--Posted by Chris Iafolla
The first chapter of Michael Strong’s Be the Solution: How Entrepreneurs & Conscious Capitalists Can Solve All the World’s Problems, attempts to make the case that the world has taken great strides in recent history and that our perception may be clouded by the barrage of negative media. This is the basis for the idea that context (the name of the chapter) is key to creating a world where companies that add value and bring social change are rewarded. Interestingly, Strong uses the language of business to describe common problems plaguing humanity. For example, he discusses the idea of a balance of global goodness where each human that is inspired and motivated for change adds to the positive side of the balance sheet while those that are empathetic to change hurt the balance sheet. It is this language that he uses to describe the progress humanity has made in issues such as acid rain, reforestation and poverty.
The idea that context is crucial jumped out in the description of the current state of relative peace in the world. Because we are inundated with stories on the evening news of local violence and of wars abroad, it is commonly assumed that our world is in a state of violence that far exceeds levels of years past. But according to this chapter, this is patently false and the world is actually in a period of piece that has never before witnessed. Context is crucial and seeing the big picture is imperative.
Of course the idea here is not that the world has reached perfection. Instead, the idea is that the world has made progress. Previously poor nations such as India and China are becomingly increasingly relevant on the world stage and have rapidly modernized their economies and society. But the question is whether or not that progress was instigated by policy change or private enterprise?
The answer probably lies somewhere in between and again illustrates the importance of context. A business operating in an economic climate where new ideas are stifled and new approaches to conducting business marginalized is surely fighting a losing battle. Real social change has to happen in the context of a society where the public policy and the private enterprise are both aligned toward a common goal. Unfortunately, that scenario is all too rare.
However, as Strong indicated, the world is starting to move toward a culture where companies are rewarded for standing for some sort of social good. And social good can be determined in a broad sense. When considering that term, most would immediately think that a company has to produce a product that helps in the green movement, or solves the problems of poverty and hunger. These are the types of issues that illicit thoughts of social good. However, in a broader sense, companies like Google and Apple are absolutely impacting the social good. These two companies unquestionably have increased the level of happiness in this society and in the case of Google, made a swath of information available to the public that was never before accessible. In a way, Google helped to level the knowledge deficit impoverished people, and indeed nations, face. So while it is easy to dismiss companies like Google and Apple as not adding to the social good of the world it is again important to consider the context of what those companies have accomplished.
Strong also attempts to make the case that the feminization of this culture is working its way into the business environment and will be a driving force behind the successful company of tomorrow. My question is: are we already inching in that direction? Strong’s definition of this feminization boils down to placing a higher value on a full brain approach to business that emphasizes quality over quantity. Things like superior design and simplicity are valued in this type of business landscape. To go back to a previous example, do Google and Apple not fit this mold when you think about what has catapulted them to prominence? Sure, Apple has been on the tech scene for decades but it was the iPod that vaulted the company from the status of fledgling technology company to culture icon. What makes the iPod so endearing to its loyal cult of followers? Is it the fact that it can play back music? Is it the fact that songs are available to purchase online? No. I would venture to say that the most endearing aspect of an iPod is its design. In the case of Google, there are search engines that have as much information archived as Google and can spit out very similar search results. So why has Google dominated the search business? Part of it has to do with the simplicity of the interface and the ease of interaction. While both of these companies are led by men, I would argue that what makes them unique is something that appeals to the whole-brained consumer.
The challenge as we continue to make progress on the issues that plague the world will be to create a system where this type of thinking is encouraged. It is easy to pass judgment from afar on the impact of social good on world progress but it is far more difficult to create an environment where this thinking is encouraged and sustainable. I don’t think we are there yet. Currently, we sit on the precipice of this change occurring. We are coming off a systemic failure of our economic system that shook the value system of both Americans and the World to its core. And while this predicament has caused many to rethink the value of capitalism, a more apt way to think might be how to adjust capitalism? How can we create a society where the type of greed that led to this economic crisis is not only discouraged but rooted out? How do we ensure that the business environment of the 21st century is more conducive to rewarding companies that bring positive change to the world? The only way we can hope to achieve those lofty goals is if we “see the big picture”—understand the context.