But then we would miss out on the brilliance of your exposition Mike! :-)

M

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 9:50 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Futurework] Re: NYTimes.com: The Start-Up of You




Sally wrote:

> The Start-Up of You
> By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/opinion/13friedman.html

>From the article:

    Hoffman argues that professionals need an entirely new mind-set
    and skill set to compete.  "The old paradigm of climb up a stable
    career ladder is dead and gone," he said to me. "No career is a
    sure thing anymore. The uncertain, rapidly changing conditions in
    which entrepreneurs start companies is what it's now like for all
    of us fashioning a career. Therefore you should approach career
    strategy the same way an entrepreneur approaches starting a
    business."

That's fine for "professionals".  No, wait, it's not fine.  It's not fine
but it's sort of okay.  Professors, physicians, engineers, scientists --
those whose "professional" status derives from the traditional notions of
public service and "first do no harm -- as well as those in the larger array
of white-collar occupations to which we have gratuitously allowed the title
of "professional" -- such people are assumed to have a high degree of
education in the broadest sense. But under Friedman's rubric, they will have
to devote increasing amounts of time, energy, attentiveness, mind-space to,
as it were, operating the business of being a chemist, doctor or accountant.

The traditional quasi-priestly status of professionals derived from the
principle that, unlike merchants, tradesmen, wage laborers and all the rest,
they put the public's (or client's or patient's) interest first.  Do you
want your surgeon to be preoccupied with managing h{is,er} career or do you
want h{im,er} to be acutely attentive, moment by moment, to the ways in
which your coronary arteries or femoral configuration differ from the
textbook norm, to how surgery interacts with your nutritional status and
such technical details? For that matter, do you want to trust your injured
child to a life support system running on software written by a programmer
preoccupied with career strategy?

But professionals are supposed to have much better than median education,
intelligence, discipline and dedication.  So maybe they can handle it all.
Maybe that's all sort of okay for them.  I know a professor, now approaching
retirement, who has done this. In his office by 7:00 AM, leaves around
7:00PM except 3 or 4 days a week when he has evening work scheduled.
Maintains the professional obligation of putting his students first while
still taking on and diligently pursuing those tasks and commitments to the
university communite needed to manage his career despite attendant costs in
his personal life. Good for him.

But what about everybody else?

One of the factors that blind-sides many entrepreneurs is exemplified in
this anecdote: A friend of many years pursued a career in biology, then
abandoned academe as Not For Him.  He was keen on odd-ball cars, had
hand-fabricated a unique car more or less from scratch in his back yard.
But getting parts for odd-ball cars was a problem.  So he went into business
selling such parts and servicing such cars.  I'd been working on some really
odd cars for a few years (did you ever see a Panhard on the road?) so I
worked for him for a year and got to watch an entrepreneurship in action.

My friend never got to even *think* about cars.  He spent all his time
thinking about cash flow, delivery times, liability insurance, landlord
relations, tax records, partnership problems.... well, y'all can make a
better list that I can.  Yes, he got to go to the races after he decided to
sponsor a race car. Great for his ego but it was a marketing and public
relations exercise, the costs and liabilities of which were his chief
preoccupation.

Something you love to do?  You're good at it?  Go into business for
yourself.  A year or three later,  you'll realize that you're no longer
doing what you love and are good at.

This is precisely why many people with keen interest or special talents (in
almost anything) avoid any form of entrepreneurship that would be recognized
as such by your friendly neighborhood banker. I infer (with no hard
knowledge) that it's why professional partnerships
-- the very highly paid ones, anyhow -- work well. There's enough collective
income to hire a manager or else senior partners retire from active practice
and apply the wisdom of their years to guiding and managing the younger
partners.

But, according to Friedman (and even casual observation) this is now going
to be compulsory for more or less everybody. Where is that leading us?


    It also means using your network to pull in information and
    intelligence about where the growth opportunities are -- and then
    investing in yourself to build skills that will allow you to take
    advantage of those opportunities. Hoffman adds: "You can't just
    say, 'I have a college degree, I have a right to a job, now
    someone else should figure out how to hire and train me.' " You
    have to know which industries are working and what is happening
    inside them and then "find a way to add value in a way no one else
    can. For entrepreneurs it's differentiate or die -- that now goes
    for all of us."

Way back in the early days of FW, there were several references to avoiding
a "Bladerunner future".  Bladerunner might not be the best fictional model
for comparison because its focus was on the ethical distinction between
"authentic humans" and "robots" that were in all essential details
indistinguishable from humans.

William Gibson's Johnny Mnemonic, his Sprawl trilogy or his Bridge trilogy
paint a more relevant future as does Stephenson's Snow Crash. What happens
when (what we think of as) the modern corporate-dominated technical and
financial structure survives and grows but only a minority, maybe a smallish
minority not necessarily composed of the best and the brightest and
certainly not composed of the most humanitarian, have a place in it?

Gibson's Sprawl (the near-future Boston to Atlanta conurbation) is a
pessimistic take. The best and the brightest who can't or won't cling to a
niche in the corporate world turn to anything whatever.  Designer drugs?  Oh
yeah.  Weapons, body parts, hijacking, extortion?  Oh yeah. Data theft?
Good stuff.  White slavery?  Nah, man.  Be racist, limit ourselfs to
"white", y'know?  Equal opportunity for slaves, y'know?

His Bridge (the SF Bay Bridge, abandoned after quake damage, built up with a
vast hive of dwellings, squats and micro-biz) is more optimistic.  There's a
strong sense of community that permeates the chaos.  Truly vicious people
don't last long and the more sophisticated or able look out, rather
informally, for the simple or less able.  But then, one of the most
peaceable among them has a really nasty combat weapon hidden in his wall
just, you know, in case.

What Friedman is describing (albeit with a civilized, journalistic choice of
words) is the Sprawl, the Bridge or, less optimistically, something like
central Asian warlord society translated into the urban environment of
Western Europe or N. America.

    Finally, you have to strengthen the muscles of resilience.  "You
    may have seen the news that [the] online radio service Pandora
    went public the other week," Hoffman said. "What's lesser known is
    that in the early days [the founder] pitched his idea more than
    300 times to V.C.'s with no luck."

Right.  If you're a competent tool & die maker, pattern maker, joiner,
musician, entomologist, graphic artrist, millwright and your job no longer
fits the quarterly profit projection, just put together a biz plan and sell
it to the venture capitalists.  You know you've got skills, you know you
have good ideas.  It's just a matter of good old-fashioned sticktoitiveness
and you'll have a few mil work with. You and and all 12 million of the other
redundant units of surplus biomass out there.

Then Mike G wrote:

> What he is saying is almost certainly true but a human and social 
> disaster...

Same thing.  Oy.  Why can't *I* manage to write as parsimoniously as that?
:-)


- Mike

-- 
Michael Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada       .~. 
                                                           /V\ 
[email protected]                                     /( )\
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/                        ^^-^^
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework


_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to