TED 2012: Glass Half Full or Half Empty – TED Style

Day 2 at TED ofcourse did not disappoint – how could I even think it would. What did surprise I think all of us (probably with the exception of Chris and the TED team) was the stark contrast between two brilliant talks.  These two discussions presented a very different view of our collective future. This was the “how full is the glass session”

First up was Paul Gilding – former CEO of Greenpeace.  Paul’s basic premise was that we are already beyond the point where the planet can sustain us and that in order to support the economy over the next few decades we will need 1.5x the earths resources to do so.  Essentially his talk was a call to arms stating that a “crises is a terrible thing to waste” (reminded me of Rahm Emanuel comments about the economic downturn).

Paul knows what he is talking about, is a great speaker and his talk had some good facts – in summary it was depressing !

But here comes the ying to Paul’s yang.  Next up was Peter Diamandis – founder of the X Prize and self titled space activist.  I had known of Peter ofcourse but had never heard him speak – he is a powerful and passionate speaker.  Peter view of the future was not only a full glass, but I would say an overflowing glass.  He talked of abundance, he talked of all the incredible positive changes that have occurred over the years, mortality, technology, standard of living etc.  His basic view was that we tend to focus on the negative because the media focuses on the negative but we have an incredible abundant future that we can shape.  To be fair, he did not ignore the problems of the current like global warming, population growth etc. but be just said we will not only survive but thrive in the future.

So by this time I was feeling much better about the world and the future.

These are two very different view of the world and our collective future – I don’t think one is right, or one is wrong, though I personally gravitate towards Peter’s world view – maybe because I have more hope in humanity or maybe because it is easier to feel good about the positive scenario.

I would encourage you all to view both talks which are now live on TED.com Here are the links Peter Diamandis – Abundance is our Future and Paul Gilding – the Earth is Full

Make up your own mind.

As usual I would welcome your comments or input.



The Public Sector Carrot – Rethinking Government Compensation.

This week I had the privilege of attending IBM’s Think Leadership Forum celebrating the company’s remarkable 100 years of success.  One of the more thought provoking presentations was from Tom Friedman, NY Times Foreign Affairs Columnist and co-author of the recent book “That Used To Be Us” (and yes also author of that influential book “The World Is Flat”) .  “That Used To Be Us” is a great read and atleast for me really put into context the situation we in the US find ourselves in today from an economic, social and political perspective.

The definition of insanity as many know is “Doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result”.  So clearly we need to do things differently – we need to rethink our mental model of what has made the USA great without compromising the core values that have shaped us.

As I reflected on issues raised in Tom’s book I started to think about the incentives that drive public officials and elected officials.  Typically for elected officials this is likely to be re-elected and the opportunity to continue to have a positive impact and for public officials it is likely job security, the opportunity to make a difference and work on a cause they believe in and maybe even a sense of patriotic/civic duty.

But are these incentives enough to allow effective leadership in today’s complicated environment?  What if the problem lies not so much with the elected and public officials, the majority of whom are good, talented, bright individuals,  but more with the system of incentives and compensation that drive their decision making.  Who has access to money (in the form of campaign finance and endorsements) and who has more media coverage (in the form of opponent bashing and sound bites) has become part of the incentive system for election and re-election while rolling up the sleeves and getting the job done is often just noise.   I am over-simplifying a complicated issue but you get the idea.

We spend a lot of time blaming our elected and public officials for all the problems and issues facing the country – while it may make us feel better I think we need to rethink the issue.

The proposal – What if we revamped public sector incentives to link compensation to key successes metrics that drive the country forward in the direction is required.

So some ideas – could you link congressional pay and executive pay to GDP growth, job expansion, debt limits, education test scores, export growth rates etc. – you get the idea.

I would even argue that we need to pay our public officials a much more competitive salary to attract the best people for the job and ensure the right level of motivation so they can deliver the best results.

Yes all this additional compensation will cost the government more but my assumption is that by compensating for success and assuming we find the right metrics for change we will actually end up saving much more.

The poster child for this kind of a system ofcourse is the Government of Singapore (or as commonly known Singapore Inc.).

My suggestion is not a new one, but it is one that I think is more important for us to explore today than ever before.  The right incentive system is the foundation for achieving goals and for enabling change.

Yes there are many issues with this approach, get consensus on the goals,  how do you measure the goals, how do you benchmark and how do do you link it to compensation.  Also many areas of focus may be social services or national defense where this approach may be an issue.

So maybe Singapore has it right, especially in a services and knowledge based economy, maybe we need to compensate our public officials more aggressively and based on an incentive model based on results.

I am sure many of you will have a view on this, and as usual I look forward to your comments and input.


%d bloggers like this: