In other words, automation did not eliminate work at all – it created new jobs, better jobs, and an acceleration of our workforce into what we now call the “service economy.” We are essentially shifting to the right in this model.
💬 Josh Bershin
BTW, in case you are wondering, ‘Power Skills’ is the 'new' name for ‘Soft Skills’. To be fair, it did need a new name. It’s also fair to say that whilst he’s not wrong, he fails to mention that in the last 15 years (where he references 2007) no mention that the average income of people is flat and that real income is declining.
1) Becoming? I think it is really more like that we are starting to recognize these skills. They have always been there - and though not necessarily recognised or even understood - I bet if you find successful people in that 'old' economy - they would demonstrate a lot of these traits.
2) Josh is not alone in highlighting these skills and their importance. What nobody is doing is organizing these skills into a taxonomy - much less an ontology. (What's the difference you may ask) Stan Garfield has a very simple explanation)
... except now there is.
More of this to come, but have to say, very excited by a company I have been talking to that has not only done a lot of research into these skills, but also which skills are most important - and why, depending on what you are trying to do.
Not only that, but they are releasing an app that will allow anybody to
assess their personal strengths and weaknesses across all skills
define which of those skills they should focus on to maximise their ability to be most succesful at what they are trying to do
all through a self paced, self directed, learning program.
As I said - more to come. Just to say - the cavalry is on its way.
It's a 2022 video - but predates the invasion of Ukraine, though not the build-up with the result that we have an immediate feedback loop on some aspects of how right or wrong his thinking is. (He seems to be right.)
The talk is only 35 minutes or so of the nearly 1-hour video (the rest is a Q and A) - and touched on many topics including China's penetration into the world that Peter Frankopan - amongst others - wrote about in his 2018 book The New Silk Roads. (The Guardian). An excellent book that if the future of the world is interesting to you, this book should be either on your bookshelf - or (as in my case) in your iPad.
There is part of me that questions the pattern making ‘proofs’. Kind of like the ley lines of England … that are in the canons of ‘lost knowledge’. If you are loose enough with definitions and correlations then yes - everything is going to align.
Still, for all of that, it’s a good 35 minute listen - and it gets harder to say that as each day passes.
”I thought back to the day I decided to go to law school. It was a warm spring day. May 4, 1970. I was a freshman at Oberlin College. A few days earlier, President Richard Nixon had expanded the Vietnam War by invading Cambodia. Antiwar college protests erupted throughout the country.
About 1 p.m. in the afternoon, the news hit us in the gut as we huddled around TVs and radios on our sheltered college campus. In just 12 seconds, the Ohio National Guard fired over 60 shots at student protesters at nearby Kent State University. Nine students were wounded, one of them paralyzed for life; and four students — Allison Krause, Jeff Miller, Sandra Scheuer, and Bill Schroeder — were killed.
Bill Schroeder was an ROTC student watching the protest; he was shot in the back. Sandy Scheuer was walking to class. I didn’t know them, but I’ve never forgotten their names.”
That quote comes from an article that my friend, colleague and 'he that keeps me on the straight and narrow' … Stuart Robbins just shared with me.
My father fought for the British Army in the second world war. If you are 75 or under, you were not on planet earth during that war and as a result, the impact it had on that generation is being lost - if not forgotten.
The Vietnam war is much more recent, but still, is - like WWII being lost into history, so when I read first hand experiences, especially something as personal as the words Lee wrote, I like to stop and reflect for a moment.
And who is Lee Fisher?
”Lee Fisher is dean of Cleveland-Marshall College of Law at Cleveland State University. He is the former Ohio attorney general, lieutenant governor, director of the Ohio Department of Development, chair of the Ohio Third Frontier Commission, president and CEO of the Center for Families and Children, president and CEO of CEOs for Cities, state representative and state senator.
But there's more. He recently came on to the People First Podcast and talked with Stuart about Law - and, IMHO, more importantly Leadership in Law. If you don’t want to jump off to another site, you can listen to it right here ...
I often find that knowing a little more about people, their history and what shaped them, helps me understand the context of who they are today and what they are saying. Lee is no exception. In fact I think it is possible to draw a straight line from the experience he described in that quote above to his life's work. I hope you agree.
Part 2 of my conversation with Cristina DiGiacomo, M.S. goes live at 5 am Pacific Standard Time on Monday 23rd. You are going to love it. Hell, we loved it so much that when we finished - we just kept going - you'll see what I mean.
Part One - if you want to catch up first.
And it's not as if there is a theme going here BUT - later on in the week, part 1 of my conversation with Tim Walters Ph.D., goes live.
I had the privilege to sit in and watch (and listen) to a presentation this past week. Can't say too much (Chatham House Rule (sic) and all that), but if I were to tell you that I hauled my ass out of bed at 4:30 am to listen live - even though I could have watched the recording later - maybe that will provide you with the import I laid on this talk.
That and the fact that I can share who presented ... Kristin Little who has The IEEE, 14 years at The World Bank and Fellow of The People Centered Internet - to name but three institutions on her resume. To summarize ... well worth 'tuning in'.
When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.
The point of this piece is not to take you through what was said idea by idea, but rather to provide some key points that you might find interesting. Each headline groups one or more takeaways that I thought were interesting.
A lot was talked about and covered and I am real happy to get into a dialogue about this and other threads around the challenge of listening. For now, though, this is it.
Most important .... in 40 minutes nobody said anything like ‘you were born with two ears and one mouth - use them in the same proportions' ... and for that, I was truly thankful. So, here we go.
On average, around 80%, of organizational resources devoted to public communication is focused on speaking.
Some organizations even were up to 95% of their so called communication was outbound.
At the individual level, we've diminished our ability to have real listening and real conversations. We're now able to voice our thoughts and opinions easily, social media has allowed us a platform to do this.
The Promise of Listening
At the same time, we willingly or unwillingly customize our feeds. We end up hearing views that are just similar to our own. And we filter out the others, it feels like everyone is speaking and not enough listening is happening.
Listening is more important than ever.
To Listen is to Participate
Well, I guess that is exactly what I did. I said nothing. I asked nothing. I just listened. (I know - right? ME!)
Came up a few times during the talk, not just between different languages, such as English to German, Japanese to Russian etc but also cross-disciplinary translation. This is something I talk about a lot in my world. I am a 'cloud hopper', and I can do that, because my superpower is 'translation' (not language translation, which tends to be the assumption, but cross-disciplinary translation; sales to marketing, customer to vendor, American to English.
It's that last one that confuses people the most. Surely both countries speak the same language?
They do. They don’t. We hear similar words, so we assume we have understood. My view is that we spend less time listening - and thus understanding if we don’t have to concentrate too hard on what is being said. In other words, we assume. (How many times do we leave meetings and each one of us has 'understood' the conclusions, only to discover at the next meeting that this simply was not the case. Partly I think this is because we hear words we recognize and so assume we understand them.
Back to the talk. What really made me sit up was the idea of cross-species translation. The lady that spoke said she 'swims (and talks) with the dolphins' daily. We know that the animal kingdom communicates. Few of us really think about communication with them. In fact I would go as far to say that if we hear such talk - at best we 'raise our eyebrows'!
Stop The Post Mortems
The speaker spoke of post mortem analysis around projects and programs that she has been part of. An audience member suggested that rather than using post mortem, postpartum be considered as a more positive alternative. In their words ... "the line ahead as being a death experience as more like a birth experience."
Postpartum - opening up the possibility to the idea that lessons are being learned and that a new beginning would be possible the next time. Post mortem implying dead, over, passed and definitely not being revisited (my paraphrase).
The Delphi method
Uses 'iterative feedback' to reach consensus (one way to drive more listening in an OODA loop spirit.)
A way of driving towards consensus by everybody giving an opinion and then iterating on that opinion, until everybody agrees on a consensus. It's iterative and a useful technique.
Someone who went into a meeting and said, Why is everyone looking at their laptops for the entire meeting. There was nobody who looked at the speaker.
Turned out that it was a special meeting for people who were on the autism spectrum. It was meant for them to be watching the speaker on their laptop and replying that way, because that's what was comfortable. That's how they could best function.
I gave a talk recently at a conference for blind people and was shocked to find out that when I was talking, everyone was looking at me. So I was very perplexed. Because I thought well, I would think they would be looking down at their screens. Well, of course, they can't see the screens, but they really loved engaging by looking up at the faces that they couldn't see. Because it made them feel part of the conversation.
Use of Zoom
It's distracting when, people don't seem to be looking at you in the eyes.
Side (authors) note - there's a fix - place the camera further way from you - place the camera focussed on you as close to the person on the screen as possible
Smaller groups tend to benefit more interaction.
Break out rooms are very helpful in bringing out people who might otherwise remain quiet.
Encouraging people to be on camera is good,
When you start a meeting, ask a question, an easy question that people can answer,
And so much more, that all felt very much motherhood and Apple pie. Maybe that it is because Zoom and all the other video conferencing tools have just been part of me for a long time. It was nearly twenty years ago that my startup was building 'across the firewall collaboration tools' that included embedding video conferencing software and chats right into the dynamically generated collaboration sites ... twenty years ago? Ok - eighteen!
Separately, I thought this was an interesting exchange. To me, it clearly demonstrates a before and after scenario. The questioner and presenter, both appeared to be in what I would call the old paradigm, the 'refiner' attempting to recalibrate the job of the presenter.
Question : How do you gently encourage people in Zoom not to multitask?
Answer : Beyond telling them that it's very important that we all focus beforehand, maybe also send an email in advance with expectations, and clearly explain what those are and why you would like them to not multitask. And recognizing that it happens, but saying that you want them not to for these reasons. And then thanking them for having not multitask.
Alternative Suggestion From The Audience : I would like to suggest that multitasking is a feature of Zoom. It provides the environment for you to be able to be looking at multiple things, especially if the camera gets turned off. So the first notional idea is, is that you have to accept that. And then secondly, it's incumbent upon the person who's hosting the meeting, to have content that's worth paying attention to, that will arrest your attention.
That seems to be a perfect summary of why presentations fail in general, which I accept is a totally different topic - but one that I am very keen to drive home.
A lot more was said about Zoom, but it didn’t cover off the issues that I have with that world - which happens to be the topic of this week's newsletter. (I will add a link here when it goes live.)
So much was said. So much was covered. I just wish I could share the actual conversation. Bottom line. Fascinating and delighted that I did indeed haul my ass out of bed when I did.
This piece is knowingly not a flowing article, but I hope it peeked the interest and held (if not arrested) your attention. What are your thoughts?