While I’ve spent a lot of time talking about the incredible changes that could occur as a result of things like creative capitalism and microfinance, I think that there’s an equally enormous change brewing as a new generation enters the workplace and brings with them a totally new view on how work should serve them.
Just as we’re beginning to realize that companies can do good and do well, it’s also becoming clear that employees are demanding they be fulfilled both emotionally and financially by their work. A recent article in The Guardian argues that this has incredible implications for the future of business. Maybe I’m getting ahead of myself, but I think that it will be such a sea change the ripples will be felt throughout society.
Just consider for a moment how much differently you act when you’re content with life. How much less irritated are you and how much more empathetic are you when life is going smoothly? The answer is obvious and think about how much better happy people are for the community because they spread those good vibes around without even realizing it. We live in a world increasingly obsessed with work and increasingly stressed out by work. To think that this does not adversely affect the general human interaction beyond the office is shortsighted. Unhappy workers aren’t just bad for business, they’re bad for all of us.
I don’t think that as the next generation replaces the boomers that we’ll all magically be transported to Xanadu, but I do think that it could make life less stressful. Wouldn’t that be nice?
Born in 1983, I fall somewhere between “digital immigrant” and “digital native”. These are the monikers aptly used to describe the two kinds of humans who went through their important developmental years either before or after that point on the digital timeline when the internet became a ubiquitous part of our daily lives. Digital immigrants have to adapt to technology, whereas anyone who’s seen a teenager these days can see that the digital natives have to do very little adapting to the machines they grew up believing had always existed. I grew up with Nintendo, didn’t have a cell phone until late high school and didn’t use the internet on a daily basis until college, so in some sense I grew up alongside these disruptive technologies and not before or after. I like to think this gives me a unique perspective on how these modern conveniences affect the way we think and how we look at the world. Although I’m more in tune with computers than most people at my parents age ever will be, I still find myself shocked whenever I see ten year olds with cell phones or hear about elementary school students doing anything on the internet besides playing Oregon Trail.
So the world is changing and it seems our childrens’ brains are changing as well just to keep up. Ages ago, humans evolved to use tools to adapt to the natural world, but now we find ourselves forced to adapt to our own tools. How did we end up on the wrong side of the stick? It seems like we’ve created a feedback loop of biology and technology, but sometimes I’m not entirely sure that our biological adaptations serve us as much as they serve to facilitate the runaway growth in complexity of technology. In some sense, I think we’re so enamored by our digital creations that we assume whatever progress we make is inevitably good progress and therefore the onus is upon the human brain to keep up. We’ve prostrated ourselves before the altar of the microchip.
The reason I mention all this is because I recently learned of Nicholas Negroponte’s One Laptop Per Child program. I was totally blown away by the scope and vision of the program - to provide the world’s poorest children with “a rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop with content and software designed for collaborative, joyful, self-empowered learning.” The mind reels considering what sort of possibilities this can open up for these children and for the entire world. Like my last Op-Ed piece pointed out, who knows how many Einsteins and Edisons are waiting for an education in the developing world? For the purpose of giving these kids connection to the outside world, freedom to pursue their own intellectual passions and the resources to become autodidacts, I wholeheartedly applaud Mr. Negroponte. This program has the potential to transform the world in countless ways and I can’t wait to see the effects.
What gives me pause, however, is the concern that we will stop at the laptop. I’m concerned that sending laptops to Kenya will become the educational equivalent of dropping sacks of rice from the sky - well intentioned, but ineffective in creating long term change without some further human interaction. Even in the richest nation in the world, we’ve begun to find that computers in the classroom do not show any correlation to improved test scores. It’s completely commonplace today for American middle and high school students to have their own computers and yet I’d feel quite confident wagering that far less than half of their time on it is spent for educational purposes. Some circles of education are finding that computers in the classroom are actually having negative effects on the progress of students.
One factor in education, however, has proven to be extremely beneficial and most of the world’s best scientists, artists, politicians and engineers have cited it as having a highly critical impact on their own success. That factor is having a good teacher. Connection to the internet is extremely powerful and so is educational software, but absolutely nothing can replace the sort of passionate curiosity that can only be instilled by parents, teachers and mentors. In a recent New Yorker conference, the erudite Malcolm Gladwell proclaimed, “There’s nothing you can do to improve school more than by improving the teachers [sic].” More than class size, computers or any other resource, good teachers equate to good education. But, he went on to note that being a “good teacher” actually boils down to something quite ineffable, citing a recent study which showed that the best educated, most prepared educational experts performed on par with a random sample of ordinary people. I can’t say this for sure, but I feel very confident that this ineffable quality probably boils down to two things - passion and the ability to connect. I say this because I know that the teachers I learned the most from were always the ones who inspired and motivated me with their passion or through their connection to me on a human level.
So, let’s send laptops to Uganda and Cambodia. But let’s not forget that the people that built those laptops probably had a whole cadre of teachers and parents pushing them forward. If we really want to teach these children we also have to instill in them a passionate curiosity. Otherwise, we’re just giving them a window into another world.
This article from the LA Times disturbed me a bit, but did not entirely surprise me. The more that I learn about traditional philanthropy it seems the more I am convinced that we can find new and better ways to approach the problems of our time. Whether some new form of capitalism is that solution waits to be seen. But, it’s articles like this one that give one pause about the current status quo.
For-profit fundraisers collect loads, but nonprofits see a sliver
And a bit of more upbeat news. Kiva has burst onto the world of social media, getting involved with the juggernaut that is Facebook.
Kiva + facebook = involver
So far, this blog has focused a lot on microloans, philanthropy and so forth. More largely it supports the notion that real growth is spurred by opportunity, not blind aid, and that dignity is more important than wealth. But, while reading a recent article from the New York Times, I realized that perhaps it would be a good idea to explain exactly why we believe these ideas to be true.
The article, “If You’re Open to Growth, You Tend to Grow”, is a fascinating primer on the work of Carol Dweck, a Stanford psychologist. Her years of research have led her to the conclusion that talented individuals achieve their maximum potential when they believe their talent is flexible. This means that individuals who believe that we work our whole lives with the talent we were born with are actually going to make less use of that talent than those who believe that growth is possible. She says that individuals with “growth mind-sets” achieve more than those with “fixed mind-sets” because they are more open to risk and learning from the mistakes that inevitably come from risk-taking behavior. In short, these people instinctively know that you miss all the shots you don’t take.
What does this have to do with aid and microfinance? Well, I think it informs the way we look at poverty and human potential. I agree with Dweck’s assertion that, “Society is obsessed with the idea of talent and genius and people who are ‘naturals’ with innate ability.” This obsession is found in sports, business and practically every other field, but not many stop to question whether it is a productive perspective to hold. It lends itself to a belief that the world is a meritocracy and frames the developing world as void of talent when it is anything but. Anyone who has read Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel” would agree that the current state of world affairs actually has more to do with the distribution of resources and geography than anything else and would certainly agree that the division of power is not the sole indicator of distribution of human talent.
The bottom line is that belief in one’s self and belief in one’s ability to adapt and learn are just as important as IQ. This is what microfinance capitalizes on because loans are not given just on need or even talent, but also on the confidence that the recipient has in him or herself. The recipient has the sort of “growth mind-set” that Dweck champions.
This sort of research is refreshing to hear because it helps untether humanity from the notion that the world is split into winners and losers. Understanding “growth mind-sets” allows us to look at the world, especially the developing world, and our notions of poverty and potential in a much more realistic way.
