To What End?

The three words that have served me best throughout my business and nonprofit careers are "To what end?"

That is Mario Morino, one of the most astute social entrepreneurs, funders, and commentators out there.   Though Mario and I work in different spheres of the social space - and have only met a couple of times - the impact of his thinking, advice, and moral support have had an outsized effect on me.  What I particularly admire in Mario is his willingness to get out there and experiment vigorously, learn from the experience, confront things that did not work, and amend his approach accordingly.  In the end, that is how we make progress:  Gain an Insight ==> Experiment ==> Learn ==> Develop a New Insight ==> Experiment ==> etc.

Further, Mario does this in a public way to encourage others to emulate him.  In the essay from which the above is quoted, he concludes that non-profit funders (himself included!) have put far too much emphasis on measurement by grantees, and not enough on gaining clarity about what the grantee is trying to achieve.  He argues that, as a result, many grantees are performing better and better against the wrong outcomes.  In a subsequent piece, Mario provides some thoughts on how to turn the ship around.  Both pieces are well worth reading.

----
PS:  Feedback to VPP:  It is hard to find Mario's essays from your home page.  Since they could have so much impact, you should consider making them front and center.

PPS:  For an excellent treatment of the Gain an Insight ==> Experiment ==> Learn ==> Develop a New Insight ==> Experiment ==> approach, I strongly recommend a new book called Getting to Plan B, by John Mullins and Randy Komisar (Randy was a key early advisor to Mari and me when we launched GlobalGiving.

What distinguishes innovators

The key qualities that separate great leaders from not-so-great ones can be developed...

That is according to researchers from BYU and Harvard Business School, who surveyed 500 innovative company founders (including Pierre Omidyar, Michael Dell, and Jeff Bezos) as well as 3,000 execs who had not launched a business or invented a product.  There are many interesting findings, but one stands out:

One key characteristic among the visionaries? The tendency to ask questions -- a lot of them -- and to challenge the status quo -- plenty.

Here is an article reporting on the study.  (Thanks to @chuckfrey for the tip.)

Once more unto the breach...

It was a surreal moment for Mr. Westergren, who founded Pandora, the Internet radio station. For most of its 10 years, it has been on the verge of death, struggling to find investors and battling record labels over royalties.

That is from a great story in today's NYT about the great website Pandora.  It shows how fortunes can change dramatically, depending on circumstances and the external environment.  And the bottom line is the value of perseverance, and the importance of going to Plan B when Plan A doesn't pan out. Too much of the popular perception of entrepreneurship is dominated by the big overnight successes - eBay, Amazon, and Google, for example. But the reality is that most success stories are long in coming, and occur only after many failures - and an almost irrational determination to succeed, despite the odds.

What Tips People Into Action?

What tips people over from having good intentions into acting upon them? More than two-thirds (68%) say personal experience has been a major impetus, with 40% saying their motivating experience was a positive one, as in "Someone did something good for me, and I want to give back." A family member or friend's request (33%) and learning about an issue from the news (28%) were other catalysts. 

That is from a nice piece in today's Parade Magazine called Compassion Counts More Than Ever. (Thanks to my friend Julie for the tip.)

Running Shoes: Back to the Future

Sometimes innovation means less rather than more.  Here is a nice piece from Time Magazine about Galahad Clark, a GlobalGiving supporter who is emerging as a leading innovator in the running shoe business.

While many shoe companies are concentrating on fancier and fancier shoes with more and more bells and whistles, Galahad's company, Terra Plana, is concentrating instead on what works best for runners.  Along with a couple of other innovators (especially Nike), Terra Plana is at the forefront of developing minimalist "barefoot" shoes that help emulate the way our feet and legs naturally strike the ground.

Entrepreneurs are made, not born

Here is a nice piece by Vivek Wadhwa in TechCrunch.  Some excerpts:

Entrepreneurs aren’t born, they’re made. And they aren’t anything like you think they are. My team surveyed549 successful entrepreneurs. We found that the majority didn’t have entrepreneurial parents. They didn’t even have entrepreneurial aspirations while going to school.

 VP of Research, Bob Litan, says that Kauffman has learnt conclusively that entrepreneurship can be taught. The key is to provide education at “teachable moments” — when the entrepreneur is thinking about starting a venture or ready to scale it. What entrepreneurs need isn’t the type of abstract course they teach in business schools, but practical, relevant knowledge.  

One of the findings of Kauffman research is that of the appx. 600,000 businesses that are started every year, less than a fraction of 1% become high-growth “scale” businesses. These new firms, especially the “scale” firms, have added all of the net incremental jobs to U.S. economy since 1980 (about 40 million), and probably account for about 1/3 of GDP growth since then. So the key to boosting economic growth is to increase the number of successful high-growth startups. 

But *WHY* is aid expertise not scalable?

My last post, "Aid Expertise is Not Scalable," drew a surprising amount of reaction.  Two former World Bank colleagues said "Amen!"   However, two people I respect a lot (they are leading experts in their field, in fact) replied along the lines of "Maybe, but why not?"

That is a fair question, and the full answer would be a great subject for a book.  

But here are a few thoughts that come to mind:

1. First, expertise in some fields is inherently more scalable than in others.  Civil engineering, for example, is much more scalable, because the technologies to build a bridge are: (a) known with a high degree of confidence; (b) effective in a wide range of contexts, with relatively minor adaptions; and (c) transmittable to other potential experts using a commonly accepted language of mathematical symbols, standards, and procedures.  
2. Economic development is more a social rather than civil engineering challenge.  And the problem is that we don't know very well how to effect the social changes we seek.  To the extent that we do know how to address a certain social challenge in one context, it is often much more difficult to transplant that solution to another context in another country. And even if the solution would work in other contexts, we usually don't have a good and commonly accepted "language" to enable that expertise to be transmitted quickly and effectively to other potential experts.
3. The sheer number of topics on which we need expertise is enormous.  And if we multiply the number of topics by the number of different countries/contexts aid agencies work in...well, you get the picture.  A head hunter called me the other day to say that an international agriculture commission had hired her to find the best one or two "agricultural experts" in the world to act as advisors.  I explained, much to her disappointment, that agriculture covers a huge number of sub-specialities, ranging from seed breeding to soil science, to harvesting and processing.  She needed to pick a speciality, and I would try to deliver the expert.  (Believe it or not, in the late 1980s, I was one of the World Bank's experts on rubber processing in Indonesia, and I knew a lot about that topic but virtually nothing about seeds or soils.  And, to top it off, rubber processing in Asia was at that time different than rubber processing in other countries, so my expertise was of limited use in those places.)

The so-called bloated official aid agencies are not all that big anyway.  IBM has about 400,000 employees worldwide, and HP has about 325,000. What they do is complex, but not compared to the challenges of economic development.  The World Bank, by contrast, has roughly 10,000 employees and is constantly under pressure to shrink rather than grow, based at least partly on the perception that the marginal hire there is not adding value.  Even if the Bank were able to convince its stakeholders that it had figured out how to scale expertise, it is  highly unlikely that it would be able to grow to anywhere near the size of an IBM.

The only practical way to proceed is to abandon the idea that expertise is scalable within aid agencies,  and thus that aid agencies must have the top experts in every field. The current conceit of "expertise-ism" gives aid experts the power (and even responsibility) to decide on the allocation of very large amounts of resources.  This forces them to make judgements about many things about which they possess insufficient information and insufficient expertise.  Deep down, most conscientious experts at big aid agencies feel that this is a heavy and unmanageable burden for them personally, and naturally it leads to a lot of mistakes, even by smart, motivated, and caring experts.

Instead, the aid industry needs to embrace the idea that expertise is only scalable in a highly distributed and localized way within the countries that are trying to develop.  As part of this, we must abandon the idea that each expert must (a) be the creme-de-la-creme in terms of education and qualifications, and even ability; and (b) be correct every time.  Development will occur best if a lot of reasonable smart people experiment with a lot of different things in a decentralized way.  Many experiments will fail, and instead of piling on the criticism and critical evaluations, the system itself must focus its attention and efforts on the things that work, and take those to (the appropriate) scale for the contexts in which they are effective.

The information, feedback loops, and incentives needed for such a change to occur are a topic for another post.  But I will end here by observing that those needs will require a different skill set at aid agencies -  one that helps their experts become the equivalent of orchestra conductors rather than solo performers (or first-chair violins.)  And that is actually an exciting an energizing idea that some of the best aid agency leaders are starting to explore now.

Aid Expertise is not scalable

Someone got frustrated with me the other day for being too "down" on experts in international aid and development. She said she considered herself an expert, since she had worked twenty years on a certain topic. She also pointed out several other people who we both agreed were really smart, and to whom we both look for advice and insights.

I realized that the problem is not that there are no experts - there *are* some real experts out there, and I have worked with many of them. The problem is that expertise is not reliably scalable.

Many aid agencies are structured and staffed based on the assumption that they can reliably find experts who know about each topic and each country the agencies operate in. And then they can rotate these experts among different departments and regions over time to keep them from getting "clientitis."

No agency that I know of has done this effectively. Instead, of every 100 people hired, maybe half are real experts in their field. What happens is that, over time, the agencies convert most of their staff - including their "subject-matter experts" - into "agency experts," which are people who are very good at the arcane procedures and processes needed to move a loan or report through the agencies' own systems.

Mr. Splashy Pants

This is a great Ted video of Reddit's Alexis Ohanian illustrating the challenges - and rewards - of giving up control, even when working on serious issues. Watch it:

Innovation is a Team Sport

Make the first move. Share critical information with others even if they have not given anything to you. Make sure the information is meaningful and customized to that specific individual so that they feel especially obligated to return the favor.

That is from a nice piece by Drew Boyd of Johnson & Johnson titled Reputation and Innovation.  He makes the point that innovation is usually a team sport.  Being effective means you need to share your own information and get others to do the same.