more than that – we don’t underestimate it, but rather we are too busy competing with each other (individually, as teams, as departments, etc.) to recognize the overarching importance of collaboration.
This is partly because we see don’t see others as helping us. Instead we (often erroneously) see them as potential threats to be weakened or eliminated. We have blinders on and these blinders are facilitated and encouraged by a reward system in our organizations that promotes individualism rather than teamwork. (In fact, all along the way, we are taught that we must compete for scarce resources – educational slots, marriage partners, jobs, promotions, bonuses and so on.)
So we think we are hiring the best and the brightest. Polished resume, substantial accomplishments, nice interview, solid references, etc. And of course, we all have the highest expectations for them. But then even the best employees are challenged by organizational cultures where functional silos, “turf wars”, and politicking prevail. Given all of the above, why are we surprised by their failure to collaborate?
Accordingly, in an IT context, project failure has unfortunately become the norm rather than an exception. We can have individuals putting out the best widgets, but if the widgets don’t neatly fit together, aren’t synchronized for delivery on schedule and within budget, don’t meet the intent of the overall customer requirements, and don’t integrate with the rest of the enterprise—then voilá, another failure!
So what do we need to become better at teamwork?
- Realize that to survive we need to rely on each other and work together rather than bickering and infighting amongst ourselves.
- Develop a strong, shared vision and a strategy/plan to achieve it—so that we all understand the goals and are marching toward it together.
- Institute a process to ensure that the contributions of each person are coordinated— the outputs need to fit together and the outcomes need to meet the overarching objectives.
- Reward true teamwork and disincentivize people who act selfishly, i.e. not in the interest of the team and not for the sake of mission.
Teamwork has become very cliché, and we all pay lip service to it in our performance appraisals. But if we don’t put aside our competitiveness and focus on the common good soon, then we will find ourselves sinking because we refused to swim as a team.
TEAM: Together Everyone Achieves More
May 8, 2010
Technology Cannot Save Us From Arrogance
This week we saw firsthand what uncontrolled deficit spending can do to a modern democratic nation, such as Greece.
For all intents and purposes, Greece is bankrupt except for the ~$150 billion bailout they are getting from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union that will keep them afloat.
In return for the funds, Greece has to adopt “austerity measures” that will limit jobs, programs, and social spending.
The result this week was social unrest, rioting in the streets, and civilians killed.
Other European nations with high deficits to GDP spending are at risk, such as Portugal, Spain, and Italy, as well as major Asian countries like Japan.
The uncertainty and fear of this chaotic situation struck the U.S. stock market hard—with the S&P falling almost 800 points this week, during a time of supposed economic recovery.
Last evening, I watched on the news as a professor from Columbia University debated with the newscaster about whether or not the U.S. was susceptible to the same type of debacle that we are witnessing overseas.
The newscaster took the position that our $13 trillion national deficit—much larger than Greece’s—certainly put us at similar risk, even though we have a much larger GDP.
The professor countered that we are not like Greece—we are different and that what is happening there cannot happen here in America.
Why?
The professor said that he thought that we are more innovative, more technologically savvy, and more able to grow our way—economically—out of this. He laughed at the prospect of America running into any sort of grave financial difficulty, because of “who we are.”
As someone who is focused on the importance of technological prowess, innovation, and progressive change to our economic health, competitiveness and national security, I fully appreciate the vital importance of these factors.
Yet at the same time, it seems to me to be stretching credulity to say that technology and innovation alone can save us from the consequences of fiscal unrestraint.
While I believe in our strong political, social, and economic foundation, I question whether we are truly so different from our neighbors overseas.
For IT leaders, the point is that just because we drive investments in new technology—“the art of the possible”—that does not make us invincible.
While technology can help us grow in amazing ways and potentially solve our most complex and challenging problems, it is not a mystical, magical elixir and cannot solve our deficit no matter how large it gets unchallenged.
It seems to me that our greatest challenge is arrogance.
As a nation, we can by proud of our ideology and many achievements, but we cannot rest on our laurels, thinking that we are immune to the consequences of our mistakes. We must accept that our spending will catch up with us, unless we course-correct.
Technology Cannot Save Us From Arrogance