Here are some observations and insights that were shared on social media this past fortnight. I call these Friday’s Finds.
@morgenpaul – “Psst … Your people are not your greatest asset; they’re not yours and they’re not assets. Let’s treat them like people.”
So the question is not whether robots and computers will make human labour in the goods, high-tech services, and information-producing sectors infinitely more productive. They will. What really matters is whether the jobs outside of the robot-computer economy – jobs involving people’s mouths, smiles, and minds – remain valuable and in high demand.
General principles and specific rule-based systems have no value for creating a winning strategy. You can try and develop one before battle starts and hope you have it all figured out, but you must also have in place a way to change as battle changes the table..
All you can do is create an organization that can quickly adapt and respond to the changing conditions. The winners of any battle seen today are those that can most rapidly adjust.
I personally find it impossible to dig really deep to find my assumptions by myself. I need someone who questions me in a way that demands I look deeper. It’s usually a friend or colleague that I respect who can do this best for me. That’s why I have said that a Practice Partner is an essential crew member of any journey where you are seeking new knowledge or insight – or innovation.
Why have these companies run into so many problems? Part of the reason is that they think of themselves as online companies — yet they mostly operate in the offline world.
They subscribe to three core business principles that have become a religion in Silicon Valley: Serve as a middleman, employ as few people as possible and automate everything. Those tenets have worked wonders on the web at companies like Google and Twitter. But as the new, on-demand companies are learning, they are not necessarily compatible with the real world.
A huge gulf exists in farmer attitudes toward science. Growers clearly accept the scientific evidence that modified food is safe while rejecting the scientific evidence that climate change is real and caused by human activity. And this chasm is driven by simple economics. One finding makes farmers money, but the other doesn’t — yet.