Arrogance Abroad

Was Amanda Knox guilty?  Was Amanda Knox innocent?
Maria Cantwell, the U.S. Senator from Amanda Knox's home state of Washington, questions the justice system of another country and declares that "anti-Americanism" may have been the cause of the guilty verdict.

The problem, as with many decisions or judgments, is in understanding the definitions of terms, as well as how a differing venue can change them.  Americanism.  Acceptability.

The American-produced post-verdict analyses of Amanda Knox's trial, show Americans saying "I look at her, and it could have been me." The truth is that the rest of the world could easily be saying, with disdain, "We look at her, and we see 'typical Americans abroad.'"

Europeans have told me that many Americans seem to think of Europe as just another "theme park." A "playground" into which Americans bring their vulgar behavior, coupled with disdain for others' culture and values. Attitudinal issues are not limited to Europe alone. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has accurately described the U.S. view of Middle Eastern countries purely as "a gas station," overlooking those countries' cultural contributions to humanity or their potential as a highly educated work force.

Before we self-righteously declare "anti-Americanism" as some sort of defense, we need to look at ourselves from others' points of view.  Is the trial of Amanda Knox revealing something about ourselves for which we may feel guilt? and for which we may actually feel some shame?

For many Americans, Knox's actions (despite the acknowledged illegality even in the U.S. of smoking dope) apparently seem "normal" or "acceptable." The assumption by Americans that other cultures would adopt an American definition of "normality" or "acceptability" reflects yet an additional deficient element of "Americanism" -- a parochial world view. Any expectation that the world should play by our rules and our values (and then crying foul when it does not) is either the most basic form of stupidity or arrogance. The crux of the matter is not whether Amanda Knox's actions are accepted at home, rather it is whether her actions were "acceptable" in her host country.

Any citizen of any country is an ambassador of their home country when abroad, in most cases traveling without diplomatic immunity. Any actions in which a person engages contribute to the image of one's home country. The collective image that evolves over time, is and will be used by others as a frame of reference for judgment. Foreigners in the U.S. are equally stereotyped by the actions of their compatriots. Have we not seen judgment of a culture be based solely on a person from that culture whom one has met or perhaps has seen as depicted only in films? Can we, ourselves, unequivocally state that such a "framework" or "profile" of a culture has not influenced a judgment of an individual in our system of justice?

As I traveled abroad, well before Amanda Knox, I often was received in terms of a stereotype of "American women," which at the time assumed promiscuity and wealth. The saga of Amanda Knox has only contributed to that image. She is guilty, even if not of other crimes, certainly in terms of contributing to that repulsive stereotype of all women in our nation.  In this she is certainly not alone: films and music videos continue to project an image of American female promiscuity.

The "Americanism" of smoking dope and having casual extramarital sex are not values that all Americans support. Do we think that any person, anywhere, would wish their children to adopt these behaviors? Yet, the American "entertainment" industry continues to export that image as being representative of "American values." "Freedom" has been redefined in terms of self-centeredness and self-gratification, without the need for responsibility for the effects of one's actions.

If that image is "Americanism," then yes, I myself feel a sentiment of "anti-Americanism." Knox is a product of a culture that allowed her to believe in the acceptability of such behavior. She has thereby contributed to a depiction of Americans that is going to make them misunderstood before they even speak or act for years and years.  Who is guilty?  Perhaps Amanda. But the fault, dear Brutus, lies not just in Amanda, but in ourselves.

The business of making a nothing day into something "special"

Today is "Black Friday."  Once an ordinary day, business decided it was "an opportunity." It was bestowed with a special name, and a good deal of hype.  ("Cyber Monday" is another day recently given a business makeover.) "Black Friday"-- the moniker alone drives me crazy.  "Black" is not an adjective that conjures up joy or happiness.  The are but few applications, outside the world of accounting, when "black" is considered "good." I'm old enough to remember when the term "Black Friday" meant a financial disaster on the stock market. Yet, the implication is that businesses are going to financially move into the black -- reportedly by selling "cheap goods cheaply."   It is so blatantly commercial.  It truly is "black" in my mind.  The worst sort of "black."

Also disturbing is that this trumped up shopping frenzy is becoming even bigger than the holiday of Thanksgiving, which itself used to be centered on "thanks giving," and was not synonymous with a day to gorge oneself.  The focus on two days of excessive consumption speaks volumes.  And our nation, according to most news stories and polls, will apparently be in peril if we don't consume enough!! (We'll be hearing how "well" the country is on the news tonight when the "numbers are in.")

Perhaps the slowdown in the economy is giving us a chance to take stock of what we really value. All the stuff in the world is not going to bring happiness.

If each of us were to list the attributes of a perfect holiday, how many of us would list the need to feel obligated to spend money?  Must we be timed as to when we wish to be generous?  as to when we wish to say we love someone or are thinking of them? ("Tis the season!" --  It seems more a command to "Buy now!")

In Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, we come to know the "un-birthday."  There is something extraordinarily special when one receives a gift that comes out of the blue, that has not been purchased due to some either overt or subliminal sense of obligation.  How delightful is the gift that has been purchased or created and given free from commercial pressures!

In the Looking Glass world everything is "backwards."  In reality, I think this economic slowdown is showing us that things are backwards on this side of the mirror.

What could bar success?
In the news is the potential acquisition of Cadbury, England's famous chocolatier, by Kraft (with possible alternative offers by Hershey and Italy's Ferrero).  This acquisition provides a classic example of the need to examine what is at stake beyond merely the production of a product and how it is marketed.

There is no question that the name Cadbury, and the dreams that started at Bournville in the mid 1800s, resonate with more people than those who are just lovers of chocolate.  The Cadbury philosophy differentiated a business and was integral to its product's becoming iconic.

It is not unusual during such a purchase that focus turns to branding and the potential fallout of clashing cultures.  Most people foretold that when Schweppes entered the Cadbury picture in the late 1960s, the business would be more focused on pure business than the dreams of its founder.  Yet the components that are behind the iconic status of the Cadbury brand cannot be completely ignored. It is more than the taste of chocolate that is behind that name.

At the time any acquisition decision is made, multiple factors are at play. All participants need to understand the relative importance that image has alongside any other factors in the judgment.

A corporate suitor may be appealing for a number of differing reasons:

• Brings financial strength
• Brings management expertise
• Brings a cache in terms of image
• Opens up new market segments
• Has a culture supportive of the original founder's purpose

Those statements are all from the perspective of the party being bought. The potential acquiring entity might have similar, additional and/or differing desires that it hopes to gain by an acquisition.  They should also be elicited and weighted.

There are also concerns that each party will have about a merger or acquisition, and those concerns need to be uncovered and weighted, in terms of potential harm were they to occur, and in terms of probability of occurrence.

It is then, that the various potential corporate combinations can best be viewed.  Understanding each party's relative weighting of their own desires and concerns, along with each merged entity's collective ranking against both, would lead to the most robust final decision as to which is the "best" combination.

This exercise would benefit not only the party being acquired.  Any party doing an acquisition, who may also have other targeted acquisitions, would have a much more robust roster of potential purchases.  That buyer would also clearly know, and be able to plan for, the strengths and weaknesses of any particular acquisition.  More importantly, they would know that actions were being properly focused, based on relative importance.

Still life with art
Some comments against the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)'s support of the arts -- a recent subject of Seattle's Jim Tune's arts blog -- were painful to read.  Those commenting seemed unaware of the many documented studies showing the interplay between the arts (as a form of creativity, expression, listening, observing, inspiration, or understanding of what it is to be human) and what those commenting were implying was "life."

Specific comments ranged from "The NEA should be removed from the National Budget... It should not be a function of our government." to "Fund education! We need people with practical, productive skills that this country can really use."

There is an acknowledged positive effect of involvement in the arts on students' higher overall academic achievements.  Arts are critical in learning to listen, observe, write, think, imagine, invent and create. The ultimate selected "medium" for utilizing these skills in one's life can be in the arts themselves, or the sciences. Yes, there is a "spillover" effect of honing these skills into other academic pursuits.

Ironically, on the same day that I read these anti-art comments, Russia celebrated the 90th birthday of Mikhail Kalishnikov.  An interesting man, who confessed that as a young man he only wished to be a poet. However, he deemed himself a "bad poet," so he gave up on writing and went on to invent the AK-47.  Thereby, in exemplary fashion, pursuing the "practical and productive."

The juxtaposition of articles seemed so much more than just serendipitous!  A key example of a creative and inventive mind.

At its founding, our government retained the right to use tax dollars to wage war. It also made a critical decision -- to use its powers and scope its responsibilities to support aspects of life that those wars defend:

"...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." 

The arts are most definitely a part of our "Blessings of Liberty." And "securing" them does not just mean at the point of a gun.   And, for those still having doubts, who knows whether or not some would-be-poet will become our next great inventor, or even a general?

Viewpoints matter
Earlier this month (Oct. 9, 2009) I ranked the attributes of an "ideal" health care system that I, as a potential user of the system, would desire. The New York Times recently published the "features" of the differing proposals in committees and houses of Congress. I decided to weigh how well each proposal met my criteria.  (The chart to the right shows the outcome. Any not crossing the midline fall short of at least one very important attribute I weighted earlier.)  Additionally, as options, I included the status quo, as well as the UK and the Canadian systems from what little I know about them.

Congress' proposals were difficult to rank, because descriptions were primarily focused on the "rules of participation" and "penalties for non-participation." These descriptors were insufficient to understand the "offerings" given to user/patients of a system of health care, but were more about administration.  A potential user/patient is less concerned about the cost to the government or the effect on businesses (small or large).  While viable concerns of some constituencies, they are not reflective of the user/patient constituency.

For most individuals, a key area of concern is "affordability." But "affordability" remains nebulous in the descriptions:

• "Premiums will not be allowed to be raised because of pre-existing conditions." A noble statement, but one that does not address the fact that premiums may be too high in the first place.

• "Shopping at an exchange." If all prices at the exchange are too high, then "affordability" remains an issue for many.  As an example, has anyone "shopped around" for better interest rates at a bank recently? Does it seem as if one is dealing with a banking cartel?  In that light, do we think that there will be sufficient incentive for any insurance company to lower its rates if it can observe that its competition is profiting more?

• A "cap" of $5,000 per individual has been bandied about. Is this reasonable, given that the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hour) would only provide an individual with approximately $13,700/year after taxes?  How is that individual to survive on the remaining amount, if $5,000 is taken from it to cover health care costs?  Is this realistic? Even a tax credit for the full $5,000 would only put $63/month back in the pockets of these individuals.  What will that buy them?  Paying the $750 penalty that is suggested, would provide them with $1,081/month to deal with the immediate realities of life.  Would this not seem the more pragmatic action to take?

That said, is the Congress (having "offered" such a deal to these individuals that they then "refuse") going to return to their voter base with a clear conscience saying they created a "reformed" system?  That this was the best they could do?

Assessing the same proposals from the point of view of the insurance industry, is a more rosy picture:

• Under all proposed systems, the industry will have a captive market. Subscribing to insurance will be mandatory. 
• The government will police on the industry's behalf, through penalties. 
• There is no mention of regulations for or mandated lowering of pricing of premiums, or co-pays.
• There are no guarantees re personal choice of doctors.
• There are no regulations about qualifications for doctors participating in plans.
• There is a wide array of "levels" of care being spoken about. 
• There no longer is talk of the "right" to health care. Instead this has been replaced with "acceptable numbers" for the number of people uninsured. "Insured" can actually be insurance that plays out to be as one congressman deemed it, "pseudo-insurance." But, no one is mandating regulations to prevent this type of fraud. 
• The complexity itself in the descriptions of plans, in fact, adds to the industry's ability to manipulate for their profit. 

More is to be gained than lost from the insurance industry point of view.

Beyond these questions, going through the assessment exercise reveals some important aspects of this decision. The White House's "idea" for health care as initially assessed, due to our lack of knowledge as to specifics, is better than the actual proposals at hand. This is not unusual.  Concepts that are loosely defined typically are interpreted more generously.  It is always advisable to return to an assessment as details are uncovered about a project.  When "guidelines" evolve into specifics, we often see the more realistic ranking of a project.

If there are multiple constituencies involved in determining "what matters," the degree of influence of each (their voice's weighting) must also be factored in to the assessment.

In health care reform, we are dealing with multiple constituencies, with differing viewpoints: The citizen, as potential patient/user.  The citizen as taxpayer.  Big corporations.  Small businesses.  The private insurance industry.  The government as a representative of the people.  To get on the same page, we may need to start separately.  But instead of trying to convince the other constituencies of our own values as factors for their judgment, we need to integrate all viewpoints.  This does not mean homogenization of viewpoints, but it does mean a a type of "triangulation" in the judgment of options.  This is what is currently missing, and why pot shots can be so easily made about each proposal, and why one viewpoint, one that is an expert in getting heard but is not necessarily representing what is best, is beginning to dominate.

Valuing language and nuance.
About twenty or so years ago a colleague of mine delightedly exclaimed that "globalization and the omnipresence of computing, will soon make English the language spoken everywhere, because it is the language of computers."

I bit my lip at the time.  Out of fear or politeness, I am now not sure why I hesitated to accept this as "a good thing," even if perhaps true.  The "English" that I was typing into my computer, except in word processing applications, was a far cry from the "English" I loved.

"Computing English" wasn't the rich language of nuance, feeling, expressiveness, or beauty.  The English lingo of "input" or coding, and even the support for the results of same,  might become universal, but it would never be the "English language."

Unlike the demise of some older computing languages (which many programmers celebrated), the recent BBC story of the demise of some spoken languages, caused a pang in my heart.

"By the year 2100, 90% of the world's languages would have ceased to exist."

As we lose languages, I think of what those that I learned have meant to me:  Learning a foreign language was the start of an adventure into another culture, another way of thinking.  Being surrounding by the juxtaposition of sounds never heard, in patterns never heard, led to the understanding of viewpoints and perspectives of other people.  As with the prayer of St. Francis, it was, for me, less about being understood myself, than about understanding others. (Although improved understanding in both directions is the epitome of good communication.)

Recalling the Tower of Babel story -- the creation of tongues -- depicted as a disaster for humanity, I am wondering now if it really was such a catastrophe. It seems no one was communicating properly when they had a common language.  Perhaps "the reason" for different languages was to demonstrate more clearly the existence of underlying differences that were previously being masked by the common language.

The New York Times provides some insights into these underlying differences in an article on literature prizes.  After a book is translated into another tongue, its acceptance depends on common themes that appeal to all humanity, and, more importantly on clearly unique themes for differing cultures.

Border checkpoints used to be a mental, as well as geographic, point of embarkation for the traveler. Upcoming experiences may be different from those to which one is accustomed.  As physical border checkpoints disappear, and as one global language emerges, we cannot assume that differences will also disappear. "Globalization" and the use of "one common language" may only obscure the appearance of differences. Differences will continue to exist.  And we may find ourselves, again, at the base of a Tower of Babel, fighting in a common language.

Differing languages may well be the last remnant of a "border crossing." Do they help us acknowledge cultural differences? Does the very fact that we are confronted with the fact that a difference exists -- that we cannot assume that we will be understood with the words we use -- make us more careful?

The assumption of a common tongue giving us the ability to have immediate understanding is a premise fraught with peril. Our clients, even in their own common language, be it English, French, Italian, German or Japanese, take the time to carefully discuss wording so that there is clear understanding of the nuances of their entries into our software.  This part of the process takes the better part of their time, but this point in the process is clearly pivotal in preventing "garbage in, garbage out."

The buyer behavior is not surprising to me.  It does make me flinch to have it deemed "lying." It isn't at all.  The client has been asked for a list of things to describe deeper desires, but even they don't know that.  And, it is the deeper meaning of the features they might list that forms the basis for their decision or judgment. A buyer is looking for intangibles as represented by features.


In all practicality, a real estate agent needs a definitive starting point to find housing options to show to a client: a ball-park size in terms of bedrooms and baths, and perhaps some other features.  After that, the relative importance to the buyer of the intangible factors will be the real drivers of their final decision.

A list of these underlying intangibles emerge from questions such as: "If you had the features you describe, how would they make you feel when you are in that 'ideal' home?  How do each of the features you list, as you envision them in your head, make you feel? Describe the 'tones' or 'feelings' of that 'ideal' home."  [More critical than being driven by a list of features is understanding that other, completely unthought of, features might be able to satisfy these underlying desires.]

Examples of types of intangible statements are listed below:

• Feels cozy and warm.
• Gives a feeling of being connected with nature.
• Is peaceful.
• Is distinctive.
• Imparts prestige/importance.
• Showcases our personalities. (specifically, e.g. arty, intellectual, powerful, efficient, orderly, extroverted, introverted, fun-loving, etc.)
• Gives our children a cultural advantage.
• Gives our children an educational advantage.
• Feels luxurious.
• Provides a welcoming atmosphere.
• Provides privacy for all inhabitants.
• Is affordable without strain on our current/expected financial means.
• A place where we could stay for years. (e.g. this would cover a variety of more specific statements: "has space for growing family, or "could accommodate aging needs")
• Will provide us with financial stability/security. 

A buyer can weigh their relative importance, resulting in a "profile" of a "great home." All houses (the collection of their tangible features) would be weighed against these intangible attributes.  Every person on the planet tries to juggle multiple variables in their head.  However, when mentally juggling, it becomes more difficult, as more and more housing options or features are added to the mix.

At some point, cumulatively, more of these intangible needs will be met in the buyer's mind, until one housing option outweighs another.  This "build" of the internal assessment against components can be arrived at over time, or it can be done in a flash.

In any case, the buyer didn't lie.  They just described their "needs" by using features as examples of something deeper that they really wanted.  That "something" is a set of intangible, but completely valid, factors having relative importance.  It is the cumulative assessment against those factors that can make it seem as though a final decision was arbitrary.  I guarantee you, it was not.  The client has remained absolutely true to his internal set of intangibles and his personal assessment against them.

Signing on for Faith, or Religion

The BBC and the New York Times recently reported that well-known newspapers may start charging (by subscription or pay-per-story) for their on-line publications, as has been the strategy of the Financial Times since the start of its on-line presence. Oft-cited reasons are the decline of on-line advertising revenue and the need for revenue to assure quality. Certainly, when one hears about the latest analysis of most Twitter "tweets," one would concur that "free" could be seen to promote "pointless babble."

From town crier, to print, to radio, to television, to online news access, the platform for news delivery continues to evolve.

On-line news providers' strategies must consider differing parameters and expectations of the Internet from print or TV. And certainly more criteria exist than "revenue generation" for making decisions. Objectives that pertain to quality, availability, accessibility, reach, differentiation and scope should be clarified and weighted.

If the ultimate purpose of an Internet news provision strategy were to "Expand influence through a growing readership base, while securing sufficient revenue to continue highest-quality operations for the long-term," the following questions, could become the basis for further disciplined analysis, and a more robust overall strategy:

• Why would a person prefer to obtain news from the Internet rather than by print or TV?
• What captures on-line reader loyalty? How might this change in five years time? What will be the factors that drive that change?
• What differentiates the provider's coverage of news from other sources, from the reader's viewpoint? What is their relative weighting of these factors of differentiation? ("Quality" is a nebulous term. From the readers' perspectives (grouped by type), what are the reasons why they choose one news source over its competitors? Elements that comprise their definition of "quality" must be delineated and weighted.)
• How well does each type of group deem that the provider satisfies those qualities? Where do qualities the readers deem most desirable need strengthening?
• Where does advertising fit into the users' (readers') view of value of the provider's product? Is advertising more valuable than the absence of advertising, from a user's perspective?
• What barriers to reporting does the provider currently have, which may be caused by existing revenue generating avenues? If any existing revenue generating method were removed, what benefits might occur?
• Are there means other than reader-paid fees or corporate advertising that could be pursued to generate revenue, i.e. methods completely outside these traditional areas? Would these new approaches enhance abilities to report the news, in addition to supporting the achievement of the provider's full list of objectives? How will each reader type react to each of these types of new revenue generating avenues?

Understanding what one's customers value, how they see the relative importance of those elements and how they see one's performance against those elements are essential to any decision-making. Organizing, exploring and assessing alternatives in that context then helps one move to a new paradigm.

The old fortune-telling "8-balls" invented in 1946 and widely popular during the 1950s have come back to mind. These toys, when rotated, would display random and often vague answers to posed questions, answers such as "Reply hazy. Ask again." How appropriate they seem today.

The US budget deficit made headlines by hitting $1 trillion on Monday. A number that is nearly incomprehensible. One wonders how long it will be before such a figure will become commonplace. Have we just seen the economic equivalent of the Roger Bannister 4-minute mile?

In response to this news the NYSE was up 185.16 points and the S&P up 21.92. This could, of course, swing wildly in the other direction tomorrow. "Outlook good."

The unpredictability of leading economic indicators, as well as their general disconnect with more tangible daily realities, increases one's reluctance to make investments with any remains of decimated funds. With futures fraught with uncertainty, options that once seemed wise or safe remain dismal. Interest rates certainly don't inspire one to put one's savings in a bank. For many baby-boomers key financial decisions must be made soon. They do not have the luxury of time to heal their economic wounds. Yet, no entity or person seems trustworthy or reliable enough to consign with one's future. How can one trust in what one does not find sane or at least moderately predictable?

Larger economic recovery solutions must address the varying needs and anxieties of multiple constituencies so that all can survive (if not thrive). Viewpoints differ, depending on one's age, education, personal comfort and economic position. If one is younger than 50, if one has training in economics, if one has a stable and sufficiently generous salary, then the volatile market and the burgeoning deficit might not seem quite as despairing as they are to persons well beyond fifty, facing retirement, confronted with little chance of recovering nest eggs built over decades, compounded by the potential loss of the so-called safety net of social security.

It is not that one view is right and one is wrong. Solutions just are, and always will be, assessed from different angles. Each perspective has its own reality. More robust solutions will account for this fact. Finding common ground is essential to selecting solutions affecting a broad range of constituents. Understanding and honoring the differing values of each constituency is critical. "Yes."