Twitter matters because it is a stethoscope

Twitter has a stratospheric valuation based on the fact that it can sell advertisements to its expansive user base. And that makes sense for investors. But I think that model of Twitter - as a microphone for advertisers - misses the platform's real power as a stethoscope for institutions to listen directly to the masses. Think about it. The POTUS, the Pope, and the Dalai Lama are all on Twitter. Multinational corporations are on Twitter. Celebrities and even airlines you want to complain about are on Twitter. You can tweet at all of those folks and they might actually respond.

I have personally engaged with really interesting people and institutions on Twitter that I've never met in person. It's incredibly liberating to have access to institutions with power. Never before in history has it been easier for an individual without formal power (read: people like me) to collaborate with those that have lots of it.

That flipping of the model could be world-changing, and I'd argue it has been already. Twitter doesn't seem to have done that intentionally, but that's what's happened.

Twitter is trying to make gobs of money by giving advertisers the ability to shout their shouts as loudly as possible. But wouldn't it be interesting (and more valuable) if Twitter instead focused on helping institutions listen instead of shout?

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

• Do "the masses" really have an appetite to share their opinions, ideas, and stories? Do institutions have an appetite to listen?
• If "the masses" really do care about sharing their opinions, ideas, and stories, why don't they now? For example, civic participation isn't exactly rampant in the USA.

Why society depends on love

I thank God everyday for the unconditional love I have in my life. I'm so lucky to have a girlfriend, family, and friends who love me even when I do stupid things or am sinful. And yes, it feels good to be so loved, but there's a societal benefit to that love as well - it tames my human instinct for greed. I, like anyone else, have impulses that I'm not proud of. Let's take business school as an example. Being in business school, I've learned a lot about how to make money. As a result, I've developed a strong ambition to make money, make impact, and make things happen. On the one hand, this ambition is important because it compels me to act and give effort toward things. On the other hand, it compels me to take, and take ruthlessly.

If unchecked, this ambition will become greed. I know this to be true, because it's a theme that runs throughout history. I am not immune to this the fallibility of human nature.

And that's where love comes in. It checks my ambition and greed.

The love that Robyn, my family, friends, and even strangers sometimes, give me is not something I feel afraid of losing. I feel secure in it and know it is there to catch me when I am at my lowest. It's something I can lean on.

That love is enough for me to be happy. Even if I'm not successful in my career or in other pursuits, having and giving love fills me up. Because I have and give love, I do not have to worry about replacing the space it occupies with money, prestige, or power.

This is good, because when money, prestige, and power become an end in themselves, it makes us do funny things. It makes us behave unethically and robotically. At best, the lust for money, prestige, and power stress us out. At worst, that lust will drive us to madness.

Even though, I think hippy-dippy interpretations about love in society are bit superficial, I think those that talk about society needing more love are on to something. Love isn't just something that's nice to have as an individual. Because it's a calming force that tempers greed and the darkest parts of our humanity, love is something society depends on.

Jobs pay a lot when they suck

I don't think a high salary necessarily indicates that a job is "better." Most of the time, I think jobs are high-paying because they suck. Of course, I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but, here's what I mean.

Let's say there's a dollar value, let's call it $I (for income), and $I is the average amount of money people in America need to have a pretty good life. Nothing super fancy, but something nice enough that the average person is happy with.

Now, why would anyone take a job that pays more than $I per year? After all, if you're happy with I, why bother doing something that requires more effort (which is presumably the case because you're getting paid more).

There are two types of reasons:

1) Because you're awesome 2) Because the job sucks

BECAUSE YOU'RE AWESOME You might take this job for more money, because you're valuable. Maybe you have a special set of skills and therefore, companies have to pay you more because of competition in the marketplace. If they don't pay you a premium, someone else will. You get paid more because you're awesome.

This is ideal, because you're not sacrificing anything to get higher pay. You're happy, and you are really skilled so you get paid more. Wonderful.

BECAUSE THE JOB SUCKS An alternative explanation for taking the job that pays more than $I per year is that something about the job makes it less desirable. Maybe it's because you have to work many hours, or the work is physically demanding. Maybe it's boring or worse, maybe it's not meaningful. Maybe it's humiliating or dehumanizing work. Maybe the job is difficult and you're likely to fail. Maybe the work/company isn't prestigious. Maybe it's stressful.

In this scenario, if the company doesn't pay you a premium you wouldn't want to do the job. You get paid more because the job sucks.

In reality, the wage we're all paid is probably a mix of both - being awesome and the desirability of the job. If you  have a high paying job it's worth asking yourself, and I direct this at my MBA classmates, is your job REALLY paying you a premium because you're awesome, or because the job sucks?

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

• How much of our educational life prepares us for being awesome, and how much of it prepares us for dealing with stuff that "sucks?"
• What careers do you think are the most desirable? How much does it pay? Does it seem high or low, why?
• Are there other reasons why some jobs pay a premium?

Detroit is not a laboratory

Detroit is not a laboratory, but we should be scientists. Here's some explanation about where I'm coming from. DETROIT IS NOT A LABORATORY

One of the narratives I've heard about Detroit, especially when stories about Detroit are told to those not currently living here, is that Detroit is a laboratory. It's a blank slate, a place where enterprising folks can experiment and make something for themselves. Detroit, the story goes, is the new wild, wild west and a low-cost place to take risks and try something new.

That's not exactly true because Detroit is precisely NOT a blank slate. The City was founded in 1701. It had over 1.5 million residents at its peak, and there are still over 700k that live within the city limits - not to mention the many more in the metro area. Detroit already has a culture, and monuments, artifacts, and history. It has major sports teams, and Universities. We've started cultural, economic, and social movements in our storied history.

Detroit is the opposite of a blank slate.

I mention this because talking about Detroit as a blank slate / laboratory can make locals feel marginalized - like they're in a petri dish, under observation, and without agency. More and more, I feel that way too when folks talk about Detroit as a "laboratory."

BUT WE SHOULD BE SCIENTISTS

That said, there are lots of people - both long-time residents, and new comers - trying new things and figuring out what works to make life in the City better. And I think that's great. Detroit isn't a city that works for everyone. It can be better, it can "rise from the ashes" as we Detroit's like to say.

The way we get there is being scientists - by observing, listening, trying, failing, succeeding, learning, and sharing. Being a scientist doesn't have to mean treating the city - and those in it - like part of an experiment. What it does mean being curious, humble, and learning by doing.

I'd also say that "being scientists" is part of who we are as Detroit's. We've always been creative people, who work hard and build new things. And so we should.

It's not lost on me that this is a subtle distinction, but I think it's an important one.

When Facebook isn't free

I've been asking friends a simple question over the past month: if Facebook started charging a monthly fee, what's the most you'd be willing to pay? Take a second and think about your answer.

Most people I talked to, unsurprisingly, said $0 is the maximum they'd pay for Facebook. 1-3 people said they'd pay $5 a month for Facebook, assuming all their friends stayed on the site.

This is remarkable to me, because so many people are on Facebook and people spend so much time on Facebook. In fact, the average American spends 40 minutes on Facebook, according to a July 2014 report. That's a remarkable amount of time for something that's close to value-less, based on the results of my straw poll.

Why do you think this is the case?

I'd contend because Facebook is free. The thing is, it's not. Time has a tremendous opportunity cost - there's so much other stuff you can be doing with time. Especially when you think of Facebook time in aggregate - what would you do with an extra 250 hours a year?

Perhaps that's also why folks use Facebook profusely. It's hard to imagine what you would do with an extra 300 hours a year. It's less daunting to just use Facebook, than to go through the deep reflection required to imagine new possibilities for your own life. We don't exactly live in a society with that's facilitating of that sort of imaginative visioning, unless you grow up with uncommon privileges.

That's a deeper issue, I'd say, than the fact that folks use Facebook a lot. What would it take to create a world where people are more likely to imagine a different future for themselves, rather than use that time on Facebook?

Enter, the liberal arts.

Knowledge, Skills, Wisdom (and Liberal Arts)

I've been fairly amazed by the proliferation of online learning platforms, like Coursera, Skillshare, Khan Academy, and others. They're remarkable, I think, because they decouple "learning" from needing to interact with a person in real-time. You can learn from a screen and/or a computer and still have it be more interactive than a book.

As a quick point of reference, I'd argue there are (roughly) three types of things we learn:

• Knowledge - awareness and understanding of a topic. Knowledge answers what something is.
  • Sample Online Platforms: Coursera, Khan Academy
• Skills - an ability required to complete a task. Skills are an answer for how to do something.
  • Sample Online Platforms: Skillshare, CodeAcademy
• Wisdom - a virtue which helps decide what to do. Wisdom is an answer for why to do one thing versus another.
  • Sample Online Platforms: Do you know of any?

If you look at online learning platforms, you'll find that most platforms fall into the knowledge and skills categories. The only platforms that come close to developing wisdom are things like TED and BigThink and even so only with certain talks. TED and BigThink are more like insights - when other people share their wisdom. True wisdom, I'd argue, is something which must be internalized.

The thing is, developing wisdom takes practice, thoughtfulness, self-awareness, and reflection. It takes asking tough questions and sitting with them. It takes a broad diversity of people and disciplines around you to develop.

Wisdom is the stuff of deep truths. Developing it is hard. I think that's why you find plenty of online platforms exchanging knowledge and skills but few, if any, developing wisdom.

HIGHER ED

It seems to me that colleges and universities can't win if they hang their hat on distributing knowledge and skills unless they do most of it cheaply on digital platforms. Online courses for knowledge and skills will always be cheaper than in-person ones.

What colleges and universities can win on is wisdom. They can offer meaningful experiences and a diverse community. They can offer mentors and teachers. They can provide coaching and external influences. In other words, they can provide the right environment for students to develop wisdom through practice.

They also have the liberal arts. Because of its diversity, propensity to uncover truths and deep questions, and it's depth, it seems to me that the liberal arts are essential to developing wisdom.

Even if you're an engineer, business person, doctor, or lawyer, the liberal arts are essential. Why? Because the liberal arts cultivate wisdom.

--- photo credit: Russ Allison Loar via photopin cc  

Exploring Business Strategy via Fantasy Football Drafting

When deciding on a business strategy, it's important to choose the right target and frame challenges correctly. In fantasy football, for example, you can frame the objective when drafting in one of two ways (note that I'm thinking of a standard draft, not an auction draft): 1. Draft the players who will score the most points 2. Draft the team that will score the most points, against my opponent, week after week

Here's how the drafting strategy changes based on how you frame the objective -

If your objective is draft the players who score the most points, you:

• Draft stars because they score a lot of points
• Draft players who are anchors of their respective teams because they are perceived to score more points
• Draft sleepers because you want to get more value for your pick (and appear to be smarter than your friends)
• Draft kickers and defenses in late rounds because they usually score low amounts of points

My objective is to draft a team which scores the most points, against my opponent, week after week. So, this is how I draft my team:

• Draft stars because they score a lot of points (duh)
• Draft players on teams that are expected to win games (this reduces variability because if the team is better, they will likely score more points, even if they aren't at the top of the depth chart of their individual team). If you've ever drafted an offensive starter on the Oakland Raiders you know where I'm coming from
• Avoid players who have had major injuries or off-the-field issues (Ray Rice, AP, anyone?)
• Draft players in contract years (because they are more motivated to do well)
• Spread out bye weeks (so you can prevent having two stars out of your lineup in the same week)
• Draft defenses and kickers early (their expected value is higher) You play defenses and kickers 16 out of 17 weeks so they end up being higher contributors than a bench player you only play during bye-weeks. Also, there's less depth at those positions so drafting late gets you lemons
• When trying to draft sleepers, determine how the team has improved in the offseason to determine whether the player is now surrounded by better teammates

I've had fairly good results once adopting this strategy, but my fantasy football strategy is beside the point. The point is, how you frame your objective dramatically affects your business strategy. So choose the right one.

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.