Learn the Problem, Then Innovate

Standard

As I’ve previously mentioned, one of the biggest takeaways from last year was my attempt to learn how to code. After going through Code Academy’s HTML/CSS/JS courses, Zed Shaw’s Learn Python the Hard Way, I felt marginally capable to experiment and build something with my newfound knowledge. I even set up a launch page for a web application on something that I love and wish I had the time to do more of – traveling. Although that project has been put on indefinite hold, and honestly it’s been months since I’ve sat in front of TextWrangler, this article in the New York Times got me thinking about the various motivations people have for learning to code.

Before going any further, to summarize, the article discusses the advent of a relatively new profession: the mobile application developer. Lured by multi-million dollar successes like Angry Birds and Instagram, hundreds (perhaps thousands) have delved into the world of mobile application development, many with the hopes of striking it rich. The article rightly points out that despite the boom, only few actually achieved the payout they envisioned.

Although Instagram and other blockbuster apps were certainly motivators to learn, for me coding initially was really just a challenge to learn something new. As a researcher, coding seemed like a great opportunity for me to develop the skills that could potentially enable me to create something that others could find useful. Although at times frustrating and difficult to understand, I soon realized that coding (if you could call what I was doing coding) was actually kind of fun. I liked the fact that at its core, coding is all about problem solving. I liked that there were multiple ways to write code to do the same thing.

I liked everything about coding, until I realized that most applications are ill received by the marketplace, and are rarely if ever used. The thought of spending hundreds of hours working on a product, if only to realize that there is little to no market for it, was kind of disappointing. Obviously, identifying a target market is a fundamental concept of the Lean Startup, but even then, with fierce competition in an already saturated market, the task of creating a well received product seems insurmountable and not worthwhile.

Being a creator of a meaningful product is still an aspiration of mine, and one day I hope to actually achieve this goal. For now though, rather than rushing into the market with the hopes of making it big, I’ll continue learning about the problems that matter most to me: urbanization, the environment and mental health. Perhaps by deeply understanding these problems, I can one day create something that will meaningfully positively impact the lives of others.

Lessons on Urban Economics

Standard

For the past couple of months, I’ve taken an interest in understanding the economics of cities. Like development economics, a core aspect of urban economics is the understanding of economic growth. In my opinion, I think both are particularly complementary subfields of economics, especially considering that the majority of economic growth in developing and underdeveloped countries over the next several decades will take place in urban areas. Although much of the literature on urban economics focuses on cities in the developed world, I think the same theories – Ed Glaeser’s Human Capital Theory, Richard Florida’s Creative Class, and Jane Jacobs perspectives on urban design – are certainly applicable to the rapid growth happening in the developing world.

One idea that I found particularly interesting, if only because it seems so obvious, is that specialized cities – dominated by a single industry (or worse, a single company) typically have a much harder time reinventing themselves amidst a changing economy. The American rust belt is littered with prime examples of the consequences that come with specialization: cars in Detroit, steel in PIttsburgh, manufacturing in Buffalo, etc. While cities like Pittsburgh arguably have bounced back, others like Detroit continue to struggle with economic development. Glaeser points out in his book, Triumph of the City, that while in its heyday the Big Three brought prosperity to Detroit, it unknowingly stymied the growth and development of other industries.

Detroit’s story from prosperity to struggle, in large part due to its reliance on the auto industry, got me thinking about other cities in America that presumably are dominated by a single industry. Initially, it was fairly easy to come up with a short list of highly specialized cities: banking and finance in New York, energy in Houston, entertainment in Los Angeles, and technology in Silicon Valley. On further inspection however, it’s obvious that, with the exception of Silicon Valley, these cities are highly diversified: media, publishing, advertising in New York, shipping and distribution in Houston and Los Angeles. Silicon Valley on the other hand, is unequivocally dominated by the tech industry. This great piece from the Director of International Programs at Code for America, details just how big of a problem this truly is for Silicon Valley.

While I highly doubt anyone would consider Silicon Valley as a future Detroit, I do think the leaders of industry and policy in San Jose should do more to diversify their economic base beyond technology. Being the world’s epicenter of innovation is a fantastic achievement, but as history tells us, nothing lasts forever. Who would’ve thought a hundred years ago would’ve thought that South Korea and Japan would rival American and European auto manufacturers for global dominance?

Lessons from StartingBloc

Standard

What happens when you take 100 young professionals with a passion for social innovation, place them in a room for 8 hours each day for 5 days, and end each night at nearby bars? 

Magic happens. 

At least that’s what I took away after attending StartingBloc’s New York 2012 Institute for Social Innovation. StartingBloc is a people incubator that provides social innovators the skills, tools, and community they need to succeed in addressing the most pressing global challenges. I had heard a lot about StartingBloc from friends and colleagues, so I felt comfortable knowing what I was getting myself into. While I found the lectures helpful, what I’ll remember most were the aspects of the institute that I did not expect. For me, they were:

Being Incredibly Vulnerable
What truly makes the StartingBloc experience unique, in my opinion, is its ability to quickly create an environment of openness and vulnerability. On the first day, candidates find themselves sharing with others (i.e., strangers still at this point) their hopes and dreams. By day two, they’re pitching the projects they find personally soul-moving to a crowd of more than 100. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Throughout the whole experience, I kept thinking back to Brené Brown’s Ted Talk on the Power of Vulnerability. The following quote from the talk really captures the role vulnerability played, at least for me, during the Institute:

“Embracing our vulnerabilities is risky but not nearly as dangerous as giving up on love and belonging and joy—the experiences that make us the most vulnerable. Only when we are brave enough to explore the darkness will we discover the infinite power of our light.”

Confronting My  Public Speaking Anxiety
I’ve always hated public speaking. Since moving to the East Coast, public speaking and presenting (whether through phone or in-person) has increasingly been a big weakness. During the conference, I purposefully forced myself to take center stage: the first time to share my idea on Reducing Hopelessness, the second for my team’s pitch during the social innovation case competition.  Although I was well aware that my pitch was a little shaky and hinted at my nervousness, I was surprised by how calm I felt when presenting (re: doing improv) for the case competition. Doing improv really showed me that public speaking comes in different forms. Perhaps this might be a new way for me to reframe and tackle my struggles with public speaking.

The Power of the Network
One of the more eye-opening exercises we did during the institute was to group together and discuss our needs and wants. I went into the exercise thinking I’d be unable to help much.  As a newbie in the world of social innovation and entrepreneurship, I thought to myself, “How could I possibly have access to resources of interest to others?” Wrong. I discovered that I actually had a lot to offer. The exercise taught me an unexpected lesson: don’t underestimate what you know and who you know — just share!

Closing Thoughts
I still can’t believe that my Institute experience is already offer. It was without a doubt one of the most exhausting experiences I’ve ever had in my life. Learning and sharing with a community of like-minded individuals was absolutely amazing. Speaking with everyone and hearing about their passions really infused me with newfound motivation to continue working on the things that I’m most passionate about: technology, foreign policy and mental health. Time to start (or rather, continue) getting work done!

 

Quiet Leadership

Standard

Can introverts be successful leaders?

That’s one question that, in my opinion, Susan Cain seeks to answer in her incredibly fascinating book, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking.

As an introvert, this question really resonated with me. I’ve always had an interest in business and politics – it’s a huge reason why I moved 5000 miles in order to be closer to the action. But after working in Corporate America for over a year, I’ve often questioned whether I’m cut out for the field.

The Extrovert Ideal

Cain begins by discussing modern society’s love affair with the Extrovert:

It’s the belief that the ideal self is gregarious, alpha, and comfortable in the spotlight. Introverts living under the Extrovert Ideal are like women in a man’s world, discounted because of a trait that goes to the core of who they are. Introversion – along with its cousin’s sensitivity, seriousness, and shyness – are now a second-class personality, somewhere between a disappointment and pathology.

Talkative people are rated as smarter, better looking, and more desirable as friends. Velocity of speech counts as well as volume: we rank fast talkers as more competent and likable than slow ones. The same dynamics apply in groups, where research shows that the voluble are considered smarter than the reticent.

In the world of business and politics, it’s not surprising that there exists a perception, fueled in large part by the media, that leaders are those with aggressive, brash and have a larger-than-life personality; i.e., Jack Welch or Donald Trump. You don’t hear about, at least in my opinion, leaders with opposing qualities: laid-back, reticent and understated.

The Power of Quiet Leadership

To my surprise, Cain’s book rattles off countless studies that debunk the myth of charismatic leadership. Three examples that I found noteworthy to research further were the following:

Preston Ni, a Communications Studies Professor, calls “soft power” as leadership “by water rather than by fire…Aggressive power beats you up; soft power wins you over. If the cause is just and you put heart into it, it’s almost a universal law: you will attract people who want to share your cause. Soft power is quiet persistence – in their day-to-day, person-to-person interactions.”

In his book, Good to Great, Jim Collins found that “the greatest companies were led by Level 5 Leaders describes by their employees as: quiet, humble, modest, reserved, shy, gracious, mild-mannered, self-effacing, understated. We don’t need giant personalities to transform companies. We need leaders who build not their own egos but the institutions they run.”

Adam Grant, a Management Professor at Wharton, found that “extroverted leaders enhance group performance when employees are passive; introverted leaders are more effective with proactive employees. Extroverts can be so intent on putting their own stamp that they risk losing others’ good ideas and allowing workers to lapse into passivity. Introverts – because of their inclination to listen to others and lack of interest in dominating social situations – are more likely to hear and implement suggestions.”

So Is It Possible?

Cain writes, “If there is only one insight you take away from this book, I hope it’s a newfound sense of entitlement to be yourself.” As an introverted aspiring entrepreneur and businessman living in an extroverted world, I can say with conviction that – yes – Cain has accomplished her goals. After reading her book, I do think it’s possible to rise above the chaos and noise to become a successful leader, even in business and politics, as an introvert.