Society is every company's debtholder

I'm not convinced society should be companies' customer and shareholder or whether it should be, but I strongly believe that society is and should be thought of as every company's debtholder. WHY SOCIETY IS A DEBTHOLDER In short, a debtholder lends resources to a business (i.e. money) and expects the money to be repaid. In exchange for the risk that the company won't be able to pay them back, they insist upon charging a fee (interest).

In addition to that, debtholders aren't "residual claimants" if and when the company goes bankrupt. What that means is if a company goes bankrupt debtholders aren't the last people paid when the company's assets are liquidated (shareholders are).

Society is definitely a debtholder of sorts for a business because it does lend resources to companies that they risk not being "paid back" for, in effect. For example, society "lends" the following resources to companies:

-Enforced rules which create fairer markets -Clean water and air and access to other natural resources -An educated workforce -Roads and infrastructure to transport goods -Assurances for citizens which transfer the burden of social welfare (e.g., unemployment, healthcare) to the state -I could go on

Moreover, companies are getting a a great deal on all these resources. If companies privately tried do these things it would be astronomically expensive, even if they were possible. My guess is, the value companies get from these resources far exceeds the amount they pay for these resources in taxes.

If companies don't compensate government for the risk they are taking to invest in resources, we all run the risk of the government running out of money to keep lending these resources to companies. For example, if companies don't reinvest (i.e., pay back their "interest") in the workforce, eventually the workforce will be so devoid of skills to the point where government provision of these resources becomes unsustainably costly.

THE BOTTOM LINE

So here's the takeaway. Companies uses resources that society lends. They ought to pay their "interest" on these resources or eventually there will be no resources left to lend.

Why non-profits and government are harder than business

In my time at the Ross School of Business, I've come to believe that it's much harder to run a non-profit or government organization than it is to run a business. One of my professors even brought this up in class, explicitly, yesterday. Here's the basic reason why.

In any organization you have to do two basic things, create value and secure the resources you need to create value. This dynamic looks different across sectors.

In business, you end up creating value for and getting resources from the same people - customers. In non-profits and government the people who fund (or vote for) you and the people you serve are different. This makes non-profit and government management fundamentally more difficult because you have to manage the needs of two groups of people (who have different interests) at the same time.

To reconcile this dissonance in government, you could either get funders/voters to care about the needs of all. Or, you could just get everybody to vote.

What's Missing From "Business For the Social Good"

When it comes to "business for the social good," there are many examples to be proud of. Bill and Melinda Gates are fighting malaria. Warren Buffett advocates that billionaires give their money away. Many others have signed The Giving Pledge. In addition to all this, many businesses participate in corporate social responsibility activities or pro bono work. All this is great. However, I'd like to point out that proponents of "business for the social good" are largely motionless when it comes to fixing political issues which cause social problems in the first place*.

There are underlying schisms in the political systems which exacerbate or increase the likelihood of market failure. Business interests overlook these issues. For example, when's the last time you heard a corporation advocate for campaign finance reform or billionaires (with Warren Buffett as a sort-of exception) talk about fixing loopholes in the tax code?

With limited exception, business interests are silent on underlying political and institutional issues to the social problems they are trying to solve. They fix market failure ex post instead of working ex ante to create a more resilient political system which prevents market failure in the first place.

I appreciate all business interests do for society, I really do, and for that they should be lauded. But, I don't think we should ignore the fact that corporate interests and billionaire philanthropists are ignoring the gorilla in the room: fixing political systems so their money isn't as needed to fix social problems.

Most companies, I'd argue, actually do the opposite of fixing political and institutional problems. Instead, they actively try to exploit political systems to improve their chances of winning in the marketplace.

If companies are not actively trying to bend the rules in their favor, they are silent. I can't think of one business interest (though I'm sure there are a few) that lobby for fairer markets that are aligned with the public interest.

Business schools are mostly silent on this issue, too. Not once in my MBA so far, for example, have we talked about whether business has the responsibility to advocate for fair and efficient markets. In class, we assume that markets are fair, businesses play by the rules, and that businesses don't actively try to bend the rules in their favor.

The problem with that assumption is that it's undoubtedly false.

* - Why? Because fair, competitive markets are bad for business.

Reimagining Healthcare, Education, and Government

I have been, and likely always will be interested and motivated to improve how institutions work. The three biggest institutions of our time that need to be reimagined are healthcare, education, and government. I don't think this is because healthcare, education, or government are inherently flawed or because the good folks working in those realms are foolish or stupid. Rather, I think those three areas are the last institutions to be reformed since the beginning of the information age because they're the biggest, gnarliest, and most difficult to change.

If you claim to be interested in "systemic change" and you're not working in healthcare, education, or government I'd seriously question your understanding of modern-day problems or your courage. These domains are where all the action is*.

* - It's worth noting that all these domains are inextricably linked to cities.

The World Doesn't (Exactly) Need More Leaders

Lots of institutions - like schools, companies, pundits, etc. - talk about leadership to the point of dogma. At best, this is misguided. At worst, this is dangerous. What I find problematic is that these narratives imply that leadership is an end in itself. As in, you go to school to become a better leader. Companies, say they're trying to recruit their next generation of leaders.

Besides, I don't think "leaders" are what folks are really after. What they're really after is value. They want people to make things beautiful or make beautiful things. They want people to make their companies, communities, and customers better than they were before. They care about the value, not the means to create it (assuming it's ethical).

Leadership is merely a means to the end of value creation, but it's not treated that way. Leadership is heralded as an end in itself. With all the books, courses, degrees, and gurus you think, "I've gotta be a leader!"

I take this issue (I acknowledge that it's a subtlety) seriously because leadership without value creation is dangerous.

To be a leader, a leader needs followers. Ideally, people follow a leader because they are doing something valuable. That's fine.

However, when you place leadership above value creation (making things beautiful or making beautiful things) it incentivizes people to attract followers even when they aren't doing something of value.

When they aren't doing something of value, leaders trying to attract followers tend to do ugly things - coercion, deceit, exploitation - because at the end of the day, if someone who aspires to be a leader isn't doing something of value they have to make it appear as if they're doing something of value or force people to follow them.

Of course, it's helpful to have good leaders when trying to do something of value with a group of people. However, the point is not to be a leader, the point is to do something of value.

That's why I stand behind the statement "The World Doesn't Need More Leaders," because what we need more of is people who create value, regardless of whether they are "leaders". Leaders just happen to help create it sometimes. By making leadership a destination in itself, not only are we distracting from the true goal of value creation, we're incentivizing dangerous behavior.

The Risk-Averse Career Choices of MBAs

If I wanted to link-bait this post, I would've titled it "Are MBA's Risk-Averse Scardey-Cats?" I didn't do that, though, because this topic is actually serious if you think about it. I'm an MBA at Michigan Ross and many friends of mine are currently studying at Business Schools around the country. Almost invariably, the most highly-desired career paths after graduating from our "elite" MBA programs are Banking and Consulting.

Notice, that these two paths are professional services, more or less (especially consulting). In these careers, you don't have to deal with the masses. You're not on the hook for business results creating value for consumers. In other words, when you're at a Bank or a Consulting firm you don't have to take the risk of winning in the consumer marketplace, you just help your clients do that.

Oh, and you get paid a lot.

So what it comes down to is getting a big reward (gobs of money and "prestige") while minimizing risk (because you don't have to create value on the front lines in consumer markets). And that's exactly what business schools generally teach their MBAs to do, increase rewards while minimizing risk.

This isn't to say that consulting and banking aren't good career choices. I'm merely pointing out that our supposed brightest business students are largely funneling into careers that don't create value in consumer markets and that Business Schools are huge supports in getting them there.

Is that really what we want? Is that really good for society or even for "the market"?

Also, another question - does this mean that us MBAs are risk-averse scaredy-cats?

Where are you, my dreamers?

Where are you my dreaming friends? The ones with the errant scribbles in your pockets and hopeful, irreverent, conviction. I want to support you, be your friend, and share my dreams with you too. But first, let me tell you about the types of dreams I don't mean.

THE WHEN YOU GROW UP DREAM - I think of this as the dream you have for your own life and how you fit into the world. Maybe you want a spouse and kids. Maybe you want to be a PTA president when you grow up. Maybe you want to be a business leader or a sculptor. This type of dream is the answer to the "What do you want to do with your life?" question. These dreams are important, but this is not the dream I mean.

THE LEGACY DREAM - This is the dream of how you wish to be remembered. What will people say about you during your eulogy? In 100 years how will people talk about you? How will you ensure your contribution to the world? These dreams are important, but this is not the dream I mean.

The sort of dream I mean is what I call the DESTINATION dream. These dreams are the visions you have for the world around you, even if you're not there. The dreams you have about the human condition and the potential of what the world could be. This is the dream of a better destination, regardless of who leads the journey. This is the dream that you can commit to even if it comes true without you or you never get credit for your contribution. The reward of having the dream come true is reward enough.

I came across a story of a Destination Dreamer today, reading this article about Elon Musk (h/t to my friend Dominik).

I've never met the Elon, so he may be an ego maniac. But to be honest, it doesn't sound like it. It sincerely sounds like he wants to colonize mars and rid the world of fossil-fuel cars because that's his point of view on how to preserve the future of the human race.

Such a Destination Dreamer - especially one with such grand visions - is rare. I have my theories on why.

I honestly feel the world we live in (in particular MY corner of the world, at least) discourages the sort of destination-focused dreams I mean. My world has taught me to set goals, achieve them, and reap the rewards and credit. My world talks about quantifying the results on your resume. My world talks about being a leader and running organizations efficiently. My world scoffs at the liberal arts because they are not "marketable" (which they are, by the way).

Surely results, efficiency, and practicality are important. But let's not forget about the real, important dreaming.

Where would we be after all if there were no dream about a world rid of slavery, or a country that actively protected life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Where would we be without the dream of eradicating smallpox or malaria. Thinking even smaller, where would we be if no neighbors anywhere imagined a safe street and a park with a small field for the neighborhood kids to play?

These dreams give us the path to carve out a better world and shape it to honor the dignity of the gift of our lives.

Which is why I ask, where are you my dreamers?

---

To be honest, I'm still working arduously to articulate my dreams - they've certainly vacillated throughout my life. Right now I have two interpretations:

I dream about a time when everyone living in Detroit and Southeast Michigan feel like they have agency to live a life of their choosing.

I dream about a world in which communities have systems and infrastructure to prevent human suffering (whether at the neighborhood, corporate, or national level) from ever occurring.

This is why I always think about campaign finance reform and civic engagement. These dreams are why I write constantly about innovation and how to ensure that companies don't create economic value by destroying social, civic, or spiritual value.

Again I repeat: to all the dreamers out there, I'd like to be friends so that we can share our dreams.

***This is an open offer to anyone reading this post. I'd be happy as can be to let you make a cameo post on this blog to talk about your dreams. I will not edit your content, I only insist that you attach your name to your remarks.

To improve non-profits, mandate disclosure of their results

All non-profits should be required to disclose the results of their efforts to impact social systems. Let me explain why. CONTEXT

I firmly believe that social impact business models (whether or not they are for profit) will only take off once the sector knows how to measure impact. Moreover, I firmly believe that we won't really make headway on solving social problems until we start measuring social impact.

Why? Because we can't work smarter or efficiently without measurement. Measurement provides two critical benefits to any organization in any sector, whether it's for social impact or in a traditional for-profit company.

1) Measurement provides Managers objective feedback about their performance. Without measurement, Managers can't tell (with much clarity or precision) whether the plans they enact are actually improving how their organization operates or whether they are achieving results.

2) Measurement provides investors data about whether their capital is being used efficiently. Can you imagine capital markets working without public companies releasing reliable, accurate financial statements? We're surely not allocating capital efficiently in the social impact sector if we can't objectively compare one organization against another.

I've been zeroing in on this idea of social impact measurement (and that it's crucial for moving the needle on social issues) for some time and I've come to a stark conclusion. We should mandate that non-profits disclose their results rigorously and uniformly.

THE ARGUMENT

Put yourself in the shoes of a non-profit CEO. Fundraising is your organization's lifeblood. You're constantly stressed about staying solvent and carrying out your mission. Say you're evaluating whether or not to rigorously disclose your organization's impact through a uniform set of audited social impact measures.

As a non-profit CEO I would never voluntarily disclose my organization's impact results in a rigorous way because the downsides (the costs of data collection /reporting, the risk of looking bad compared to someone else) far outweigh the upsides (the potential for increased funding because my results are good). In other words, as a non-profit CEO I would never voluntarily disclose results because it's not in my organization's individual interest.

Moreover, even though it's the right thing to do, I think it's unlikely that a movement from within the non-profit community will compel non-profits to rigorously and uniformly report their results. Even though uniformly reported metrics are good for the sector and for the public, it's not in the interest of individual organizations. Moreover, the sector is incredibly decentralized, making it operationally difficult for a movement within the sector for impact reporting to actually come to fruition.

This leaves us with one simple option: create a uniform set of impact metrics and mandate that all non-profits disclose their results on a regular basis. (I do see one unlikely way of creating a movement inside the non-profit community, which I'll discuss a bit further down).

Here's the summary of the argument:

1) Rigorous, uniformly reported disclosures of impact metrics would help solve social problems faster 2) It's not in the interest of individual non-profits to rigorously disclose their own results, so they will not 3) It's unlikely that a movement within the non-profit community will compel rigorous disclosure of a uniform set of impact metrics

Therefore, we should create a standard set of impact metrics and mandate rigorous disclosure on a regular basis

I don't think the mandate I'm suggesting is unreasonable. Non-profits are allowed to operate without paying taxes or having their donations be taxed. This is an enormous operating benefit. Non-profits are given their tax status because it's presumed they are operating to provide social welfare. We (whether as a regulator or as a funder of non-profits) currently have no way of screening whether they are actually providing social welfare. If they're getting such a big benefit, why not ask non-profits to justify it so that funders can make good decisions about how they allocate capital?

Moreover, business have to disclose audited financial statements all the time which demonstrates that uniform disclosure is possible with the right set of reports.

Many people I know would argue that "it's too hard and/or not fair to measure social impact" and I don't think that's a reasonable counter argument. Here's why:

•  Existing efforts to create social impact metrics are not impressive, nor do they seem like earnest attempts. We haven't even really tried to do this yet (as a sector and society) so how can we say that it's too hard?
• A lot has changed in the world, with the proliferation of digital infrastructures and technologies. One of the biggest challenges to measuring social impact (data collection) becomes more and more feasible every day
• If every non-profit starts at the same time and is held to the same standard, it'll even the playing field between different non-profits. In other words, no organization gets punished for disclosing first

AN ALTERNATIVE

If not mandated by the federal government, I think funders and mayors can play a big role in pushing for a standard set of impact metrics. Foundations for example, are a narrower set of players in this ecosystem which means its easier to coordinate their actions. For example, if a group of the 25 largest foundation funders in the country came together, created a system, and required their grantees to publicly disclose reports, they'd be able to compel a substantial amount of non-profits to disclose results.

Similarly, a mayor of a major city wanting to improve the performance of local social sector organizations (whom governments often partner with) could be a convener to get this to happen. If a lot of the big players started after such an intervention, the littler non-profits would have to follow-suit to compete for dollars.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, I think rigorous, uniformly reported impact metrics are crucial for performance improvement in the social sector. I can't even believe non-profit CEOs have gone so long without such data to manage operations.

I don't think that will ever happen without a mandate, despite being good for the sector and good for citizens.

A Backdoor Antidote to Money In (Local) Politics

I'm currently reading Lessig's "Republic, Lost" at the recommendation of my friend Dominik (thanks buddy).  Because the book is about the influence and implications of money in politics, I've been thinking lately about how to combat this pervasive force.  Per usual, let's start at the beginning - why do people want to give money to political campaigns? This is what I was able to come up with (Lessig does have discourse about this, but, I've taken my own liberties):

Candidate Support: They want to raise their "voice" to support the candidate and do not expect personal favors in return Intrinsic Motivation: They value political engagement and want to participate in the process beyond voting Reciprocity and Access: They want to curry favor with the candidate and want the candidate to prioritize their interests when elected

If a citizen is donating to a political campaign in the first two instances they probably aren't donating a lot of money. Why? Because they don't expect anything in return, and I suspect most people wouldn't dogmatically support a political candidate enough to drain their savings without expecting something in return.

This assumption needs a bit of defense, but let's continue and assume the corollary as well - that when people donate huge sums to political candidates it's because they expect something in return. In return for donating money, they want access to power.

If that's the case, and we want to mitigate the effects of money in politics, why don't we just give people access to power for free? Isn't that how it ought to be anyway? I'm envisioning a campaign where a candidate and his/her staff talk to thousands of constituents personally over the course of a campaign and when in office. My hypothesis is that if you actually listen to people's problems on a personal level, and talk to them, you can get them to vote or even campaign for you. 

Sure, that still takes money, but potentially much less because people have a real connection to a candidate and their interests are presumably more likely to be addressed as a result.

Of course, this is much harder in non-local elections and I'd have to make many more assumptions about voter efficacy to extrapolate this idea beyond local elections. But why not adhere to this policy in a local election? Even in a city of a million or so people, you could meet with 10s of thousands of people in a few months.

It's a lot of work for candidates, but isn't political leaders working directly with the people exactly how we want our republic to function? Who actually wants to continue to have money ridiculously influence politics?

Detroiters, what do you make?

I make ideas, connections between communities, slam poems, and pancakes. Detroit, what do you make? ---

BERLIN, GERMANY - In the short time I've been here, I've come to realize that Berlin was Detroit before Detroit was Detroit. We have many lessons to learn from Berlin, but it comes down to this: Make Something.

Berlin has a distinct culture, for the same reason that any city has a culture, people have agency and create things - whether it's art, food, businesses, or ideas. As people here have gone out and just created, it's turned Berlin into a vibrant, international, hard-working, party-all-night, entrepreneurial city. It's really an amazing place.

I'm not suggesting we try to make Detroit to look and feel like Berlin. What I am suggesting though is that we focus on making and creating, because that's the only way cultures form - when passionate people go out, do what their heart desires, share their experiences, and learn from other people.

Right now, in my opinion, the culture of Detroit is more consuming than it is creating. There are a small group of people creating valuable products and experiences and many more people free-riding and consuming them. That's fine for a time, but the city will never grow if we consume more awesome things than we create.

We have no other choice by to make things. Working a 9-5 job and calling it a day doesn't count because those profits and value gets extracted by a private entity...there's ever any spillover to the community.

So my fellow Detroiters, I think it's time we stopped trying to do the next big thing and just started created something by following our hearts and sticking with it. Who cares if it'll get press or get big accolades. Let's just make something that represents who we are and what we care about.

So, I ask again, what do you make?

Time vs. Money

PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC - Around this time last year, I was returning from Europe to begin my first year of Business School. I've learned many things in the past year, but this strikes me as the most important learning, by far: The essential trade-off in life is between time and money. Time, as it turns out, is more valuable.

There are really only two simple reasons which illustrate why time is more valuable:

-Time is fixed. We cannot trade for more. To make matters worse, we can't definitively predict how much time we have. -Most of the things that (truly) make life worth living require time, but only modest amounts of money.

There are many more reasons - in addition to these two - why time is more valuable than money, but these two are pretty compelling on their own, no?

In the past year, I've had to make big decisions about my life. These big decisions, really come down to one thing: what do I value more, time or money? In my own life, I've chosen time over money and I think that is the better choice.

In the US, our culture (I think) values money too highly relative to time. Money is necessary in human society, so I don't think its wise for most people to forget about it...but we could stand to forget about it a little. If we did so, we would be better off individually and collectively.

Why? Because valuing money over time makes people do crazy things and it causes them to be unhappy. Marriages, families, communities, and nations fail when people value time over money (over the long-term). It's a sustainable proposition to value time over money in the long-term. Valuing money over time, in the long-term, is not a sustainable proposition.

Here's the question I'm grappling with now: how can we start to alter societal narratives about time and money to make it a healthier balance?

Any ideas?

---

As a shoutout to my Business School friends, here's another question. When making business decisions (about our careers or when making decisions in our official duties) why don't we value time?

Observations as a Municipal Ethnographer

Mikulov, Czech Republic - Over the past week, I've been in several geographic contexts. Let me tell you where first, and then I'll share an observation. This is where I've been:

-Detroit, MI (Both the downtown areas, and the neighborhoods) -The suburbs of Detroit, MI (Rochester, MI to be exactly) -Long Island, New York -The inner suburbs of New York City in upstate New York -Vienna, Austria -Mikulov, Czech Republic -A series of towns between Vienna and Mikulov

Even beyond the places I've been in the past few weeks, I've been to many other cities and towns in my lifetime. Moreover, I've been to different pockets of communities within each of these geographies. The key observation I've made is based on this curation of cities and towns I've done throughout my life.

Upon first glance, I would've expected places to be similar based on geographic proximity (e.g., Detroit would be most similar to Rochester, Long Island would be most similar to upstate, Vienna would be most similar to Mikulov, etc.)

Geographic proximity was probably something that really mattered 50 or 100 years ago. But the funny thing is, I think that's changing. The places most similar to each other are precisely not the places which are geographically closest.

Rochester, for example, felt most similar to suburban Vienna. Vienna felt similar to London, DC, or another Capital cities. The small Austrian towns I've rode through felt more similar to Western Kentucky than they did to Vienna or Mikulov.

A theory: economic similarities trump geography and culture To cut to the chase, here's what I realized: nowadays, places have more in common with places across the world that have similar economies (industries, education, etc.) and levels of wealth to them. That is to say, they have surprisingly little in common with places that are near them but have dissimilar economies.

Of course, language and culture matter. But, I think those things are starting to matter less because language barriers are falling due to the internet and cheap global transportation give many people the opportunity to experience other cultures.

As time goes on and the world gets "flatter", those language and cultural barriers will matter less and less - economic similarities will matter more and more.

My roommate on the trek I'm on in the Czech Republic and i were just talking about it. He agreed that my theory is possible and put it this way (note that he's Korean-American, but spent the last 5 years working in Korea before coming to Ross). If he was on the subway in Korea he'd be more likely to strike up a conversation with a westerner who looked like a businessman, rathern than talking to someone who was Korean but didn't seem like a business person.

Moreover, he believes that if he were to talk to a non-businessy Korean not only he would be uncomfortble, the person he was talking to would be uncomfortable (assuming his conversation partner had a different socio-economic prfile). In his subway example, wealth and profession (i.e., economic similarity) trumps geographic and cultural commonality.

On first glance, that seems normal. But when you stop and think about it, it's terribly interesting, no?

Here's the takeaway (I'm using some of the phrasing from my very smart friend and classmate Adam): now places may have more in common with other places with similar economies and levels of wealth, whereas they used to have more in common with places which were geographically proximate to them.

Implications

If this hypothesis is true - that places in today's age share greater commonalities based on economy and wealth (note: "wealth" could just as easily mean inequality levels) - it would have far reaching effects on civil society. I don't know what would actually happen, but I think some of the following scenarios are plausible (these are scary enough, even if they're only plausible and not probable:

-Nothing will happen. Perhaps, economic affinities will trump geographic and cultural affinities enough for conflict to occur (I don't believe this, but it's a reasonable conclusion)

-Economic similarities are self-reinforcing and become more pronounced

-As economic similarities become more pronounced, now, people who are increasingly dissimilar are still living near each other. This leads to conflict and "class wars"

-Institutions (i.e., governments and large corporations) try to manipulate public opinion to distract the poor from economic dissimilarities and growing levels of inequality. For example, political parties could increase attention on issues which distract the poor's anger from issues of inequality, or, realign the poor's primary affiliation to nationalistic identities.

Here's how what I just said could look in practice: a political party fanning the flames on a volatile social issue to captivate poorer audiences (e.g., gay rights) - this is an example of diverting attention from inequality to a volatile issue. National governments pursue military action against another country to unite a country against an external threat instead of internal institutions - this is an example of institutions realigning citizens to nationalistic identities.

Both of these examples sound familiar, no?

I'm not saying this is happening, just that it's a plausible course of action for any institution if my hypothesis about geograhy and economic similarities are correct.

-Conflict across nations (inter-state conflict) could reduce, but intra-state conflict could rise. The influence of large municipalities and regional governments will rise because of their new importance in managing inequality, economic growth, and societal conflict.

---

I leave you with this: when you choose who you talk to on the subway, how would you choose? If it was 50 years ago, would you choose someone else?

I think that answer would be different today than it was 50 years ago. If so, there could be far reaching implications.

Remembering the Airplane Landed

VIENNA, AUSTRIA - I arrived in Vienna yesterday, and had the worst travel day I've ever had, starting with finding my luggage to be lost upon landing in Austria. Over the course of the day, though, I did learn a very important about placing value on the things that really matter. As a bit of context, here's why my day was so difficult:

- My luggage was lost - It took me almost 1.5 hours to find my hostel after getting off the subway - I couldn't check into my hostel until 2pm (I landed at around 10am) - I don't speak a lick of German, so It was very hard to talk with people - I found out late in the day that the following day was a holiday, so I had to make my limited amount of Euros last until I could go to the bank. (I'm trying to avoid ATMs because of the fees) - The internet connection in the hostel was crummy so it was hard to communicate back home and wrap-up the school-related things I needed to do. Beyond that, it was difficult to communicate with the airline about my lost luggage - The lobby of my hostel was smokey - I lost my map, and had to scrape it together with a poorly drawn map in a tourist magazine and maps at bus stops to get back to my hostel - Like a buffoon, I didn't pack my toiletries in my carry-on bag, so all I had was a travel toothbrush - It wasn't worth it to take a shower, because I didn't have clean clothes or a towel - After all this, for dinner I ordered a pizza with anchovies on it, without realizing it. This would've been fine, except as it turns out, I can't stand the taste of anchovies

But I learned a lesson while talking to one of my bunk-mates, an 18 year old Russian girl taking a trip before starting college. She was surprised that I was in fairly good spirits, even though I was in a less-than-ideal situation.

Losing my luggage was out of my control, I told her, so why worry? But as she asked me more questions, I realized the real reason why I wasn't too stressed:

Despite every frustration I had yesterday, my plane still landed safely, and that was the only outcome of the day that truly mattered.

It was an important lesson in life and leadership. You always have to remember to focus on what matters and put your effort toward that. It's easy to get caught up in the small stuff, but you can't let it distract you from what truly matters.

In the case of an airline, it doesn't matter if you're luggage is never lost if you're planes aren't safe. As a husband, it doesn't matter if you can provide your family the money to live lavishly if what they truly need is your love and your time.

Focusing on the outcomes that truly matter and seeing beyond the outcomes that don't is an important lesson. It's also a valuable skill that the greatest leaders I've ever met all possess.

Business and Society's Deeper Challenge

It is plain to see that the complex problems faced by business and society this century will be incredibly difficult to solve. Business, for example, is contending with the pressures of hypercompetitive markets, increasingly demanding consumers, and an accelerating pace of technological disruption. Society as a whole has even harder problems – climate change, infectious disease, terrorism, traffic, food security, and economic inequality, just to name a few – that are systemic and global in nature. These problems are too big for any institution – whether it’s a business, a government, or a non-profit – to solve alone. Take the fight against child hunger as an example. All three sectors must work in concert for the system to change: business must develop new, nutritious foods, government must set policies which bolster food access, and non-profits must work on the ground to ensure aid reaches hungry children.

Of course, child hunger is just one example of the many issues that are solvable only if the public, private, and social sectors collaborate.

Because the world’s most challenging business and social problems are too interconnected and complex to be solved by one institution alone, I believe that we are left with two choices. We can either work in siloes and struggle, or, we can learn to work collaboratively across industries and across sectors to solve the biggest problems humanity has ever seen.

Unfortunately, co-creating solutions across sectors – beyond traditional public-private partnerships that are merely funded or operated jointly – is incredibly difficult to achieve for many reasons. Legal structures for collaboration are nascent and governance structures are hard to create. It’s hard to develop effective incentives for all sectors, especially because the shareholder value model is so pervasive in global markets. To add insult to injury, many business leaders and citizens do not even see the value of cross-sector collaboration or believe it is a viable option.

Moreover, even though learning to collaborate across sectors is not a social issue or business issue on its own, it is a critically important challenge because solutions for so many difficult problems require cross-sector collaboration. For these reasons and many more, learning how to work across sectors to solve complex problems, I contend, will be the greatest challenge for the next generation of business leaders.

The Fading Corporate Dream

Over the past year, I've noticed high-talent folks I know start to rebuff the corporate dream they thought they wanted. These folks are the top performers at their firms leaving after a few years or the rockstars that avoid the corporate route altogether. "Why oh why?" sing the corporates, "why are are these talented people leaving?" Here are all the reasons that I've heard and observed:

• Co-workers / management aren't competent
• Co-workers / management don't actually care about creating value for customers, they care about their own careers
• Employees aren't recognized or given opportunities based on merit - it's about your tenure or ability to network
• They company isn't interested in being bold, innovative leaders in their markets
• The company's work-life flexibility terrible
• The organization moves too slow and/or doesn't take risks
• Employees can't chart their own path / you feel like a cog in a machine that does the same thing over and over
• Employees don't learn and grow either in formal settings or on-the-job
• Employees can't be themselves, they have to act a certain way
• Employees aren't value or recognized and/or they don't see how their work actually has an impact on customers' lives or the world

The list goes on.

The dissonance now exposed Most people in this country want to be free. We don't live in a country with an autocratic system of government, so most people have at least some glimpse of what it means to be free. Think about what being free feels like for a second. It means you're able to pursue your own dreams and assemble peacefully. It means you're able to speak freely and have your day be relatively unintruded by the influence of institutions. You are able to be yourself and express yourself. It means you have due process of law if you break the rules or are accused of wrongdoing.

Now think of what life is like in a large corporation. It's not at all free. Instead of pursuing what you want, you do exactly what your boss tells you to do for fear that you'll lose your job. You don't really have the ability to express yourself unless you have a lot of power or authority in the organization. You are constantly bombarded by doing the stuff your boss doesn't want to do. Depending on who you are or what your connections are you get preferential treatment by authority holders in the organization (you don't get due process). No, corporate life today is anything but being about freedom. On the contrary, corporate life is all about control.

This is why employees are leaving corporates in droves: they don't want to be controlled, they want to be free.

Running corporations with a controlling mindset used to fly because employees had no viable alternatives elsewhere in the job market. Small firms didn't really have as much impact on the world as they are able to now. Small firms weren't stable and they didn't provide opportunities to learn and have that learning be viewed as legitimate by other companies. It was difficult to access networks of people, resources, or customers unless you were a big firm. As you can see, even just a few decades ago, smaller firms provided much less value to employees than they now can.

That dissonance - that corporations often operate like autocracies in a society motivated by the pursuit freedom - is now exposed. Not working for a corporation is now a legitimate choice. It's easier to find smaller firms or start your own business. People now have the capability to tap into global networks of ideas and support which gives them a safety net to lean on if things go badly. People can now move (literally) across the world more freely. Potential employees are no longer stuck. That's why people with a lot of talent (and even people that aren't blessed with a lot of pedigree) are doing something different - they don't really have to work for corporations anymore.

The punch line The fact of the matter is that corporations that want to recruit talented people won't be able to operate as autocracies for much longer. Many corporations are already starting to change. But it's not just about tech sector or startup perks, that won't be an antidote for long because it's a superficial change. Corporations instead have to fundamentally change their assumptions about their employees - they're not robots you program, they are assets that you have to garden and groom to unleash their full potential. Corporations have to stop being autocracies.

If corporations don't shed their autocratic roots, the corporate dream will continue to fade. And then, things will really get interesting.

Millennials Matter Because Of Their Time, Not Their Money

There’s lots of talk about bringing young people to Detroit. To be honest, I agree with that. But there’s not a lot of talk about why it’s important to bring young people to Detroit. The story I usually hear is one of income. Young people can pay rents, go to local restaurants, patronize local businesses, and pay taxes to local governments. After all, the story goes, young people make good incomes and have few financial strings attached. Young people also have talent to work in local companies and the smarts to help them grow. In more ways than one, young people breathe life into cities and the ecosystems tied to cities.

All this is true, but I think it’s missing the point. The real value young people give to cities is their time, not their money.

As young people, we don’t really realize this, I think. I, as someone who wants to use his energy for public good for example, often become frustrated that I don’t have the money or influence to affect change in Detroit or elsewhere. What I forget about is how much time I really have compared to other people – especially compared to older people with lots of money and lots of influence.

Young People And Innovation The resource of time is not trivial, it’s absolutely core to growth in a city. Here’s what time allows young people to do:

Build Networks – developing relationships takes lots of time and energy if done right. There’s really no way around it. Young people have lots of time to cultivate relationships and they do. These networks do not only benefit the young people building them, it makes the city more efficient because thick networks move information and resources across the city more efficiently and with greater results. Young people break silos in ways that older adults cannot and don't have an incentive to do. (Power players in a network have an incentive to keep silos because it preserves their power. Young people have an incentive to break silos for the opposite reason – it allows them to break up concentrations of power.)

Try New Things – Young people have a lot of time to experiment, which is why it’s common to see innovative startups created by young people – they can blaze new trails easier because they can put in the time to figure out new, complex problems. In any company or city, young people always lead new experimental things because those young people have the time to mess around and learn. Because those learnings add up rapidly, young people can do amazingly creative things faster than people who are older.

Explore Ideas – Young people also have lots more time to “stop and smell the roses.” If they choose to, they can learn and explore and be inspired by new experiences. They can noodle on things and imagine the future because they’re closer to the mindset of children. Young people can be foolish because they don’t have families to feed. They can follow dreams because they have little to lose compared to people who are older.

You’ll notice that these three things: networks, experimentation, and inspiration are three fundamental components of innovation. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

Intergenerational Collaboration Is The Key The way I see it is this. Older people have experience, resources, and influence. Young people have the time to build networks, try new things, and explore new ideas. To me this is the perfect match for creating innovation.

I firmly believe that intergenerational collaboration is absolutely essential if we want to innovate successfully, in Detroit. But to be honest, I don’t really see that happening today. I think both sides want to lead the other. Of course, this is my opinion, but I don’t think I’m alone in believing this.

This is also my opinion, but, I think we can do a lot more if we have intergenerational collaboration. The real kind. It'll just take both sides stepping out of the spotlight and focusing on working together.

Disclosure: I am part of the “young people” so that’s where my biases are.

How the Internet Complicates Democracy

Let me start by first reiterating that the Internet is a wonderful tool. If you are reading this, you no doubt know of its trappings and utilities. I do not mean to discredit that notion in this reflection. There are many reasons that the internet has been a force for good in the world. However, there are at least a few ways I see that the Internet appears to make democratic societies more difficult to maintain. These four categories are interconnected, but I believe their underpinnings are unique.  I’ve written all of this very casually.

Complications in Decision Making

In a democracy, groups of people have to get together to make decisions on matters affecting the polity. This group of problems outlines how the Internet makes it more difficult to make decisions.

• The problem of real-time information: Often in the public sphere, governments make plans which take years to implement, maybe even decades. The Internet, however, surfaces new information all the time. Because of the Internet, we are much more able to get a continuous flow of information. That is great when you are managing a problem, but difficult when trying to make decision because it can cause priorities to shift quickly. Pivoting priorities isn’t ideal when trying to do something that requires a long lead time. By extension, the Internet may make it more difficult for long-term projects to make it across the finish line.

• The problem of crowd validation: Sometimes “the crowd” is very good at making a decision and sometime it isn’t. The Internet makes it much easier to tap the knowledge of the crowd. What’s problematic is that because the influence of the crowd is so strong on the Internet, it could make it much easier to blindly ignore ideas that don’t immediately get traction with the crowd. Many good ideas, more than prior eras, could be left to rot in the annals of the internet instead of being incorporated into a process for making decisions…just because the crowd immaturely rejects them.

• The problem of convenience: Decisions and ideas don’t get better without tender love and care. Improving ideas takes a special kind of ardor and time, I’d say. The difficulty with the Internet is that it can make it too easy to participate in decision-making activities, which allows people to participate in a cursory way. At some parts of the political process, this is probably fine, but isn’t there some value in having an intellectual cost to participate in a discussion, because it ensures that the people participating are serious about their responsibilities?

Complications of Power

In a democracy, different people can affect the democratic process in different ways, depending on the amount of power they have. This group of problems outlines how the Internet can concentrate power (in a way that’s not desirable) more than in previous eras.

• The problem of centralized access: Currently, the internet is a centrally organized infrastructure…users connect to centralized websites and centrally managed information technology services. The problem with centralized infrastructure, of course, is that bottlenecked resources have a lot of power. Companies who control access to centralized resources (like the Internet) can charge people a lot of money, and, manipulate people by threatening to withhold access to the centralized resource. That could happen to the Internet…it could be a resource that’s used as a bargaining chip.

• The problem of signal and noise: There is lots and lots of information on the internet. And, if you’re trying to influence others it’s hard to get your message to “stick”, especially if only a few companies account for the majority of traffic on the Internet. That sort of setup is advantageous for well-resourced interests…they can buy clicks to their websites. By spending generously, they can flood their opponents out of the market for information. On the Internet today, it’s more and more important to be a well-known and influential voice; it’s hard to court a national audience otherwise. It’s easy to speak freely on the Internet, but it’s hard to get people to listen on the Internet, unless you have a lot of cachet or a lot of cash.

• The problem of anonymity and feedback: On the Internet you can say a lot and not be accountable for the costs. You can spread rumors and lies and do it anonymously. This allows for manipulation, because you could easily slander your opponents without cost (or hire someone to do it for you). In the public sphere you used to take a hit to your reputation if you acted like a bozo or were deliberately misleading. Now, you can very easily devolve conversations by trolling people or blatantly lying, without ever getting caught. This is problematic to democracy, because we may never get over our squabbling long enough to discuss complex or emotionally charged issues.

Complications of Association

In a democracy, groups of people have to associate and find common ground to make decisions. If they don’t, they spend a lot of time arguing. This group of problems outlines how the Internet makes it more difficult for people to “come together.”

• The problem of shared values: Even though the infrastructure of the Internet is centralized, how information proliferates is not centralized, especially as compared to mass media channels like TV or radio. Because there are so many media outlets, there’s no uniform message that everyone in the country really hears. This, I suspect, makes it more difficult to have shared values across a nation. The logic goes, if you’re receiving different information than the people around you, it’s more difficult to be similar to them. This isn’t wholly a bad thing, but if shared values are a boon to collective action and democracy, the Internet will make democracy more difficult.

• The problem of trust and empathy: The Internet makes it possible to isolate yourself physically from communities you don’t want to interact with. Lots of micro interactions no longer have to exist. Take getting somewhere you’ve never been before as an example. You used to have to stop and get directions (thereby interacting with a stranger you wouldn’t have otherwise interacted with). Now, on the other hand, you can just use Google Maps and never have to talk to that direction-giving person again. Because of this ability to physically isolate, I suspect it negatively affects building empathy toward people you can now choose not to interact with. In societies empathy is important so we don’t tear each other apart.

• The problem of self-selecting tribes: This is the intellectual version of the problem of trust and empathy. Basically, you never ever have to read anything you don’t agree with because of the Internet. Researchers are studying this and are finding that folks who consume news in this way tend to be more polarized. Check out this study.

There are also a whole slew of studies about the Internet’s effect on political discourse. (Note, these are really interesting, and a lot of my intuitions are confirmed by these studies).

Complications of Information

In a democracy, political actors and citizens depend on information to make their decisions. This group of problems outlines how the nature of information is changing, and making it harder to execute democratic processes.

• The problem of transparency: Now, it’s possible to access lots of political information because governments are moving toward transparency. By many accounts this is great. What’s difficult about this is that there’s now more information than any individuals can reasonably process, because the data available is overwhelming. We’re starting to have some tools to make sense of this data, but we still have far fewer tools than we need to de-complicate the volume of data that transparency creates.

• The problem of quality and veracity: This is simple; you can’t trust everything you read on the Internet. This makes it easy to pass of lies as the truth. It’s hard to trust new information because so much of it can be crap. As a result, a lot of “crap” information influences our judgment.

How can we show our commitment to Detroit's future?

Detroiters always talk about Detroit - whether that's in the city limits or an another state, like Robyn and I just did with an expat Detroiter living in New Orleans. I actually love talking about Detroit, but why don't we talk about deeper things? In fact, what makes anyone want to talk about deeper things like ideas and beliefs? Our friend Laxmi - also an expat Detroiter -  had an interesting insight into this question because of her experience living in NOLA for the past year. Her logic goes like this, roughly:

An ability to talk about deeper things <--- Trust <---- Time to get to know people <---- Demonstrated commitment to the place in which you are living

I'm paraphrasing the lovely conversation the three of us had, but the gist is that an ability to talk about deeper things with folks in your community you have to demonstrate commitment to the place you are living; deep dialogue implies demonstrated commitment. So, how do you do that? Really...what are your ideas?

----

Here's the reason why I present the question. I don't really know of many ways we demonstrate commitment as Detroiters. What are little (or big) ways we can or already do that? How does one show commitment to a place and an intent to make it better for the long haul?

If we can start to create opportunities for that, I think we'll eventually be able to have much more deeply connected community in Detroit, because we'll have more "real talk". If it'll take a village to make Detroit into a great, 21st century city, it'll take deep conversations in the public sphere. Based on the logic above, that starts with demonstrating commitment.

5 ways to look at Detroit - what speaks to you?

In the past few weeks I've thought about Detroit myself and have been intrigued by the ways others have looked at our fair city (Detroit). These lenses for learning about, exploring, and understanding the City have been very interesting me so I thought I'd share. Which ways of looking at Detroit do you find most interesting and engaging? Do you have any ideas to add about these five or any new lenses of your own? I'd love to hear about them!

How Detroit Will Save America (again)* During the second world war, with its industrial might and capacity to make war, Detroit saved America and even the world. Detroit put the world on wheels and raised millions of Americans out of poverty along the way. That legacy of bold leadership and hard work continues today.

Detroit is a reflection of America and all of its difficulties. Like America Detroit faces gravely serious challenges of economy, race, politics, and, spirituality. Americas greatest challenges all manifest in our city. And as we figure out how to deal with these challenges - swimming through and learning as we go - we will once again be able to lead America forward. That's why America is rooting for Detroit, if we can solve it here the rest of America can too.

That's how Detroit will save America (again).

Detroit: The city of -preneurship One of the great inspirations of Detroit is the ability to create something new and to chart a new path forward. Detroit's entrepreneurs today are like the cowboys and trail blazers of yesteryear, writing their own destiny as they go.

But it's not just entrepreneurship, it's intrapreneurship and social innovation. It's civic leadership and urban development. It's tech nerds and corporate juggernauts and community organizers. Detroit is a city of "-preneurship" whether it's happening at the M@dison building, the neighborhoods, city hall, or at the Big 3. In Detroit, -preneurship is everywhere.

Detroit's Identity is it's People* When you ask a lot of people what they love about Detroit (myself included), they say "the people." But what is the character of a Detroiter? Detroiters are hard working and gritty. They get things done and do it well. They go hard. They hustle.

At they same time, they are passionate and caring. Detroiters pull together and support each other. They are honest and respectful of others. They are loyal and friendly in the fiercest way possible.

In a way, that's what Detroit is, a composition of stories about a set of hard nosed, tough, and wonderful group of people. What defines Detroit is its people.

Detroit vs. Everybody, Detroit vs. Detroit Though it is not polite conversation, one of the ways to understand Detroit is through its interactions with groups outside its borders.

These groups are far ranging and far reaching. It could be Detroit vs. the suburbs, the west side of the state, or Chicago. It could be vs. the federal government or vs. a foreign land. Filling in the phrase "Detroit vs. _________" can lead to any number of opponents or allies.

At the same time Detroit has its own diversity in its many communities. Racially, socially, intellectually, geographically, politically, or religiously, Detroit's diversity is remarkable and complex. To prosper in the future, Detroit must understand what implications Detroit vs. Detroit could have within its borders as well.

Detroit has conflict and collaboration with all the groups I've listed here and more. How Detroit continues to interact with different networks and communities inside and outside its borders will define its future.

We are what's next Detroit, as has been widely reported, is the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history. The next chapter in Detroit's story is being written by as we speak. Post-bankruptcy is Detroit's next era, because the bankruptcy has left an indelible mark on our course in history.

But the future is not being written for us. We can and we will have to write our own history. How we choose to rebound and how we choose to press forward will be our generation's unavoidable legacy. We are what's next and we must, or somebody else will be.

---

* - These are two ideas that I can't take much credit for. Two friends (and colleagues and classmates), Nydia and Tiffani, opened my mind to thinking about Detroit this way, phrasing my own thoughts this way, or both. Shoutout to them!

Talent is Detroit's X-Factor (for entrepreneurship)

For the startup community to succeed in Detroit, our primary goal should be getting the best community of talent that we can. Talented people, not cash, will make or break the startup community in Detroit. --------

PART I - TALENT IS ENTREPRENEURIAL DETROIT'S X-FACTOR*

I think of Detroit's startup community as a school because how both work is similar. In both cases - startups and schools - the fundamental ingredient is the talent of the people in the ecosystem. Here's an explanation of the analogy:

In a school students take resources (books, stimuli, computers, etc.) and convert those resources into something valuable (knowledge: papers, grades, test scores, projects, etc.) with the help of talented peers (other students) and talented mentors (a teacher).

Startup communities are similar.

In a startup community, entrepreneurs take resources (information, money, space, labs, etc.) and convert those resources into something valuable (products and services: software, hardware, media, algorithms, etc.) with the help of talented peers (other entrepreneurs) and talented mentors (successful entrepreneurs, VCs, consultants, etc.)

The structure of both is the same - In any learning community, like schools or startup ecosystems, agents take resources and convert those resources into something valuable with the help of talented peers and talented mentors.

Notice that people are the critical ingredient. Talented people with few resources produce things that are much more valuable than great resources with people who lack ability. Resources don't become valuable on their own, people make resources valuable.

In a startup community, talent seems to matter for a few main reasons (I tip my hat to my entrepreneur friends - Stu, Scott, Max, Erik, Reid, Al etc. for helping me understand this over time.)

• Getting a team - starting a company is really, really hard. You need a good team to do it, and if you don't have smart people around you, you're sunk. Moreover, once you get started, you need talented people to work for you. It's really hard to hire people from across the country, compared to getting good referrals from some friends nearby
• Getting help - Like I said, starting a company is really, really hard. You need good people outside your company for when you need to solve a problem that nobody inside your company can figure out
• Getting inspiration - Even getting to the point of a good idea isn't easy. People get inspired by talking to other smart people and learning things they never knew before

Talent will make the difference for entrepreneurship in Detroit. Indeed, it is our most precious asset.

For what it's worth, I'm not suggesting that the people here are dumb. There are actually a lot of smart folks, and I'm not so sure about the not so smart people. What I am suggesting is that there aren't enough smart folks here; we don't have a critical mass of really talented people.

I'm also suggesting that VC financing, incubators, and the like are NOT our most important assets.

PART II - BUY IT OR BUILD IT

There are only two ways to get talent - buy it, or build it. Detroit should probably do both.

Buying It

The idea here is offering incentives to get stars to come to you. Think of the New York Yankees. Stereotypically, this is what they do. The pay good players insane amounts of money to come to a team of stars. Their salary costs are unreal, but you can expect the Yankees to win games...and they do.

As you can guess, this approach is expensive. The startup community is no different.

To get stars (people with a lot of talent that have a higher chance of success) here, investors would have to take crummy valuations (i.e., take an equity stake in the company at a higher rate than an investor in another geography would have to) on those deals. If they don't take crummy valuations (or overpay in some other way), those star entrepreneurs will never come, because the talent in our ecosystem isn't yet as rich as those in SF, NYC, etc.

Here's the kicker though.

You have to overpay like crazy to get really good people, because kind of good people don't make a huge difference. If you don't get really good people into your ecosystem, you might as well have not "bought" that talent in the first place, because those almost-stars don't make the ecosystem better.

The idea behind buying talent is this: overpay to get star talent -> connect them to other people in the ecosystem -> others in the ecosystem benefit from their talent and get better.

Building it

The idea here is helping average people learn and grow at a hyper accelerated rate. Think of a boot camp exercise class at a gym. You come into it in poor shape and you do lots of reps of lots of different exercises. You, and the group you're in, get better faster because you learn from each other and push each other harder. Not everyone get better at the same rate, and not everyone gets more fit. But with a sufficiently large sample size and a lot of reps, some people will become beastly fit.

As you can guess, this approach takes a lot of discipline to commit to. There's a lot of failure and learning that happens. If you're applying this analogy to a startup community, you can't expect every company to make it and "get fit." You have to tolerate a lot of failure in hopes that some people will learn really quickly and become strong pillars for the rest of the community.

Here's the kicker though.

If you take this approach, you can't expect results right way. You have to invest in people learning (which means they won't make money right away, and they may never). And, you also have to stay committed to investing in this learning - even if it takes awhile - otherwise the results will never come.

The idea behind building talent is this: invest in failure and other things that help people learn quickly -> People get better a lot faster -> some people make it and some people don't -> the ones that do make it will make the rest of the ecosystem better

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Here are a few observations and hypotheses for the Detroit entrepreneurial community:

• Connected Networks Make It Possible - Either approach doesn't work unless there are connections across the entrepreneurship community and even beyond. These networks don't form effectively if they're not open. Which is why incubators kind of throw me for a loop - they're semi-private communities, and semi-private communities easily become elitist and siloed (if they're not actively managed not to be). Siloed communities, as we know, are really hard places to learn. I'm a much bigger fan of open meetups a la meetup.com or Detroit Startup Drinks (full disclosure: a lot of the Detroit Startup Drinks folks are friends of mine). Semi-private and open communities are both important for different reasons. I just don't see as many open communities as I do semi-private ones and that's kind of unsettling.

• You can't have your cake and eat it too - When trying to build talent, I see people falling fool to a fallacy. The people (particularly in the social sector) want to back winners, and fund people who will be successful. That would be sensible, if we already had a robust community of talent in Detroit. We don't. People investing in the entrepreneurial community here have to encourage failure and reflection, because failure is when the most learning happens. You can't build talent without failure. We don't have people who invest in failure (and the learning that comes with it). That's something we desperately need.

• Buying talent - We haven't really tried this, have we? Stik was brought in from SF, and the guy who started D:hive was brought in from Chattanooga. I can't think of any other examples (please correct me). Why haven't we tried to buy more stars? Starting VCs and social investment funds are useless for us in Detroit if the capital isn't being used to buy talent or to build talent. We're don't have enough depth of talent to just expect results from our investments. I think we're wasting our time (and money) if we aren't investing in the best learning / talent development opportunities. Moreover, I get this feeling that Detroiters think that everything here has to be home grown and that the city can "go it alone" without help from the outside. I think that getting some interesting folks here from other places would be smart, and also pretty cool.

Especially because I've taken some strong stances, I welcome your pushback!

*Note - In this post I'm talking about the tech / high growth entrepreneurial community. Fort the most part, I'm not talking about social entrepreneurship / innovation or small service firms like restaurants, coffee shops, yoga studios, dry cleaners, etc.

I'd also like to shoutout to my friend Stu who explained a lot of these points in a way that congealed them in my head. The good ideas in this post are mostly because of him.