Adopting New Inventions

When I was 13 years old I had a dream that some day I would have a telephone I could carry in my pocket.  How cool it would be to talk to my friends while walking outside, or hiding in the woods!  This was in the mid-70’s; mobile phones were still years away and the only thing resembling a mobile was Maxwell Smart’s famous shoe phone.

     DonAdams.jpg

I bought my first Nokiaphone in 1996, when I was pregnant with my first (and only) child.  It was important to have a phone available, in case something happened while I was riding the bus, we thought.  Ever since our first Nokia phone I was very loyal to the brand; it was, after all, a Finnish phone.  I had several Nokia phone models, and each new phone seemed better with more useful features.  I had sliders and shells and music and texting.  These were all pre-smartphone.

In 2007, when the first iPhone appeared I was not moved.  I had my iPod and I was happy with it as my music device: it was easy to use and very handy for storing all my music.  I did not need another gadget that was less a phone and more a multi tool for the web, music and applications.  I was using “selective exposure” in my relationship to the iPhone (Rodgers, 1995).  My continued loyalty to the Nokia brand kept me from getting too familiar with this new invention called the “iPhone”.   The iPhone was not consistent with my “existing attitudes and beliefs” about what a phone should be ( p. 171).  I did, however, purchase an Apple desktop computer in 2008.  My first.  For many years several of my friends had recommended an Apple computer for its reliability, superior performance and virus-free operation.  I had had some exposure to an Apple ten years earlier but now was a PC user.  We needed a new desk top with a big screen, and my daughter was also using Apple computers at school; it was time to make the switch.  In my case, the “awareness-knowledge” of this invention preceded the need, but once the need (justification) was there, the purchase decision was easy (p. 172).

My ongoing exposure to the new Apple computer made me more curious about the iPhone.  I loved the computer, my daughter loved the computer; it was reliable and quite easy to use (although there was a bit of a learning curve with Apple software).  Many of my friends and colleagues had purchased an iPhone – they seemed to spring up everywhere.  I heard them discuss the many ‘amazing’ features of the phone, such as the downloadable applications, maps, email, etc.  According to Rodgers (1995), this was for me, “trial by others” (p. 177).  My friends were vicariously testing the device and reporting to me how useful it was.

It was time to get more exposure to the device.  I stopped at a Mac Store several times to familiarize myself with the iPhone.  I was impressed how easily I was able to manipulate the phone and how it responded to my requests.  It seemed like magic!  Rodgers (1995) states that “ Principles-knowledge consists of information dealing with the functioning principles underlying how an innovation works… It is usually possible to adopt an innovation without principles-knowledge, but the danger of misusing an idea is greater and discontinuance may result” (p. 173).  I had be sure I was comfortable using the iPhone before I rejected my Nokia brand.  It was an emotional decision for me but in the end functionality, esthetics and sex-appeal won.

References

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New York, NY.

Wikipedia.org  Retrieved April 15, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DonAdams.jpg

Amerikan vauraus

Suomen Kuvalehden pääkirjoitus (SK 44/2010) kertoi vakuuttavasti Yhdysvaltain viime syksyn kongressin vaaleista ja republikaanien voitosta edustajainhuoneessa.  Olin kuitenkin erittain hämmästynyt, kun kirjoitus sanoi että “Talouden kannalta oikeiston voitto kuitenkin on yleensä merkinnyt hyviä aikoja – ja sehän ratkaisee tässä maailmassa.”  Suomen Kuvalehti, jota arvostan ja luen uskollisesti (joskin aikamoisella viiveellä), on yleensä erittäin tarkka Yhdysvaltain analyyseissään, mutta tällä kertaa meni ihan metsään.  Amerikan politiikka on kääntynyt huimasti oikealle sitten Ronald Reaganin vaalivoiton vuonna 1980, mutta talous on heikentynyt suhteellisesti kansalaisten osalta melkein koko ajan viimeiset vuosikymmenet.  Amerikan talous on edelleen mahtava ja BKT huima, mutta jos tuijottaa vain näihin numeroihin ei saa käsitystä siita mitä on tapahtunut tavallisille kansalaisille: vaikka Amerikan talous on kohonnut 62% vuodesta 1989 työntekijöiden todelliset palkat ovat nousseet vain 11%.  Tuottavuus on kasvanut huimasti, mutta työntekijät eivät ole saaneet paljolti nauttia kättensä työstä.  Suurin osa vauraudesta on mennyt huippurikkaille ja suurille yhtiöille.

Ohessa linkki josta näkee tilastoja siitä mihin Amerikan vauraus on mennyt viimeisten vuosien aikana. Economic Policy Institute seuraa tarkkaan Yhdysvaltain taloudellista kehitystä. 

Se, missä republikaanit ja oikeisto ovat onnistuneet, on kansalaisten uskottaminen siihen, että heidän politiikkansa tuo vaurautta koko kansalle (sokaistuihan koko muu maailma republikaanien toittottamaan neoliberalismiin enemmän tai vähemmän viime vuosina).  Amerikkalaiset ovat äänestäneet omaa taloudellista etuaan vastaan Reaganista lähtien - “arvojen” pohjalta.  Vain demokraattisen presidentti Clintonin aikana kansalaiset vaurastuivat oikeasti, vaikka Clintonkin oli hyvaksynyt neoliberalismin opit omakseen ainakin osittain.

Nyt käytävat poliittiset taistelut eri osavaltioissa joissa republikaanit saivat enemmistön ja kuvernöörin paikan, ovat luonnollinen seuraus jo Reaganin aikana pohjustetuista periaatteista: (osa)valtio ja (osa)valtion menot on kutistettava äärimmaisen pieniksi; kaikki mikä vain on mahdollista, on yksityistettavä; (osa)valtion työntekijät on nujerrettava ottamalla heiltä pois lakko-oikeus, sillä he “syövat” (osa)valtion varoja.  Periaatteena on pieni ja voimaton osavaltio, ja vahva yksityissektori.  Kansalainen on yksin, ja vastuussa vain itsestään.

Wisconsinin osavaltiossa alkanut kuvernööri Scott Walkerin taistelu ammattiliittoja vastaan on herättänyt demokraatit ja ammattiliitot 30 vuoden unestaan: he taistelevat nyt olemassaolostaan.  Mielenosoitukset ovat levinneet muihinkin osavaltioihin, joissa republikaanit ovat ryhtyneet riistämään työntekijöiden oikeuksia: Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee ovat saaneet kansalaisensa barrikaadeille.  Aika näyttää, kääntyykö Amerikan kelkka takaisin vasemmalle (“vasen” amerikkalaisessa mielessä ei ole sama kuin eurooppalainen vasen, vaan paremminkin “vähemmän oikea”).

T

Sally Clark and Linda Mitchell Interview

Watch this video I made!  I interviewed Sally Clark, Seattle City council member, and Linda Mitchell, National Women's Political Caucus of WA President.  We talked about leadership in the digital age, authenticity, and women as leaders.

T

The Problem with Lisa Jackson

The EPA turned 40 years old yesterday.  Tavis Smiley interviewed Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator, on KUOW today, asking her about highlights and lowlights of the EPA over the last 40 years.  Jackson listed lots of accomplishments of the EPA: banning DDT, stopping acid rain, etc.; finally Smiley asked her about the BP Gulf oil spill: was that one of the "lowlights"?  Jackson's response disturbed me.  She said that the Gulf spill was not the company's fault, they're "in the business of making money", so you can't expect them to think about protecting the environment.

Lisa Jackson's answer hit the nail on the head of what is wrong with America; she has bought into the notion that business is value-free.  We have elevated profit-making above all else.  Making money has its own intrinsic value, it is above reproach and we cannot judge it with moral standards.  While businesses are making money the rest of us play catch-up trying to figure out how they have cheated or diverted rules and regulations, or gotten away with murder.  Businesses are not responsible because they are "in the business of making money".

This kind of thinking is rotting the core of the nation.  We worship money, and whoever makes lots of it must be right.  Even those who seem to have other values bow down at the altar of money.  How can we begin the change if we don't see the need to?  Obama, who spoke eloquently about "hope and change" is giving us more of the same: banks and rich people first, they are, after all, what counts.

What did Jesus say about the rich man?

T

America Needs Universities to Drive Innovation — More Than Ever!

Flip The Media

Hanson Hosein from the University of Washington interviews Margaret O'Mara, a history professor at the same university about what really created Silicon Valley.  This is a very interesting interview that gives you some perspective on how creativity and innovation are encouraged and nurtured over time.  It really does take a village to establish a supportive environment for something like the Silicon Valley; it doesn’t just happen by an “invisible hand”.  Somehow this message is not coming across American culture though.  Americans are known for their lack of historical perspective, and the prevailing myth is still that of Horatio Alger’s: you alone are responsible for your own success (or failure), and government should stay out of the business of business.

According to a recent report by the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee 

http://www.aau.edu/assets/0/76/400/4544/07043e259cc743768bb63142edbb813e.pdf

the Federal government provided 57% of all funding for basic research in the United States in 2008, and the study concluded that the funding should be doubled to be sufficient.  This is easy to understand when you think about the risk associated with basic research - businesses cannot afford to invest as much in research that may not produce commercially viable results.

Margaret O’Mara’s interview prompted me to think about Richard Florida’s book “The Rise of the Creative Class”.  

Florida examines what it takes for one region to draw a creative work force versus another that loses its most creative, dynamic population.  He posits that geography is more important than ever in attracting highly educated and highly skilled people to “places that are centers of creativity and also where they like to live”, such as Seattle, San Francisco Bay Area or Austin.  These places are “multidimensional and diverse” and they also offer lots of choice in recreation and other activities.  To top it off these locations are also known for high quality universities and hight tech jobs.

The United States needs to continue funding university research and partner with businesses in creative ways to be able to compete with other rising (technology) powers.

T

Don't Worry, You Can Still Make Money!

   The Cluetrain Manifesto declared in 1999, that digital technology will change the way we do business. The relationship between companies and customers is going to change because people have access to information - and to each other, like never before.Information flow will not be one-way any more as digital technology becomes as common as the morning cup of coffee. The average consumer will be empowered with real-time information about the products he or she buys and about the companies that produce them. This enables consumers to make informed choices about how they spend their money. Businesses can no longer afford to remain distant or indifferent to their customers’ needs.

One of the theses in the Cluetrain Manifesto states: “Don’t worry, you can still make money. That is, as long as it’s not the only thing on your mind” (Levine, Locke, Searls, Weinberger, & McKee, 1999, p. #80). This is a bold statement spoken to American businesses, which seem to have only been concerned about making money, at any cost. The business culture in America has increasingly become more cut-throat, winner-takes-all, and value-less (other than making money). I experienced this personally when working in the exhibits business, which is on the cutting edge of ‘making money’. I was involved in creating million-dollar exhibits that stood for a few days glamorizing a sexy new product, only to be thrown in a trash pile a few days later. The same applied to how people were treated: they were used to exhaustion, and thrown under the bus when they weren’t useful any more.But businesses were making money - a lot of it, it seemed - and that seemed to justify the means.

Since my exhibit days the economic collapse of 2008 happened, and the exuberance of ‘money growing on trees’ has ended. Does this mean that businesses are going to change their desire only to make money? Is the era of ‘end justifies the means’ over?With the internet maturing and people becoming more internet-literate business leaders must consider their customers in their business plans. Is this the perfect storm that creates a new set of values for businesses? Charlene Li discusses this in her book “Open Leadership: How Social Technology Can Transform the Way You Lead” (2010). She asserts that the new business-customer relationship must be built on trust, and humility:

Leadership requires a new approach, new mind-set, and new skills. It isn’t enough to be a good communicator. You must be comfortable sharing personal perspectives and feelings to develop closer relationships… You must come to embrace each openness-enabled encounter as an opportunity to learn. And it is not sufficient to just be humble. You need to seek out opportunities to be humbled … (Li, 2010)

This is the polar opposite of winner-takes-all culture permeating American business. I would like to believe that Li is correct in her assessment, but such a cultural shift does not happen overnight. It took at least thirty years for the business culture to become so audacious, so thoroughly lacking a sense of reciprocity or humility. It will take some time to regenerate a new business culture that embraces moderation, or, as Cluetrain Manifesto declared, a business culture that does not focus only on making money.

According to Li the new business leadership model requires mutual respect and an acknowledgment that customers and employees also have power (Li, 2010, p. 123 iPhone). This power is to be shared “constantly to build trust” (Li, 2010, p. 124 iPhone). Only then will the companies survive the upheaval of the cultural shift brought about by digital technology and a more informed customer base. The notion of ‘trust’ also goes against the grain of American (business) culture. You are considered naïve and exploitable if you show openness or vulnerability. But due to our new capability to communicate cheaply, quickly and spontaneously via digital technology, the old economic model has turned upside down. Trickle-down communication from top to bottom in a fully controlled environment is no longer possible. Perhaps, as Clay Shirky states: “When we change the way we communicate, we change society” (Shirky, 2008).

American style business with its raw, greed-based hunger for profit and growth is the most finely-tuned capitalist machine, five centuries in the making. Like the mythical phoenix, who burns itself to death every 500 years only to emerge anew out of the ashes,a new economic model will rise. A model that is based on reciprocity, information-sharing and respect. I am not sure if this will be the case, but I do believe that history goes in cycles, and it seems as though our current cycle is coming to an end.

Bibliography

Levine, R., Locke, C., Searls, D., Weinberger, D., & McKee, J. (1999). Cluetrain Manifesto. New York, NY.

Li, C. (2010). Open Leadership: How Social Technology Can Transform the Way You Lead. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody. New York, NY: The Penguin Press.

Hawaii

We spent a week in Maui, Hawaii.  It was such a pleasure to relax on the beach and let the ocean waves wash over all the stress and worry of the past...  year or more?  Wow.  A very needed vacation.  The sun's warmth made us all realize how pale and vitamin D-deficient we all were.  Ahhh!

Hawaiians are a joy.  Their outlook seems different from the rest of America: positive, laid back, playful, and genuine.  "Island Music" [Native 92.5] took over our car radio and brought us daily amusement as we drove to a new beach each morning.  Reggae in various forms was in.

Aloha!