Innovation

I Am Not a Business, Man!

I Am Not a Business, Man!

/

Written by Philip McKenzie and Michael Brooks

“This ain’t no tall order, this is nothin to me
Difficult takes a day, impossible takes a week
I do this in my sleep,
I sold Kilos of coke, (so?) I’m guessin’ I can sell CD’s
I’m not a businessman; I’m a business, man
Let me handle my business, damn!” – Jay-Z, Diamonds from Sierra Leone (remix)

The above quote from Jay-Z is not only a great example of the type of clever wordplay the rapper is known for; it also explains the guiding idea of our times. Jay-Z, isn’t simply a successful musician or even entrepreneur, instead he is an embodiment of business itself. This is no simply braggadocio, Jay-Z in that one line has reversed engineered what corporations have long sought to do which is have themselves classified as people. Jay-Z is a person heralding himself as a corporation. In today’s economy it isn’t just Jay-Z who is a “business, man” you are too, and with respect to Jay’s lyrically capacity this is bad news for our economy, social and ecological lives. But, first back to Jay.

Given his rags to riches story, and his extreme financial success this boast is one of pride. He has beaten the odds and achieved what few ever could. This is a very traditional American narrative wrapped in Jay-Z’s own particular charisma. But, the line goes deeper than rags to riches and points to a market philosophy that has created mass insecurity, skyrocketing inequality and forced each of us to define personal brands and identities in a competitive and complex marketplace. This philosophy and decades of Neo-liberal policy has made our existence as mini-businesses rather than human beings more and more a reality.

Corporations loom larger than ever in our national discourse. Huge multinationals dominate not only our economic reality but our social reality as well. In the past, a corporate job came with stability and benefits (healthcare, pensions). In an economy still dealing with a new corporate reality post-2008 meltdown, that stability is a thing of the past. Not only did the crisis not reign a runaway corporate sector it broadly reinforced its power.

Corporations in their current incarnation leave more and more of their workforce unprotected with no sign of that trend reversing. Our public policy discourse advocates continued dismantling of the social welfare state leaving citizens with fewer options. Even those businesses that proclaim to “disrupt” the old way of doing things are more of the same. The so-called “Sharing Economy” populated by companies such as Uber, Lyft, AirBnB and others often find themselves aligned with those whose rallying cry is de-regulation at all cost. As the marginal cost of production nears zero are these companies best equipped to provide long term viable work. And how are we defining viable? Is it merely an economic measurement i.e. minimum wage/salary or does it address the quality of our work. Are we doing work that is meaningful not only to ourselves but to the world that we live in.

Where does that leave us? How does one compete in an environment when we are all charged with becoming a business? The implication of this on our psychological, physical and financial well-being is precarious at best.

If we are to assume we are businesses, then we are in a constant state of branding and product launch. Even if that product is us. In a zero-sum capitalist model how do we collaborate if each of us is running their own going concern? The popular edict that triumphs business success over all else is problematic when applied to human beings. The same rules don’t apply, nor should they.

We should not be driven by the whims of a marketplace that favors the monied, the privileged and the powerful. After all, if a business fails we are taught a better business will take its place. But what about those of us in our society who are “failing”? Absent employment options, social services, educational opportunities we cannot merely write them off as poor corporate citizens. In order to confront increasingly daunting social realities we must not reject our humanity instead we should unapologetically embrace it. Technocrats want to reduce us to streams of data removing us from our flesh and blood selves. This too must be rejected. Adopting the language of the powerful is not by default an empowering act. We are in the midst of writing an incredible new story capturing how we see ourselves and the world around us. One of the first chapters must be to reject the notion that we, as a common humanity, are a business, man!

Diversity: Lip Service Is Not Enough

Diversity: Lip Service Is Not Enough

/

Diversity is a maligned word depending on its use and context. If diversity is being used to describe a set of experiences that can potentially add value then it is almost unequivocally a good thing. Recruiters and companies are constantly touting how much they value candidates that can pull from a host of diverse experiences. Diverse life experiences are also heralded as being part of the makeup for living an “interesting life”. The individual who has climbed mountain peaks, bungee jumped & partied in exotic locales is perceived as having achieved a diverse mix of experiences that make for a potentially eclectic worldview. We can vary on degree, but the idea that this type of diversity is generally positive is clear. Switch the focus to diversity among people, whether via race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. and the slope becomes more slippery. We might agree in some vague notions diversity might be a good thing, but outside of a rainbow colored room, how “good” is it? If various groups and individuals assign a certain level of importance to the principle of diversity how does it happen so rarely? I believe, this disconnect occurs because (1) failure to highlight and promote how diversity adds measurable value in professional, academic and creative circles and (2) disingenuous “champions” of diversity whose agenda seeks to support the status quo rather than upend it.

An honest and effective commitment to diversity requires heavy lifting. It requires that individually or as an organization there is recognition that diversity is not a “numbers game” but a “values game”. If the assumption is that a diverse community makes us smarter and better then it must be part of the DNA of your organization. Values are our guiding principles, and diversity as a value must be baked into the mix of other principles that are deemed important. This will ensure that on all levels diversity is taken into account and is part of the planning, strategy, and execution vital to the success of the organization.

Many so-called proponents of diversity are actually ill equipped or disinterested in contextualizing diversity as a conversation around values rather than representation. I spent the formative years of my post-MBA career working on Wall Street at the arguably premiere firm, Goldman, Sachs. The firm aspired to a diverse workplace but like almost every Wall Street firm (and most of the Fortune 500 as well) fell well short of their ambition. These gaps only widened at the senior level. I remember as a young college student looking up the “Top 10 Blacks on Wall Street” and then my dismay at realizing almost 6 years later virtually no change in that list. The “Highlander Effect” was firmly in place and it was clear the prevailing notion was “there can only be one” when it came to diversity. Some progress has been made but not nearly enough relative to our lip service regarding the importance of diversity. Let’s be clear, Wall Street is an easy scapegoat but across almost all corporate America the story is the same, no one is above critique. Often the supporters of diversity are merely advocating for a few more seats at an exclusive table. In essence, they become a select few invited into the conversation while the underlying system remains unchanged. It would make more sense to question whether the table is worth sitting at in the first place. If the status quo is not prepared, capable or willing to have a conversation that elevates diversity then we risk more wasted energy. We have to build a new “status quo” where those who truly value diversity (in the DNA) are supported. There is evidence across the board that diversity is important if we want organizational optimization, just read here, here and here. If we accept this premise, then lip service not only falls short but also is harmful to the advancement of diversity. It reinforces the self-serving behavior of those who trumpet diversity for the many while solely interested in the diversity of the individual…themselves.

These are remarkable times; transparency and access to information allow us to know more than ever about the people and organizations we interact with. More frequently, people around the world are making values based decisions. They are looking to align their personal choices with others who share their value system. This offers an incredible incentive to advance diversity as a core value and truly move the dial for the type of inclusion that will benefit everyone.

Gatekeepers vs. Gatecrashers: Our Global Theme

Gatekeepers vs. Gatecrashers: Our Global Theme

/

New York, NY – It’s a pleasure to announce the theme for our upcoming global Influencer Conference series. Developing a theme takes time, and countless fits and starts until you land on a concept that “feels right”. In order to accomplish that, the theme must be relevant to all our audience, our partners and align with our values. I think we have managed to do that and much more.

Our theme is “Gatekeepers/crashers: Thriving or Dying?” You can read our descriptive brief here:

The advent of technology and digital media was supposed to herald the end of the age of gatekeepers. The 21st century promised the democratization of communication and access.
Now, almost 15 years into a new century, it begs the question whether that has that truly been the case? Has the power and privilege of gatekeepers subsided or, has the expansion of technology actually had the opposite effect, increasing their reach and power?

For all of the talk of the democratization of the creative process, gatekeepers are more firmly entrenched than ever. How do creators of arts based culture navigate and succeed, as the gates get higher? How do well-meaning gatekeepers connect to and enhance existing cultural ecosystems? We pull the covers back and reveal the true machinations behind culture, commerce and influence by bringing gatekeepers and gatecrashers face to face…a modern day showdown between new age Visigoths and their roman emperor counterparts. 

Friction between gatekeepers/crashers lies at the center of our creative, social, and economic lives. In fact, one could argue as sector and industry designations blur it is more of a challenge to determine who serves which function. In fact, one could argue that at different times and under different circumstances organizations and individuals can wear both hats.

The recent Supreme Court decision of McCutcheon v. FEC and the F.C.C’s flagging interest in protecting net neutrality highlight how precarious the common interest are relative to corporate design. Cultural spaces are not immune as music, film, and other creative endeavors have more participants than ever giving the appearance of democratization even as they wrestle with fewer effective channels to gain traction and attention for their work. Even an artist as prolific as Kanye West feels constrained in his creativity. In an interview with radio/TV Host Sway, Mr. West details the frustration he encounters dealing with gatekeepers. The back and forth between the two men, which is sometimes contentious highlights the yin and yang between creativity, commerce and access. This brought home how important this is. If a globally relevant artist like Kanye is dealing with these issues, what about the rest of us?  In another telling quote Kanye West says this

“It’s mixing creativity with the fight like an athlete. Like it’s okay for the athletes to fight and push it, but they want the creative people to shut-up and be quiet. But these are the people with the real ideas that can actually change, can reorganize, can design cities, can restructure a curriculum, you know, can make life easier. And that’s the part of the game I want to be in: the making life more awesome.” October 28, Los Angeles’ 97.1 AMP Radio

“Creatives” are fighting to be heard, but who are they fighting against (or for), and why? Over the next few months through salons, essays, and finally our global conference we’ll confront the shifting landscape between gatekeepers/crashers across industry and creative disciplines in order to map our collective future.

Welcome to the journey.