(really) entrepreneureal

I just read an article about Mike Rowe (of Dirty Jobs fame) in the latest issue of Outside magazine.  Other than the fact that I love Rowe’s quirky, aw-shucks sense of humor and general approach to life and all things feces, I was struck by one of the quotes highlighted in the article (which happens to come from a FastCompany article):

‘Follow your passion’ is the worst advice you can give someone… Had I ever even bothered to define what that was, this never would have worked out.

Definitely an interesting thought, especially because us Gen-Y-ers are consistently egged on to follow our passion and hearts wherever they might take us (and chances are that won’t be any of the dirty jobs Rowe gets to try out).  This is interesting, too, because it turns the “find your passion and you will be happy philosophy” on its head.  Rowe goes on to point out that every single person he profiles, from the gourd maker to the fish farmer to the sewer cleaner to the ostrich raiser, first found something they could do well, and then, with a dollop of time and a pinch of patience (and oftentimes poo), built a solid passion around it.

What’s so contrary about this statement is that it re-imagines passion as something to be nurtured over time. Not as the flash-in-the-pan, go-down-in-flames-with-nary-a-care-in-the-world passion that we read about in books or see on the silver screen.

I, for one, am not sure whether Rowe has it right.  Sure, he became really good at one thing (off-the-cuff humoristic monologues on any topic under the sun) and managed to turn it into something meaningful, but his story does creak a little under scrutiny: first, the dirty jobs he takes as proof-positive that a seemingly dull task can engender passion envision a future where everyone does menial work.  So, what, that ex-day trader should take up goat castrating because he happens to be good with a blade? I exaggerate, but the point needs to be made: well-paying labor that is at first blush a little boring does not necessarily make sense for the average person (or, indeed, passion make).  Second, it took Rowe 47 years to “make it”; how is that for a lesson to teach others? Wander along aimlessly for half a century and then you might find your passion?  There has to be a better, potentially faster, way.

For the time being, I’ll stick with passion for passion’s sake.  How about you?

This idea of connective tissue has started popping up of late. For example, while we tend to focus on the things that are easy to see and recognize (successes, failures, Black Swans, Purple Cows), sometimes it’s the space between, the things we don’t see, that are most important.

The current financial crisis shows this particularly well: look at what happens when nobody pays attention to the connective tissue binding the economy.  Trust without accountability.  Lots of money changing hands without transparency.  The end result is a system built on a web of connective tissue that destroys rather than positively reinforces.

The same goes for everything around us.  Failing personal relationship?  Probably aren’t paying enough attention to the connective tissue (i.e. love, trust, honesty, individuality).  Struggling at work?  Be mindful of negative work relationships, habits, and the fact that the work you’re in might not actually be suited for the connective tissue that makes you happy.  A friend of mine left the hedge fund world because she couldn’t stand the duplicity, stress and backstabbing – sounds like the connective tissue wasn’t the kind she needed.

All this can also be much simpler than financial systems, personal relationships, and work environment: what do you do with your “connecting” time?  Do you sit on the bus listening to music on an iPod every day, or do you sometimes take the time to read something, strike up a conversation with someone new, or think positively about the future?

What does your connective tissue look like?

I’ve noticed a trend of late in web design: a shift toward edgier, more unconvential navigation, with a distinct injection of humor, sarcasm, and playfulness.

Let’s take a look – first up is Neutron, a San Francisco branding firm:

OK, this is a branding firm (so we can expect it to be edgier), but in many ways Neutron is flouting the basic tenets of “good” web design: clear language that users expect (and understand), a standard columned layout – all of which make it clear what a user is supposed to do next (i.e. click here, scroll over this or whatever). It gets clearer when you mouse over the text, which is almost impossible not to do (and this is good):

Click on the link, and things start to look more normal.  Standard blocks of text, a more sectioned layout…

But look a little closer, and the quirkier side of the company starts to show through:

Note the non-standard language: “What is” instead of “About us”, “Where is” instead of “Contact us” (which is where we usually find the requisite google map), and best of all… Read the rest of this entry »

I’m currently in Quebec, Canada, and have been having a great time visiting family, seeing friends, and eating poutine.  The one thing I do miss, however, is something I take totally for granted back in San Francisco: connectivity.

Always connected to the web in some way, either through my trusty MacBook Pro, slick – but battered – iPhone, or even those cool internet touch-tables at Tully’s, I’m never far from the trusted internets and Facebook, Twitter, all my blog feeds and gmail.

Arrive in Montreal, and the first thing I notice is how much I hate AT&T for charging an arm and a leg for data packages.  Airport mode and international data roaming off?  Yes please.  Secondly, I’m amazed at how few people have iPhones or other smartphones.  Because mobile internet access is so costly here, the number of people with traditional brickphones is astoundingly high – at least from an afternoon stroll through Montreal.

Get to Quebec City, and it’s even worse.  Read the rest of this entry »

I just spent two days helping facilitate a design charrette for a client.  The idea was to put a range of interesting people and potential partners in the room and get them to weigh in on the client’s new business concept.  We purposefully chose a diverse group for the meetings in order to get a good spread of opinions and ideas, and to create a unique networking opportunity for everyone. I think we succeeded on every front.

Halfway through the second day, though, it occurred to me that I was in a room chock-full of “weak ties”; which, if you read my last post, you’ll know should make for interesting results.  It also struck me as having an awfully powerful effect given that every single participant was being exposed to something new: a unique business model, a novel technology, a different growth trajectory.  There was nothing linking people in the room other than that they were all in a thoroughly unique context – and loving it.

In discussing the phenomenon with one of the participants, we came to the conclusion that people don’t change their contexts often enough, or even realize that there are other options out there!  An organization hires consultants to identify weak spots (because it can’t get out of its context), or someone goes to a therapist for guidance and support.  There are examples of how contextual shifts can be beneficial, but overall it seems we are poorly conditioned into acknowledging that all we often need is a change of context, pace, or perspective to come up with new ideas and solutions to life’s challenges.

So this might work fine for the savvy businessperson, or the 20-something who is able to soak up change like a sponge – but how can we begin to think about teaching context-changing to everyone, from 2 to 92?  How do we design concerted contextual change on a large scale?

Thoughts, ideas?

I was just gabbing with Damon from Web3dStudents.org (a great organization that you should definitely check out.  For Damon’s sharp-witted musings on the Open Metaverse and the future of mixed reality, check him out here) about the upcoming election, and how it’s resulting in a revelation for him by airing all sorts of skeletons from closets he didn’t even realize were out there.  The first skeleton to rear its ugly (bony) head?

People aren’t as smart as we would like to think.

This isn’t meant as an intellectual attack, or a condescending critique of the brainpower of the average American, but more of a realization that the image of semi-sophistication we are presented by the various media outlets (like newspapers, op-eds, blogs, heck, even political commentary on FOX News) does not represent the majority.  In fact, the Bubba interviews that we get on local news (”Uhhh, I didn’t ree-uh-lize that mah vee-hicle would do that”) are likely more representative, if that isn’t scary enough.

Second skeleton?

There is an intellectual disconnect between the local and the international.

What do I mean by this?  Well, it goes like this: a certain country gains its independence from an old colonial power.  This same country then proceeds to dominate two world wars, while simultaneously building up a reputation – and a world market – around its industrial, and then technological, prowess.  The country constantly teeters at the top of the world economic order, as well as the shit list of every terrorist on the planet (or so some would have you believe).  Now, it totally makes sense to assume that such a magnificent country, with such an amazing reputation and indisputable track record of economic and technological success, would be built on the backs of total geniuses.  Right?  Riiiiight?!

Wrong.

We constantly make the fundamental mistake of assuming that the global presence of an industrial power is mirrored in its people, when this could never really be the case.  Think about it: the knowledge of those behind the Agricultural sector (farmers), the Finance sector (analysts), even the damn WalMart sector (average Joes and Janes) is super specific and, let’s face it, often super limited.  The complex intellectual arguments that take place at the global level around geo-politics, international finance, international development, etc., these are all anomalies, and must appear like a foreign language to avid FOX News watchers.  And can we imagine a world run by academics, or moguls like Branson?  Our corn fields would die, we would live and die by the next white paper and, to top it all off, we’d be in jail (and then maybe make a billion dollars. Maybe).

There are countries out there that are banking (future pun intended) their reputations on the backs of exactly this fact of life: Dubai, Singapore, Switzerland, etc.  These countries have the benefit of hindsight, and the flexibility (usually linked to their small size) to adapt to the changing reality on the ground, and are consciously choosing to evolve and progress along a different path.  Unfortunately, many countries don’t have this luxury – especially those dependent on the industrial and economic backbones that got them this far.

So, does this mean we’re screwed?  Well, whether we vote for Sarah Palin or not, it would seem that the correlation between international success in the long term and local smarts isn’t exactly set in stone.  If anything, it’s a recognition that the sum truly is greater than the parts, and that even dispersed individuals who wouldn’t know France from a frenulum sometimes get it right.

Good riddance.