Last night I attended a Silicon Valley Patterns meeting where we discussed and reviewed the draft of Ed Yourdon's next book. Since I'm not sure that I can share specifics about the book itself, let's just say this is the man whom wrote the book titled "Decline and Fall of the American Programmer" in 1992 (published in 1993) which foretold the offshoring trend back when everyone was still in denial (a trend now way way beyond the Gartner hype cycle ;-)).
There are enough nuances to write an entire hefty tome on the issues surrounding outsourcing and offshoring of "knowledge work" and in particular the offshoring of software development (something I know about intimately as I have a computer engineering degree, programmed for about 10 years before I went over to the dark side a.k.a. marketing). So, I am creating a new "category" in the blog: Offshoring/Outsourcing.
What was "irrational exuberance" at the start of the New Economy now feels like "irrational depression" or "irrational desperation". Methinks the pendulum seems to swing a wee bit to emotional extremes in this industry. Lest you think this is a permanent condition you might want to recall the New Economy (up, up, up forever -- what's an economic cycle) preachers. Now we are all ears to the prophets of unending doom.
So today I will briefy try to stick to one theme that has tendrils in global citizenry, non-zero sum games, and abundant mentality....whew!
Ross Mayfield has a thoughtful piece on outsourcing/offshoring:
In moments of percieved crisis, fear prevents us from acting for the future. It's also easy to forget in troubled times the plight of others, especially when they are out of view.Eradicating global poverty has been an ideal of the Left since Humphery. The means of employing globalization has only recently been at our disposal. Outsourcing as a home front issue has led to senseless abandon of a larger war according to Charles Krauthammer.
Public opinion has trouble seeing past both tomorrow and our shores. Hard decisions with postitive outcomes have negative short-term effects. Outsourcing is no exception. As the leading force in globalization, the US is permanently embedded in an interdependent world (despite the Administration's attempts to the contrary). The press plays a significant role in furthering the disconnect between Americans and their future neighborhood, through episodic framing and the economics of broadcast to depict idealized shared identity.
From a Fast Company article:
I hope that this could be something that transforms and brings lots of people into the modern world. -- Ronil Hira, RIT assistant professor and chair of the workforce policy committee at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
I recall a speech I heard MIT professor of management and economics, Lester Thurow give at the Commonwealth Club a few months back. (He was on tour for his book, Fortune Favors the Bold : What We Must Do to Build a New and Lasting Global Prosperity.)
He said in the past people viewed themselves as Cincinnati workers or Pittsburgh workers or St. Louis workers because that was the arena where they competed for jobs and that was the place they identified themselves as belonging to. As transportation, telecommunications, etc. made the world appear smaller and more interconnected one might start to identify with being a Bay Area worker and by and by, expand into a nationality identity -- maybe, think of oneself as an American programmer.
The bold ones (reference to title) are the ones that realize that boundaries have expanded and blurred yet again. We are global workers and the people that "get it" see themselves primarily as global citizens.
Whom exactly is an American programmer, anyway? I asked last night. (There were obviously quite a few people at the table whom I'd guess by accents were not born and raised in USA. For the record, my parents are both from Cuba; so I guess I'm first-generation "American").
There is this feeling we are in a zero-sum game. There must be winners and losers, period. Right? Everyone knows there is a limited and fixed number of jobs in the world, right – and if someone gets one then they took it away from someone else. A zero-sum game is one where it is impossible for both sides to win. (Besides being known as a zero-sum game, this is also known as scarcity thinking.) Where does this assumption come from?
At the Accelerating Change conference last year at Stanford (btw, highly recommend), one of the most compelling speakers was Richard Wright, the author of Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny. He traces man's history to show a definite direction toward groups' recognition (starting with tribes) that they are inextricably interconnected and interdependent on one another for their own self-interest. His book sold out at the conference's book table within minutes of his talk.
From Fast Company:
Thorvald Stoltenberg, president of the Norwegian Red Cross, argues that poverty is the root of war, violence, and terrorism--and that alleviating it is in the self-interest of the wealthy.
Last night one of the participants was recently hired at Google. He gleefully offered to refer anyone at the table for a job at Google (his premise: if we willingly spend Tuesday nights talking tech we are in the top 1% of talent). They are hiring like mad at the Mountain View, USA campus. (Google is a global brand, so they are hiring worldwide as well.) Note I said hiring -- not laying off.
Much later in the discussion he remarked that Google has its eye on the top line (something I've noted many companies has lost touch with in their cost-cutting frenzy). In glaring contrast to the view of many companies today, this new Google employee cited Steven Covey and said that Covey would characterize Google as having an abundant versus scarcity mentality and culture.
So one secret to Google's success is: The prophets of gloom-and-doom don't even register. They have the mindset of plenty and unwavering belief in their success....which typically is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right. -- Henry Ford
Comments