About
|
Previously on...
Hello,
One thing that annoys me in social-networks content is that it is short-lived. Either you get at that time, or it is hard to go back to it. And you only get it if the almighty algorithm thinks you will like it, so you're probably missing something. They are disposable, read it now or it’s gone. No, you don’t get a chance to re-visit them.
Did this ever happen to you:
You open the social media app and see an interesting post you're about to read or save
Somehow your finger slips down, and the app thinks you want to refresh.
When it refreshes, it runs the algorithm and shows you a new set of posts.
And the post you initially wanted to read is lost in the ether, sucked to the endless black-hole of your stream. 😡
These are some of the reasons I started this newsletter/blog — to give you the power to choose if you want to subscribe and open each newsletter. To give you the chance to go back and check archives for something you missed or want to revisit.
So today, I decided to resurface some of my latest posts and take the opportunity to add some additional comments. It was a chance to re-read and re-think them. I hope you also take this opportunity.
#remotewithfriends
TLDR: The future of remote work is work-with-friends.
<insert "Friends" TV series image here>
The other day I was discussing with some friends the good and the bad of remote work. We all see both sides, and we can picture a mix-reality that takes the best of both worlds. But we were still stuck with this idea that remote = work from home.
At home, you don't pick the where or the who you work with. So you don't have the freedom usually associated with being remote.
But if the location was not a constrain (office), where would you work?
I think working alongside friends would be incredible.
We would have the benefits of sharing time and space but without working with them in the same company/project - a tricky business in itself.
Besides scratching the social-itch, we would benefit from exchanging ideas, experiences, and advice with our different backgrounds and expertise.
Private-jokes about each one's workplace? Definitely!
Bonus: this would remove the social pressure from companies that paternalistically want to create social environments where people feel comfortable in all of their dimensions.
You even make friends at work, I know!
Maybe you even satisfy your social needs to the point that you're meeting your "real-world-friends" less.
And we all know how that ends - when you are laid-off, you lose more than the job. You lose the social fabric that was supporting you. And that's terrible.
I am looking forward to this future with friends.
This one got considerable traction. Somehow it resonated with many people. Maybe we should start a #remotewithfriends
movement!
I wonder if any co-work, or real-estate project, will see an opportunity here. Or companies adopting a BYOF (bring your own friend) policy!
I feel excited about the opportunities. And I wonder if this is also part of a more significant trend of unbundling organizations.
The bundle till yesterday was a company that had some well defined and quantified ingredients: a set number of employees, doing well-defined jobs in a particular office during fixed business hours. If we start challenging each one of them, what possibilities will they open?
work whenever you want
work wherever you want
share the workspace with whom you want
work for whom you want
Impact, not ego
“Impact, not ego — We work with humility and empathy. We prioritise what is right for the company, regardless of the task or glory associated with it." in Our Values @ Cytora.
Ben O'Mahony told me about it when we met some 18 months ago, and it resonated so much that I still remember it today.
Why?
Because "impact" was always the game I played and what I strived and looked for.
"Impact" is always a team sport, and the ego stands in the way.
Ego-centric is a distorted and ultimately unfair view of the world. I don't deal well with "unfair".
It is also a great company value because everyone knows what it means ;)
Company values can be very fluffy, full of platitudes and fancy words, but also meaningless.
But I like the idea of setting an organization first-principles, the fundamental laws that shape all the emergent behavior. Define the boundaries of your playground — “you’re free to play within these boundaries; now, go play!”
This has the potential to be very powerful and generative by nature.
Of course, uncovering the company values is not easy — I’ve been there.
But that’s precisely why I got fixated on this “Impact, not ego” — it becomes clear that it is not about personal glory, it is about the mission and the team.
Bad rep
Marketing has a bad reputation and I can understand why when brands that are considered a reference are based on a LIE.
1. “In the 1960’s in the Bronx, two Polish-Jewish immigrants, Reuben and Rose Mattus, created Häagen Dazs.”
2. “Häagen-Dazs’ European-sounding name gave cultural biography to the brand that didn’t have any.”
3. “Its original packaging featured a map of Denmark, despite the fact that “ä” doesn’t exist in Danish and that the words don’t mean anything.”
These are actual words from a case-study by the influential CMO Ana Andjelic just named Top50 Most Influential CMOs. The case-study is worth reading but unfortunately doesn’t touch this fundamental issue of fabricated authenticity.
What do you think?
Does it matter if it’s true or not?
If consumers want to believe and buy that heritage does it make it legitimate?
This one generated some debate from the marketing folks.
Any subject that involves conditioning human-behavior needs to be subject to some ethical boundaries. Marketing is one of them. Maybe we need some kind of Hippocratic Oath (scientist got one for them)
Consider the manipulation happening on Facebook regarding social issues and elections — is it ethical? or is it just smart targeting and communication?
Is micro-targeting ethical?
I mean, identifying a group of hundreds of people, undecided people about an issue (say, immigration policies) and nudge them to one side, enough to "move the needle".
I'm using politics communications/marketing as an example to question where we draw the line between communication and manipulation.
The same can be said about product design — if you watch Social Dilemma, you'll see how design can make a product addictive. Where do you draw the line between building a great experience, driving usage/sales, and creating an addictive product that can be harmful to people?
These questions are pertinent now because technology and our understanding of human behavior and the brain are getting to the point that we can mass manipulate people.
I'm probably over-reacting, but still, this is not a far-fetch reality.
Thanks for reading,
Hugo