Why We Can’t Solve Big Problems
The way we think about things is the reason why we can’t solve
big problems. Not a reason, but the reason.
For example, in charitable work, the success of non-profits is measured in how little money they spend in overhead, limiting who they can recruit, whether they can ask more people to be involved, which means that ultimately their impact is relatively unscalable. As Dan Pallotta an activist best known for creating the multi-day charitable event industry said at TED, “The way we are thinking about charity is dead wrong”.
While binary thinking creates an ease of classification, it has a dark side. Binary thinking creates a cultural framework that doesn’t teach us to understand nuance, or celebrate uncertainty. Or to understand how to balance competing tensions.
As I wrote in Social Era, “things we once considered opposing forces—doing right by people and delivering results, collaborating and keeping focus, having a social purpose, and making money—are really not in opposition. They never have been. But we need a more sophisticated approach to understand business models where making a profit doesn’t mean losing purpose, community, and connection. Finding the right balance between them is key. We will find that balance as we shape new constructs for business models, strategies, and leadership. What we can create will be rich in many senses of the word.”
For example, in charitable work, the success of non-profits is measured in how little money they spend in overhead, limiting who they can recruit, whether they can ask more people to be involved, which means that ultimately their impact is relatively unscalable. As Dan Pallotta an activist best known for creating the multi-day charitable event industry said at TED, “The way we are thinking about charity is dead wrong”.
His
talk was one of the most important talks of TED2013. (You’ll see me share
the 5 talks I valued as they are released… vs a list of them now. I’ve already
shared Amanda
Palmer’s with thoughts and implications for the economics of
generosity.)
And it points to a larger issue. In business today, there’s a great deal of
binary thinking: As in, you are either a capitalist, or a do-gooder. You
are either into profits and results, or into people-y stuff. You are
either running your own enterprise or working in community.While binary thinking creates an ease of classification, it has a dark side. Binary thinking creates a cultural framework that doesn’t teach us to understand nuance, or celebrate uncertainty. Or to understand how to balance competing tensions.
As I wrote in Social Era, “things we once considered opposing forces—doing right by people and delivering results, collaborating and keeping focus, having a social purpose, and making money—are really not in opposition. They never have been. But we need a more sophisticated approach to understand business models where making a profit doesn’t mean losing purpose, community, and connection. Finding the right balance between them is key. We will find that balance as we shape new constructs for business models, strategies, and leadership. What we can create will be rich in many senses of the word.”
Dan Pallotta, Activist, Speaking at TED2013; Picture by
Duncan Davidson
Pallotta’s talk, when
combined with Amanda
Palmer’s points me to this insight: People deeply want to be in
community, but they often have to be asked. Yet, if we limit how we can ask, we
limit the outcomes.
How we hold an
idea matters. As we ask, “How can both things be true” … we will find a new
way to solve big problems.
Join in
Sign up to get email updates...
No comments:
Post a Comment