Transcript
Baker-ffirs-3
MIND OVER MATTER
WHY INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL IS THE CHIEF
SOURCE OF WEALTH
RONALD J. BAKER
JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.
09/05/07
i
Baker-ffirs-3
09/05/07
iv
Baker-ffirs-3
MIND OVER MATTER
WHY INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL IS THE CHIEF
SOURCE OF WEALTH
RONALD J. BAKER
JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.
09/05/07
i
Baker-ffirs-3
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Copyright 2008 by Ronald J. Baker. All rights reserved.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Published simultaneously in Canada.
Wiley Bicentennial Logo: Richard J. Pacifico
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as
permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior
written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to
the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, fax
978-646-8600, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be
addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ
07030, 201-748-6011, fax 201-748-6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in
preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or
completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of
merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales
representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable
for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor
author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited
to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
For general information on our other products and services, or technical support, please contact our
Customer Care Department within the United States at 800-762-2974, outside the United States at
317-572-3993 or fax 317-572-4002.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may
not be available in electronic books.
For more information about Wiley products, visit our Web site at http://www.wiley.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:
Baker, Ronald J.
Measure what matters to your customers: using key predictive
indicators / Ronald J. Baker.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-13: 978-0-471-75294-3 (cloth)
ISBN-10: 0-471-75294-0 (cloth)
1. Intellectual capital. 2. Knowledge management. 3. Success in business. I. Title.
HD53.B353 2006
658.4 038—dc22
2006014055
Printed in the United States of America.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
09/05/07
ii
Baker-ffirs-3
To my TA,
Paul O’Byrne, an exceptional friend.
Why?
Parce que c’´etait lui, parce que c’´etait moi.
09/05/07
iii
Baker-ffirs-3
09/05/07
iv
Baker-ffirs-3
Whatever your hand finds to do,
do it with all your might,
for in the grave, where you are going,
there is neither working
nor planning nor knowledge
nor wisdom.
—Ecclesiastes 9:10
09/05/07
v
Baker-ffirs-3
09/05/07
vi
Baker-ftoc-1 09/05/07
CONTENTS
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgments
About the Author
About this Book
1
2
3
4
5
6
x
xiii
xix
xxv
xxvii
Mind Over Materialism
1
Do Trade Deficits Diminish Wealth?
6
Mind Over Marxism
15
Karl Marx, False Prophet
The Marginalist Revolution
19
22
The Economy in Mind
29
The Ash Heap of History
‘‘Like a Chrysalis’’
32
43
A Flawed Theory—The Old Business Equation
47
The Three Types of IC
Negative Intellectual Capital
‘‘Analyzing’’ the Predominant Business Equation
49
51
52
A Better Theory—The New Business Equation
59
The New Theory
Cognitive Dissonance
Where Do Profits Come From?
Summary and Conclusions
60
63
69
72
The Scarcest Resource of All
75
Thomas Sowell and Friedrich Hayek on Knowledge
Information Wants to Be Free, Knowledge Isn’t
Sapere Aude!
76
80
87
vii
Baker-ftoc-1
viii
CONTENTS
7 Ideas Have Consequences
New Growth Theory
8 The Characteristics of Intellectual Capital
Knowledge Is a Verb
Defining Intellectual Capital
9 Human Capitalism
The More Human the Capital, the Less We Can Measure It
We Know More Than We Can Tell
Karl Marx’s Revenge
10 Knowledge Workers Are Volunteers
People Have Value, Not Jobs
Becoming a Lightning Rod for Talent
91
93
99
100
104
107
112
118
122
125
130
133
11 Developing and Inspiring Knowledge Workers
139
The Scientific Management Revolution
What, Exactly, is Productivity?
A Framework for Knowledge Worker Effectiveness
Far Fewer Knowledge Workers Than We Think?
Sample Knowledge Organizations
Personality Testing and Performance Appraisals
The Importance of Continuing Education
What about Work-Life Balance?
Negative Human Capital
Summary and Conclusions
142
148
151
156
161
166
173
178
182
184
12 Structural Capital: If Only We Knew What We Know
187
The Economics of Structural Capital
Leveraging IC and Creating the World’s Second Largest Currency
Knowledge Lessons from the U.S. Army
Summary and Conclusions
190
199
202
211
13 Social Capital: No Man is an Island
Is There Any Accounting for Tastes?
Leveraging Social Capital
Customers
213
218
221
222
09/05/07
viii
Baker-ftoc-1
CONTENTS
Reputation and Brands
Referral Sources and Networks
Suppliers and Vendors
Shareholders and Other External Stakeholders
Joint Venture Partners and Alliances
Industry Associations and Formal Affiliations
Alumni
Unions
Corporate Universities
Open Source—Mass Collaboration
Cultural, Moral, and Ethical Capital
Putting All Your Social Capital Together: The Concierge Service
Model
Summary and Conclusions
14 Knowledge versus Beliefs
Profits Come from Risk and Uncertainty
Debits Don’t Equal Credits
Financial Model Reform
Summary and Conclusions
15 Purpose
Vocation: What Is Calling You?
Continuously Develop Your Intellectual Capital
Adventure
Leaving a Legacy
Bibliography
Suggested Reading
Additional Resources
Index
ix
224
226
228
229
230
232
233
234
236
244
251
254
258
259
262
268
277
283
285
288
295
296
300
303
315
329
333
09/05/07
ix
Baker-ffore-2
FOREWORD
I first met Ron Baker in May 2006 at an Association of National
Advertisers conference, where he was speaking to a group of
CFOs and procurement managers from both advertisers and agencies. Ron was explaining in no uncertain terms how their business
of creating and using advertising was being severely limited by
the way they measure and account for their services and intellectual capital. You could hear a pin drop! You could see many
of the CFOs, from both advertisers and agencies alike, squirming
in their seats. Ron talked of value pricing, no time sheets, no
detailed task oversight, and no examining each other’s costs and
profits. Many were probably questioning who this man was and
wondering if perhaps he had landed in the wrong room.
But to me, his point of view, his approach, was refreshing.
In the crowded room, it was as if he were speaking only to me,
challenging the beliefs of the new world I had just joined. You see,
I had just assumed the responsibility for agency compensation
systems at the world’s leading advertiser, Procter & Gamble. I had
come into a world that was a bit of a mystery to me—the world of
agency/client compensation and deep relationships. My career at
P&G had started with learning about process systems and people
in our manufacturing operation. I then moved to Finance, learning
about budgets, accounting, and portfolio analysis; and then most
recently I had led Human Resources for Finance & Accounting,
focusing on how to develop new, breakthrough ways of attracting,
developing, and training our men and women in Finance and
Accounting.
So for me, hearing Ron’s talk, only three months after taking this new role, gave me hope that there is a better way to
09/05/07
x
Baker-ffore-2
FOREWORD
xi
manage the compensation between us and our agencies that truly
unleashes the creativity of our agencies and our brand builders.
I devoured Ron’s first book in the Intellectual Capitalism Series,
Pricing on Purpose, and it became the oft-quoted resource in my
discussions with our chief marketing officer and our agency leaders. Then his next work, Measure What Matters to Customers, hit
at exactly the time that we started thinking about our way forward
in the area of agency compensation. His latest work, Mind Over
Matter, again comes at a time when it’s most needed for me. In
this latest work, Ron does a masterful job of weaving the key
learning from his first two books in the Intellectual Capitalism
Series, and builds upon them to explore the vitally important role
of people, behaviors, and society in the business world.
I feel this latest book differs in some ways from his earlier
works. Ron has come a long way since his days in the accounting
practice of KPMG. In my opinion, this book showcases Ron in
a role he has played for me, as an executive coach and mentor.
Mind Over Matter does a wonderful job of helping the reader
understand the essential side of our work to inspire and stimulate
those in the knowledge worker environment in which we operate.
He brings simple, compelling lines of reasoning to the issues
we face today in terms of attracting, motivating, energizing, and
empowering the people both inside and outside who touch our
organizations.
I was struck by his discussion and research in the chapters
“Human Capitalism” (Chapter 9), “Knowledge Workers Are Volunteers” (Chapter 10), and “Developing and Inspiring Knowledge
Workers” (Chapter 11). Much of his research rings true for me and
has reinforced my learning while working to develop and inspire
our knowledge workers in Finance and Accounting at P&G.
However, the chapter that impacted me the greatest and caused
me to challenge my thinking and work, is Chapter 13, “Social
Capital.” In many ways our agency partners are knowledge firms
who help us develop and preserve the equity of our brands. One
of his closing comments in this chapter conveys what we want to
09/05/07
xi
Baker-ffore-2
xii
FOREWORD
achieve with our partners, “. . . leverage this inexhaustible source
of intellectual capital to create value for everyone who comes into
its sphere of influence . . . and improve the quality of its social,
not to mention its financial life. . . .”
Again, I feel that Ron is writing this book to me—personally—
to coach me, inspire me, bolster and challenge me to continue our
path to find a way to unleash the significant intellectual capital
that exists in my company and in our agency partners to help
us continue our journey of “Touching Lives, Improving Life” at
P&G.
Read, enjoy, but be careful—you too might become one of
Baker’s disciples!
Richard C. DelCore
Director of Finance—Global Marketing
Procter & Gamble
09/05/07
xii
Baker-fpref-2
09/05/07
PREFACE
A moment’s insight is sometimes worth a life’s experience.
—Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Professor
at the Breakfast Table, 1859
I gradually became aware of a chink in the armor of accounting
in 1981, my sophomore year in college. I was studying to become
a certified public accountant, believing it would allow me to do
anything I wanted in the world of commerce since everyone kept
telling me it was the language of business. I was being taught
the importance of proper accounting in operating a successful
enterprise, from the definition of profit to the necessity of cash
flow. It was a body of knowledge, a tangible reality I could grasp,
a prism in which the world of enterprise I so admired could be
refracted so as to make sense to a na¨ıve student who believed he
knew more than he did.
One of the problems with education is the constant pursuit
of practical knowledge at the expense of pursuing answers to
profound questions. No doubt we all need practical knowledge to
function in everyday life, earn a living, to just get by in the world.
But I now realize people are not guided by what they know , but
rather what they believe —their worldview, through which we
all refract reality. And in August of 1981, my worldview was
about to be punctured permanently, albeit quite gradually, indeed,
imperceptibly at the time. Looking back, Playboy magazine may
be most responsible.
No, not for the prurient reasons you are forgiven for immediately thinking of, but a far more banal explanation. As a barber,
my father was an inveterate reader of Playboy’s interviews, which
are excellent if you have ever bothered to read one with someone
in whom you have an interest. The roster of interviewees is quite
xiii
Baker-fpref-2 09/05/07
xiv
PREFACE
impressive—world leaders, politicians, writers, and so forth—
some of whom, no doubt, are self conscious about appearing in
such a publication. As a matter of fact, when devout Catholic
William F. Buckley Jr. was asked why he would write for such
a magazine, he wittily answered, “I write for Playboy because it
is the fastest way to communicate with my 17-year-old son.”
In any event, my father read the interview with George Gilder
in that August 1981 issue, which impressed him. Gilder had written Wealth and Poverty, a book Ronald Reagan was photographed
with, along with giving it to members of his cabinet. It is little
remembered, but Reagan had a degree in economics from Eureka
College, translating into a lifelong fascination with the writings
of economic thinkers. For some reason, my father was impressed
with the Gilder interview, explaining to me over lunch how this
author had read over 200 books to write his, and was being hailed
as the most articulate, albeit amateur, supply-side economist in
the country. Needless to say, I was not too impressed, pompously
explaining to my dad how there are many crackpots who write
economics books, most of which are useless, wrong, or belong
in the fiction section of bookstores. I was mired in the mentality
that only academic credentials lend credence to anyone writing
on economics. Sure, Gilder may have been a graduate of Harvard,
but he was not a professional economist such as Milton Friedman,
whose book Free to Choose I had read the year before, which
made a lasting impression on my worldview.
Fortunately for me, my father persisted, purchasing a copy of
Gilder’s book, convincingly insisting I should read it. I did. In
one sitting. It changed my life. It opened my eyes to an entire
new worldview that is beyond my capacity to describe in so brief
a space. Little did I understand, but that was the sound of the
first chink in the armor. The next chink came in 1982, when I
read Warren T. Brookes’s book, The Economy in Mind , the title
of which you will see mentioned again in Chapter 3, in a more
historical setting.
xiv
Baker-fpref-2
PREFACE
xv
Mind Over Matter brings me full circle to that first sitting
of reading Gilder’s penetrating insights. It is a journey I have
partially written about in the Prefaces of the first two books in the
Intellectual Capitalism Series, illuminating the opportunity cost of
the accounting career I chose, which was the road not taken—that
of the economist. I traded away, for the ability to capture and
record the historical cost of everything, an understanding of the
nature and origins of value, wealth, and poverty. It was not until
later in my career, after I left the then–Big Eight accounting firm
of KPMG that I understood this opportunity cost was increasingly
becoming prohibitive.
I came to recognize I was ensconced in the accountant’s worldview, a belief system and body of knowledge that cannot really
explain how wealth is created—it can only record it after the
fact. Accounting is not a theory, so it cannot help us peer into
the future; it can only provide assurance on the past. It understands nothing but itself, since it is an identity equation. Worse,
it leads businesspeople to believe they can only manage what
they can measure, as if weighing ourselves more frequently will
change our weight. It confuses cause and effect, and results with
process. It can audit the drunk’s bar bill, but cannot change or
explain his behavior. Even more pernicious, it focuses businesspeople on solving problems and fretting over yesterday, rather
than pursuing opportunities and creating our futures, resulting in
a costly mediocrity.
I will always remember a conversation I was having over the
audit of a genetic laboratory customer we had at KPMG, one
that was working on a cure for AIDS. Of course, the losses in
this start-up were as illustrious as the scientific credentials of its
shareholders and board members. As we were poring over the
balance sheet—bayoneting the wounded after the battle, as it
were—I turned to my senior manager and said, “But you realize
the most important assets of this company will never appear on
its balance sheet, such as the intangibles of its employees and
its entrepreneurial spirit.” I didn’t use the terms intellectual or
09/05/07
xv
Baker-fpref-2 09/05/07
xvi
PREFACE
human capital back then, since an accountant’s world is divided
neatly into tangible versus intangible. Nevertheless, the manager
cocked his head, giving me one of those RCA Victrola dog looks,
and said, “That’s an excellent insight.” I scored big points with
that sagacity, impressing my superiors, but it was at the expense
of my accounting worldview. Chink, crack. The armor was in
scraps.
Thus began a passionate study of value, effectiveness, intellectual capital, along with the real source of profits, all represented in
the new business equation that each book in the Intellectual Capitalism Series expounds upon. The philosopher Heraclitus wrote,
“You cannot step in the same river twice, because by the second
step it will already have changed.” Thus began my crossing of
the river to reach the other side, seeing the world from a different direction—one of value, opportunity, and risk taking, rather
than history, costs, problem solving, and an increasingly irrelevant accounting equation. I must say, this side of the river is
more wondrous and panoramic, allowing me to explain to myself
with much greater clarity how the world really works. This is the
only reason I write books—to help me explain the world I live
in, while helping me think and constantly challenge my beliefs,
subjecting them to the empirical test of reality.
It was not until the early 1990s that I began to fully comprehend that we had shifted from a service to a knowledge economy,
comprised of knowledge workers who are different from industrial or service workers of a bygone era. They now comprise some
30 percent of the labor force (up from about 17 percent in 1950),
but create the overwhelming majority of the value for most organizations. This is a lesson I am painfully reminded of every day,
that my colleagues in professional knowledge firms have still not
learned . They are walking around with an errant worldview, at
a cost that is simply incalculable. If my books can challenge that
worldview, even if only in an infinitesimal way relative to what
Gilder’s did to mine, they will have achieved their purpose.
xvi
Baker-fpref-2
PREFACE
09/05/07
xvii
To tie all these synchronous events together, bringing me full
circle back to that first reading of Gilder’s Wealth and Poverty, I
was thunderstruck when I read the afterword to Gilder’s book Men
and Marriage in the early 1990s, titled “The Faith of Fathers.”
Gilder explains that he never knew his father, a bomber pilot who
was killed in World War II. The day after Gilder received the first
bound copies of his Wealth and Poverty manuscript, an uncle told
him about a box he came across in his attic of some of his father’s
papers. Here is Gilder, explaining what he happened upon in those
papers:
I eagerly went through them; at the top was a 175-page manuscript
on economics that he was working on when he died. One of its
themes was the importance of what he called “intangible capital.”
It corresponded nearly perfectly with the key message of Wealth
and Poverty: that the driving force of a free economy was not
material resources or even physical capital, but the metaphysical
capital of family and faith. In fact, my father’s work, if it had been
completed, could very well have been entitled Wealth and Poverty
(Gilder 1986: 192–193).
Gilder goes on to explain the ultimate source of wealth, which
is an outstanding inauguration to our journey together:
Demand, whether avaricious or just, is impotent to impel growth
without disciplined, creative, and essentially moral producers of
new value. All effective demand ultimately derives from supply; a
society’s income cannot exceed its output. The output of valuable
goods depends not on lechery, prurience, lust, and license but
on thrift, sacrifice, altruism, creativity, discipline, trust, and faith
(Gilder 1986: 196).
Greed, in fact, impels people to seek first their own comfort
and security. The truly self-interested man most often turns to
government to give him the benefits he lacked the moral discipline
to earn on his own by serving others. . . . Any system that does not
uphold the value of freedom of individuals, however lowly, will
miss most of the greatest technical and economic breakthroughs
(Gilder 1986: 197).
xvii
Baker-fpref-2
xviii
PREFACE
I suppose all sons, at one time or another, come to appreciate
the wisdom of Mark Twain: “When I was a boy of fourteen, my
father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man
around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how
much he had learned.” Thanks, Dad.
Peter Drucker, another mentor, was once asked why businesspeople fall for fads and fail to use empirical evidence, to which he
replied: “Thinking is very hard work. And management fashions
are a wonderful substitute for thinking.” By and large, people
do not engage in an endless search for the truth; they are busy
trying to maximize utility. My books are written not so that you
will think like me, but with me. But think you must, subjecting
everything I say to your own belief system, challenging and discarding what you think is wrong, while acknowledging what may
be right. Think of this book as a conversation between us; but
you, dear reader, have the last word.
Ronald J. Baker
Petaluma, California
April 24, 2007
09/05/07
xviii
Baker-fack-2
09/05/07
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
How infinitesimal is the importance of anything I do, but how
infinitely important it is that I do it.
—Voltaire
This book is the physical embodiment of structural capital—one
of the three types of intellectual capital it explores—but it is the
product of an astounding collection of human and social capital. Once again, I have stood on the shoulders of giants, who
have helped me see the world as it is and form my beliefs on
why intellectual capital is the chief source of wealth. Some of
these giants have been absent teachers, educating me through
their books. Most, though, I have had the great good fortune of
meeting and working with. All deserve mention, all the while
recognizing Reinhold Niebuhr’s warning: “There is always some
truth in the errors of others and some error in my truth.” I, as
always, accept the final responsibility for any and all errors that
remain.
Writing, as opposed to researching, a book is a very solitary undertaking. One has no way of knowing if the topics and
expression will resonate with anyone, until you have a chance
to—borrowing from Winston Churchill—“fling it about to the
public.” I have the luxury of first flinging it at my colleagues
and other thought leaders, who always provide cogent critiques
and improve the final product. This book was no exception.
Much thanks to Peter Byers, Rich DelCore, Reed Holden, Sheila
Kessler, Ed Kless, and Paul O’Byrne for reviewing the rather
chaotic manuscript and contributing your insights, wisdom, and
tacit knowledge.
xix
Baker-fack-2
xx
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Untold gratitude must go to George Gilder for conducting an
interview with Playboy that a barber read and was so inspired
by, he purchased your book for his stubborn son, changing the
boy’s life forever after. Gilder has taught me mind over matter,
mind over materialism, and mind over Marxism, with eloquence
and logic without equal. His book Wealth and Poverty created
the desire in me to write my own. His teachings on the morality
of capitalism—especially his May 1997 speech to the Vatican,
“The Soul of Silicon”—should be required reading for anyone
who doubts the morality of free minds operating in free markets. Gilder is the Adam Smith of the twentieth and twenty-first
centuries.
Many other economists have contributed to my understanding
of intellectual capital: Warren T. Brookes, a former economics
columnist for the Boston Herald-American and author of The
Economy in Mind , a book that got me in trouble for being read at
my desk—in a supposed knowledge organization—and the inspiration for Chapter 3. Former President Ronald Reagan, who cited
Brookes’s book in his speech at Moscow State University, has
also contributed to my worldview. Many people forget that Reagan graduated from Eureka College with a degree in economics
and was an inveterate reader of economic thinkers, including
calling on Milton Friedman for counsel and distributing Gilder’s
Wealth and Poverty to his cabinet. Friedrich Hayek, probably one
of the most consequential economists and political philosophers
of the twentieth century, was writing cogently about how markets
capture, create, and disseminate knowledge in the most valuable
manner long before anyone else. Hayek inspired Thomas Sowell, another economic genius, to write his seminal Knowledge and
Decisions, which taught me why knowledge is critical to creating
wealth. Milton Friedman, RIP, along with Gilder, was my first
introduction to economics, leaving an indelible impression on a
young mind devoted to liberty. Gary Becker, one of Friedman’s
students, has also taught me much about the importance of human
and social capital through his writings. Michael Novak, another
09/05/07
xx
Baker-fack-2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
09/05/07
xxi
of my favorite authors, has advanced the ethical argument that
business enterprises are serious moral undertakings.
Of course, Peter Drucker, who introduced the terms knowledge
worker and knowledge economy into the business lexicon over
45 years ago, has been a constant source of inspiration, teaching
me the essentials of business without the fads, jargon, and unnecessary complexity of most business writers. Drucker had the rare
gift of being simple while not being simplistic.
Karl Erik Sveiby is a pioneer in the area of intellectual capital,
and the creator of the framework used in this work—breaking out
intellectual capital into human, structural, and social. Thomas A.
Stewart, a former writer for Fortune and now editor of Harvard
Business Review , also contributed to my thinking with his two
fine books on the topic.
Even though I am not Jewish, I am proud to have my very own
rabbi—Daniel Lapin. His grasp of human behavior is astounding, his book Thou Shall Prosper is profound, and he was the
inspiration for Chapter 14. Thank you, Rabbi.
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn puts
the question succinctly: “Suppose some well-trained young persons working in a discipline have a big idea in the nighttime;
they propose a new interpretation of a problem that heretofore
has defied resolution. How are they able, what must they do,
to convert the entire profession . . . to their way of seeing science and the world?” This is the very question my colleagues
at VeraSage Institute ask themselves every single day, and while
we may not have a definitive answer, we do know that change
comes from influencing people one at a time. To the thousands
of our colleagues around the world—in all kinds of professional
knowledge firms from accounting to technology—thank you for
listening to us rant and rave against the present orthodoxies, then
having the courage and tenacity to test, apply, prove, and falsify
our theories, all of which lead to better theories.
xxi
Baker-fack-2
xxii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The entire team at the California CPA Education Foundation
continues to take risks by allowing us to create and teach innovative new educational courses, which is a laboratory to test and
refine so much of our thinking. Thank you, John Dunleavy (now
retired), Kurtis Docken, Laura Ritter, Kay Phelan, and the rest
of the crew for being such strong supporters of our work. Also,
thank you to Tom Hood and his team at the Maryland Association
of CPAs, and the Business Learning Institute, for recognizing the
accounting profession is sorely in need of new ideas and fresh
approaches if it is to remain relevant in an intellectual capital
economy.
Eric Mitchell, president of Professional Pricing Society, deserves
special thanks for continuing to put the discipline of pricing on the
organizational charts in businesses around the world and for continuously supporting our work.
I am proud to know and have as my mentor Reed Holden.
He constantly challenges my thinking, being gracious and patient
enough not to knock out his very junior sparring partner on those
rare occasions when we disagree. The logician Hilary Putnam
once proposed the following test for a philosophical classic that
I believe describes my relationship with Reed: “The smarter you
get, the smarter it gets.” Reed was kind enough to send me a
copy of his first book, On Orion’s Shoulder, a story about his
father, which is deeply moving, containing much wisdom. I will
cherish it, as I do our friendship.
Another of my mentors is Sheila Kessler, who has been a
constant source of insights and wisdom regarding organizational
functionality and dysfunctionality. I always learn so much from
our exchanges, while Sheila is always gracious with her time in
providing feedback on my manuscripts.
Much gratitude to Rich DelCore, director of finance, Global
Marketing, Procter & Gamble, for taking time out of his incredibly busy schedule to write the Foreword to this book, and for
challenging Tim Williams and me on our LIVE Model, advancing immeasurably our thinking and presentation. Rich is a true
09/05/07
xxii
Baker-fack-2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
09/05/07
xxiii
thought leader who understands the value of cognitive dissonance
and being challenged to the point of becoming “uncomfortable.”
Many thanks to Ron Crone, Paul Dunn, Mark Koziel, Michael
McCulloch, Bill Mees, Ed Miller, Shirley Nakawatase, and Ric
and Kerry Payne, colleagues who engage me professionally and—
since Cicero said your friends are a second self—whose camaraderie I am blessed with every day.
David Hume said “Truth springs from arguments amongst
friends.” My colleagues at VeraSage Institute prove this axiom
every day as we battle in the marketplace of ideas. Though we
may not agree on everything, we have joined together to further our common quest of recognizing that professional service
firms are really professional knowledge firms that create and sell
intellectual capital, while its employees are human capital, not
cattle. Each and every one of these individuals is a thought leader,
enormously creative, intelligent, and committed to bettering their
respective profession for posterity. I’m grateful beyond words for
having the privilege to associate with them, and wish to extend
my heartfelt thanks to Scott Abbott, Justin Barnett, Peter Byers,
Michelle Golden, Daryl Golemb, Brendon Harrex, Paul Kennedy,
Ed Kless, Christopher Marston, Tim McKey, Dan Morris, Paul
O’Byrne, Tim Williams, and Yan Zhu.
Special thanks to Michelle Golden, our latest Cassandra, who
has spread our ideas around the world with her passion for ideaphoria and blogging. Ed Kless for continuing to improve the presentation of our ideas. Peter Byers for his warm friendship who continues, in his gentle way, to shake the world down under. Paul
Kennedy, who in his own Promethean way has adopted many of
these ideas into his firm’s knowledge bank, not to mention with the
consulting work he performs with his customers, constantly adding
to our never-ending knowledge creep. Our newest senior fellow,
Tim Williams, has transferred much tacit knowledge to me about
the advertising world, especially with his inspired improvements to
the revolutionary LIVE Model, which Tim has successfully implemented with his own customers.
xxiii
Baker-fack-2
xxiv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in Character: “A chief event of
life is the day in which we have encountered a mind that startled us.” This aptly describes my colleague, Dan Morris, whose
mind is like a thunderbolt—you never know when it is going
to strike genius. Thank you, Dan, for constantly challenging the
conventional wisdom and even some of my fervent beliefs.
When British chemist Michael Faraday was asked after a lecture if he meant to imply that a hated academic rival was always
wrong, he snarled, “He’s not that consistent.” I’m sure this is
how my British trusted adviser, Paul O’Byrne, feels about some
of my economic viewpoints. It was Paul’s idea for me to write the
Intellectual Capitalism Series, though I am sure he denounces the
second word in its title. Even though I know he does not agree
with everything in this vade mecum, there is no more appropriate
work of mine to dedicate to him that expresses my great good
fortune of being able to call Paul a dear friend.
Elbert Hubbard wrote in 1923 that the job of an editor is to
“separate the wheat from the chaff, and to see that the chaff is
printed,” which is the exact opposite of the results the talented
team at John Wiley & Sons, Inc. produces. Thank you, John
DeRemigis, Judy Howarth, Natasha Wolfe, and Susan Cooper
for giving birth to this third book in the Intellectual Capitalism
Series, at the same time as I missed every one of my deadlines.
Ambrose Bierce once wrote in a book review “The covers of
this book are too far apart,” a reaction I know my brother, Ken
Baker, would undoubtedly agree with. Nevertheless, he remains
an indefatigable supporter of my work and the best brother I
could ever have asked for.
Anytime I receive an introduction that is far too generous, I
am reminded of what President Lyndon Johnson used to say
on similar occasions: “My father would have enjoyed it and
my mother would have believed it.” Fortunately for me, this is
still—undeservedly—true, since my parents have been a constant
source of encouragement and faith in the future.
09/05/07
xxiv
Baker-fbetw-2
09/05/07
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ronald J. Baker started his career in 1984 with KPMG’s Private
Business Advisory Services in San Francisco. Today, he is the
founder of VeraSage Institute, a think tank dedicated to educating
businesspeople around the world.
As a frequent speaker, writer, and educator, his work takes
him around the world. He has been an instructor with the California CPA Education Foundation since 1995 and has authored
13 courses for them: How to Build a Successful Practice with
Total Quality Service; The Shift from Hourly Billing to Value
Pricing; Value Pricing Graduate Seminar; You Are What You
Charge For: Success in Today’s Emerging Experience Economy
(with Daniel Morris); Alternatives to the Federal Income Tax;
Trashing the Timesheet: A Declaration of Independence; Everyday Economics; The Firm of the Future; Everyday Ethics: Doing
Well by Doing Good (with Daniel Morris); The New Business
Equation for Industry Executives; Specialists Make More Money
(with Michelle Golden); When Debits Don’t Equal Credits (with
Daniel Morris); and Implementing the Risk Assessment Standards: Skills for the Engagement Team (with Daniel Morris).
He is the author of the best-selling marketing book ever written
specifically for professional knowledge firms, Professional’s Guide
to Value Pricing (6th edition), published by CCH, Inc. He also
wrote Burying the Billable Hour, Trashing the Timesheet, and You
Are Your Customer List, published by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants in the United Kingdom (available at
www.verasage.com). His book The Firm of the Future: A Guide
for Accountants, Lawyers, and Other Professional Services, coauthored with Paul Dunn, was published in April 2003 by John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. His most recent books, the first and second,
xxv
Baker-fbetw-2 09/05/07
xxvi
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
respectively, in the Intellectual Capitalism Series, Pricing on
Purpose: Creating and Capturing Value was published in February
2006, and Measure What Matters to Customers: Using Key Predictive Indicators was published in September 2006, both by John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ron has toured the world, spreading his value-pricing message to over 80,000 businesspeople. He has been appointed to
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ Group of
One Hundred, a think tank of leaders to address the future of
the profession; named on Accounting Today’s 2001, 2002, 2003,
2004, 2005, and 2006 Top 100 Most Influential People in the profession; and received the 2003 Award for Instructor Excellence
from the California CPA Education Foundation.
He graduated in 1984 from San Francisco State University,
with a bachelor of science degree in accounting and a minor
in economics. He is a graduate of Disney University and Cato
University, and is a member of the Professional Pricing Society.
He presently resides in Petaluma, California.
To contact Ron Baker:
VeraSage Institute
Phone: (707) 769-0965
E-mail:
[email protected]
Web site: www.verasage.com and www.verasage.co.nz
xxvi
Baker-flast-3
09/05/07
ABOUT THIS BOOK
Mind Over Matter is the third book in the Intellectual Capitalism Series. The entire Series centers around the reality that we
now live in a knowledge—or intellectual capital—economy. As
such, the old business equation needs to be replaced with the new
business equation, as follows:
Profitability = Intellectual Capital × Price × Effectiveness
The first book in the series, Pricing on Purpose: Creating and
Capturing Value, explained the pricing component in the above
equation. The second book in the series, Measure What Matters
to Customers: Using Key Predictive Indicators, examined effectiveness and why it is far more important than efficiency in a
knowledge economy. Mind Over Matter studies intellectual capital (IC) in great depth. Because all three works orbit around the
same theory, there is some overlap in content.
Readers of either of the first two books may recognize Chapters
4 and 5 in this volume, and unless you need a quick review of
the problems with the old equation, and the benefits of the new
one, you can comfortably skip these two chapters (although the
careful reader will notice some new content in each). For those
who have read Pricing on Purpose, you will notice some duplicative material on the labor versus subjective theories of value in
Chapters 1 and 2. Since these are such important theories from
economics, especially in the context of value and wealth creation,
I wanted to include them in this work as well, but analyzed in
the context of intellectual capital rather than pricing for value.
For those who have read Measure What Matters, you will also
note some duplicative material with respect to Frederick Taylor
xxvii
Baker-flast-3
xxviii
ABOUT THIS BOOK
and Frank Gilbreth in Chapter 11. I felt it was necessary to reintroduce these two gentlemen, along with their theories, because I
wanted to examine them through the lens of intellectual capital,
not just from an efficiency versus effectiveness prospective.
For those who have not read any of the Series, but may have
read The Firm of the Future: A Guide for Accountants, Lawyers,
and Other Professional Services, coauthored with Paul Dunn, you
will recognize not only the equations but also the three components of intellectual capital—human, structural, and social.
However, much more new content has been added to each of
these sections than the content I kept from that book. In addition,
the Series is written for a more general business reader, not just
those working in professional knowledge firms.
There is an extensive Bibliography included in this volume, as
in all my prior books. Obviously, some books will be repeated.
There are also books not cited in the text, but included in the
Bibliography, because they were a vital part of my research.
A Suggested Reading list is included as well, alphabetized by
author—since the citations in the text are also by author and
year—and every book included in it is also listed in the Bibliography, to make it easier to locate for those who wish to find the
original source.
I have also included a Resources section, which is organized by
chapter, to present additional online resources I found valuable
while researching and writing this book. There are additional
online sources cited in the text as well.
09/05/07
xxviii
Baker-c01-3
1
MIND OVER MATERIALISM
The United States must overcome the materialist fallacy: the illusion
that resources and capital are essentially things, which can run out,
rather than products of human will and imagination which in freedom
are inexhaustible. This fallacy is one of the oldest of economic
delusions, from the period of empire when men believed that wealth
was land, to the period of mercantilism when they fantasized that it
was gold, to the contemporary period when they suppose it is oil; and
our citizens clutch at real estate and gold as well. But economists
make an only slightly lesser error when they add up capital in
quantities and assume that wealth consists mainly in machines and
factories. Throughout history, from Venice to Hong Kong, the fastest
growing countries have been the lands best endowed not with things
but with free minds and private rights to property. Two of the most
thriving of the world’s economies lost nearly all their material capital
during World War II and surged back by emancipating entrepreneurs.
The materialist vision, by contrast, leads merely to newer versions of
the fate of Midas.
—George Gilder, Wealth and Poverty, 1981
There is no such thing as a natural resource, except for the mind of
man. For centuries, economists have been exposing the “physical
fallacy”—that is, the belief that wealth resides in tangible things,
such as gold, land, raw materials, and so forth—and it seems as if
we still do not understand this basic economic concept. We seem
to think that matter is more important than minds, while in fact it
1
09/05/07
1
Baker-c01-3
2
MIND OVER MATERIALISM
is the exact opposite. Natural resource endowment cannot explain
why Israel has a per capita gross domestic product of $17,220
compared to Saudi Arabia’s $8,870. Taiwan, Hong Kong, and
Singapore have no “natural resources,” and yet they all have a
higher standard of living than Russia and Indonesia, both rich in
natural resources.
Even the conventional wisdom recited by every realtor—
location, location, location—does not explain how it came to be
that the 27,400 acres of Florida swampland purchased by Walt
Disney in 1964, at an average price of $182 per acre, are now
worth over $2 million per acre. No doubt no more land is being
created, yet scarcity does not explain wealth. If it did, your children’s drawings on your refrigerator would be worth at least a
few months of mortgage payments.
Adam Smith (see Exhibit 1.1) brought this profound insight
into his seminal book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of
the Wealth of Nations (1776). He wanted to explain why some
countries were wealthy, not why most countries were poor (notice
the title wasn’t An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Poverty of Nations). Poverty needs no explanation, nor do we
learn much from studying it, since it is the natural condition of
man since he emerged from the cave. What would we do once we
discovered the root causes of poverty? Create more of it? What
needs to be explained is wealth, not poverty. Indeed, wealth is
the only known antidote to poverty.
Smith exposed the mercantile system fallacy, commonly accepted
from 1500 to 1750, that wealth consisted of money, gold,
silver, and other physical representations of capital. Although
mercantilism wasn’t a unified economic theory of growth, it did
hold sway over government officials and merchants, who were
its leading advocates. The word itself comes from the Latin word
mercare, which means “to run a trade.” Not only did the mercantilists see hoarding bullion as the road to wealth, they also
believed the global volume of trade is fixed. Hence, all trade
becomes a zero-sum proposition—a gain in one country is a loss
09/05/07
2
Baker-c01-3
MIND OVER MATERIALISM
3
in the other. This led the mercantilists to believe another road
to wealth was a positive balance of trade, whereby the exports
of a country always exceed its imports overall. To achieve this
surplus, a country was wise to impose tariffs on imports, or
other protectionist policies to protect its domestic industries, in
order to subsidize exports and discourage imports. The advent of
double-entry bookkeeping assisted governments with accounting
for this inflow and outflow of goods and services, an obsession
that continues to this day.
No less a leader than Mohandas Gandhi subscribed to these
views, symbolized by his proposed Indian flag with a 24-spoked
blue chakra (wheel) in the center, representing economic selfsufficiency. Gandhi was certainly an inspiring leader, but he was
a dreadful economist. The jack-of-all trades would lead a poor,
nasty, brutal, and short life. Not only would he remain impecunious by attempting complete economic self-sufficiency—what
economists call autarky —so would an entire country.
Adam Smith’s work was largely a refutation of these suppositions, while also establishing a framework for how an economy
creates wealth. In the introduction to his Wealth of Nations, Smith
puts forth his definition of the real wealth in an economy:
The annual labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life which it
annually consumes, and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that
produce from other nations (Smith 1998: xv).
In effect, the welfare of a nation depended on its output of
production, and production itself is dependent on the specialization and division of labor. Smith intuitively understood that man
was the only creature possessing the capacity to produce more of
a good or service than he himself could consume to satisfy his
own needs. After producing a surplus, he would then follow “a
certain propensity in human nature to truck, barter, and exchange
one thing for another,” a trait “common to all men.” This is one of
09/05/07
3
Baker-c01-3
4
MIND OVER MATERIALISM
EXHIBIT 1.1 THE GRAVESITE OF ADAM SMITH (1723–1790), EDINBURGH,
SCOTLAND. ‘‘I LOVE YOUR COMPANY, GENTLEMEN, BUT
I BELIEVE I MUST LEAVE YOU TO GO TO ANOTHER WORLD’’
(SMITH’S LAST WORDS TO HIS FRIENDS).
Source: Photo by Paul O’Byrne
many characteristics distinguishing humans from animals, since
“Nobody ever saw a dog make as fair and deliberate exchange
of one bone for another with another dog” (Cohen 2001: 21).
Smith demonstrated how his ideas of specialization and division of labor created these surpluses available for exchange. Specialization of labor is the idea of people or nations producing a
narrower range of goods and services than they consume, which
is why modern economies are dependent on a far wider range
09/05/07
4
Baker-c01-3
MIND OVER MATERIALISM
5
of people to provide for their daily sustenance. The division of
labor breaks down a production process into many small steps
and performs those steps separately, with different workers doing
different tasks, as on an assembly line. In Smith’s view, while specialization makes us productive, division of labor is what makes
us rich. He illustrated these principles with his famous example
of the operation of a pin factory:
One man draws out the wire, another straightens it, a third cuts
it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the
head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations;
to put it on is a peculiar business; to whiten it is another; it is even
a trade by itself to put them into paper. . . . I have seen a small
manufactory of this kind where ten men only were employed and
where some of them performed two or three distinct operations.
But though they were very poor, and therefore but indifferently
accommodated with the necessary machinery, they could, when
they exerted themselves, make among them about twelve pounds
of pins a day. There are in a pound upwards of four thousand
pins of a middling size. Those ten persons, therefore, could make
among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day.. . .But
if they had all wrought separately and independently. . .they certainly could not each of them make twenty. . .perhaps not one pin
a day (Dougherty 2002: 53).
Similar to Smith’s tour of the pin factory, Henry Ford had
a similar epiphany when touring a Chicago meatpacking plant,
where he saw animal carcasses hung on an overhead rail being
moved from butcher to butcher. When Ford inquired how long
they had been processing meat like this, the reply was something
to the effect that, “This is how we have done it for years.” A
tradition in one industry became a quantum revolution in another.
Smith also refuted the mercantilist idea of bullion being the
true wealth of nations, writing:
To attempt to increase the wealth of any country, either by introducing or by detaining in it an unnecessary quantity of gold and
silver, is as absurd as it would be to attempt to increase the good
09/05/07
5
Baker-c01-3
6
MIND OVER MATERIALISM
cheer of private families, by obliging them to keep an unnecessary
number of kitchen utensils (O’Rourke 2007: 205).
Money is not wealth per se, it is merely how members of a
society move it around. Money simply facilitates transactions,
eliminating the need for a “double coincidence of wants” necessary in a barter economy. With money, a doctor doesn’t have to
spend time searching for a hairstylist that needs medical services
at the same time she needs a haircut.
Real wealth is represented by the goods and services money
can buy. If it were otherwise, any country could achieve wealth
simply by printing more pieces of paper money. Hoarding precious metals is not a substitute for real wealth in an economy;
otherwise, India, which had the world’s largest supply of gold
in 2003, would be one of the richest nations; yet it is actually
one of the poorest. Perhaps this is better understood if we think
of Nathan Mayer Rothschild, one of the founders of the international Rothschild banking dynasty, probably the richest man in
the world at the time of his premature death in 1836 at the age of
58 from an infected abscess. Despite having the best medical care
money could buy, he didn’t have access to antibiotics that today
could be purchased from any pharmacy for a few dollars. Would
you rather have Bill Gates’s income in today’s world—with its
abundance of goods and services—or during the time of Rothschild? Another way of articulating this is that the wealth of
nations resides in consumer well-being, not profits.
DO TRADE DEFICITS DIMINISH WEALTH?
What happens when one country’s imports consistently exceed its
exports, creating a deficit in the international balance of trade?
There is probably no greater misunderstanding about the real
nature of wealth than when a discussion turns to the balance-oftrade question. Henry Hazlitt, author of Economics in One Lesson
09/05/07
6
Baker-c01-3
DO TRADE DEFICITS DIMINISH WEALTH?
7
explained this phenomenon when he wrote: “. . . the same people
who can be clearheaded and sensible when the subject is one of
domestic trade can be incredibly emotional and muddleheaded
when it becomes one of foreign trade” (Hazlitt 1979: 86–87).
I recently taught an economics course to a group of learned
certified public accountants, and this one topic was the most contentious. Most everyone seemed to have an inordinate fear of
China, India, and other foreign nations accumulating more and
more of America’s debt. I asked the group a simple question:
If China and India become wealthier, is that a threat to America? The general consensus seemed to be yes, illustrating how
zero-sum thinking is endemic to this discussion. Adam Smith
eloquently wrote about this in 1776:
Each nation has been made to look with an invidious eye upon the
prosperity of all the nations with which it trades, and to consider
their gain as its own loss. Commerce, which ought naturally to be,
among nations, as among individuals, a bond of union and friendship, has become the most fertile source of discord and animosity
(O’Rourke 2007: 108).
One of the reasons the United States of America is such a
relatively wealthy country is that it maintains a free trade zone
among its 50 states. The Constitution prohibits the states from
interfering with trade among their respective citizens; there are no
tariffs or import, export, or other restrictions within the 50 states.
No individual state worries if it is running a deficit with another.
Economist Russell Roberts posed this challenging question in his
delightful academic novel, The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade
and Protectionism:
Shouldn’t Florida help out Minnesota by importing just as many
oranges from Minnesota as Minnesota imports from Florida? Trade
flows should be unequal. . . . if you pick any one state in the United
States and look at its trade position with respect to other states,
you’d see a lot of deficits and surpluses (Roberts 2001: 67).
09/05/07
7
Baker-c01-3
8
MIND OVER MATERIALISM
Trade deficits and surpluses are merely accounting conventions
with no explanatory relationship to the underlying reality of an
economy, which is why accountants and economists have different worldviews. If a free trade zone works internally for the
United States, why would it not work internationally among the
countries of the world?
It helps to keep in mind that countries do not trade, people
do. In any transaction, as Adam Smith pointed out, both parties
must gain for it to take place at all—the antithesis to a zero-sum
condition. You buy a Lexus only because you perceive it as being
of higher value than the price you are paying. The government, for
all practical purposes, has nothing to do with it. As individuals,
we run trade surpluses and deficits all the time. I run a deficit
with my local grocery store, importing more from them than I
sell to them. You run a large surplus with your employer, who
pays you more than you buy in products or services from them in
return. So what? The resulting accounting deficits and surpluses
simply do not reflect the economic reality behind these billions
and billions of individual transactions around the world. This is
what Adam Smith meant when he wrote, “Nothing can be more
absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade.”
The gains from trade are what we import, not export. The
purpose of production, in the final analysis, is consumption. The
more imports we can acquire for fewer exports, the wealthier we
are, either as individuals or as a country. Other countries face the
same realities, and we are no more likely to obtain the goods and
services we desire by trading pieces of green paper with other
nations than we are to send letters to the North Pole and get gifts
from Santa Claus. Being a creditor or debtor nation simply has no
correlation with a country’s standard of living. Thomas Sowell
exposes this fallacious concept in Basic Economics:
In general, international deficits and surpluses have had virtually
no correlation with the performance of most nations’ economies.
09/05/07
8
Baker-c01-3
DO TRADE DEFICITS DIMINISH WEALTH?
9
Germany and France have had international trade surpluses while
their unemployment rates were in double digits. Japan’s postwar
rise to economic prominence on the world stage included years
when it ran deficits, as well as years when it ran surpluses. The
United States was the biggest debtor nation in the world during
its rise to industrial supremacy, became a creditor as a result of
lending money to its European allies during the First World War,
and has been both a debtor and a creditor at various times since.
Through it all, the American standard of living has remained the
highest in the world, unaffected by whether it was a creditor or a
debtor nation (Sowell 2000: 288).
No one revealed the specious reasoning behind balance-of-trade
concerns better than the French economist, statesman, and author
Fr´ed´eric Bastiat (1801–1850), whom the Austrian economist
Joseph Schumpeter said was “the most brilliant economic journalist who ever lived.” Bastiat used entertaining fables and carried
the logic of the proponents of protectionism to their logical extreme, with biting wit. One of his most famous essays, “Petition
of the Candlemakers,” was a parody letter from the manufacturers
of “candles, tapers, lanterns. . . and generally of everything connected with lighting,” arguing against the unfair competition—
since its price was zero—of the sun.
Bastiat understood that exports were merely the price we pay
for imports, and having to work harder to pay for those imports
did not lead to wealth. Using impeccable logic, Bastiat wondered
if exports are good and imports are bad, would the best outcome
be for the ships carrying goods between countries to sink at sea,
hence creating exports with no imports?
In another of his famous parodies, “The Right Hand and the
Left (a Report to the King),” he made this obvious in a most
satirical and effective manner. It is such an important point, since
it also debunks another famous economist’s theory of value, it is
worth quoting from at some length (see Sidebar).
09/05/07
9
Baker-c01-3
10
MIND OVER MATERIALISM
Sire,
When we see the advocates of free trade boldly disseminating their
doctrine, and maintaining that the right to buy and to sell is included
in the right to own property. . ., we may quite properly feel serious
concern about the fate of our domestic industry; for to what use will
the French people put their hands and their minds when they live
under a system of free trade?
The government that you have honored with your confidence has been
obliged to concern itself with so grave a situation, and has sought in
its wisdom to discover a means of protection that might be substituted
for the present one, which seems endangered. They propose that you
forbid your loyal subjects to use their right hands.
Sire, do not do us the injustice of thinking that we have lightly
adopted a measure that at first sight may seem bizarre. Deep study of
the protectionist system has revealed to us this syllogism, upon which
the whole of it is based:
The more one works, the richer one is.
The more difficulties one has to overcome, the more one works.
Ergo, the more difficulties one has to overcome, the richer one is.
What, in fact, is protection, if not an ingenious application of this line
of reasoning, so cogent and conclusive that it must resist even the
subtlety of M. Billault himself?
Let us personify the country and view it as a collective being with
thirty million mouths and, as a natural consequence, sixty million
hands. It makes a clock that it intends to exchange in Belgium for ten
quintals of iron.
But we tell it: ‘‘Make the iron yourself.’’
‘‘I cannot,’’ it replies; ‘‘it would take too long. I could not make more
than five quintals in the time that I can make one clock.’’
‘‘Utopian dreamer!’’ we reply; ‘‘that is precisely the reason why we
are forbidding you to make the clock and ordering you to make the
iron. Do you not see that we are providing employment for you?’’
09/05/07
10
Baker-c01-3
DO TRADE DEFICITS DIMINISH WEALTH?
11
Sire, it could not have escaped your discernment that this is exactly
the same as if we were to say to the country: Work with your left hand,
and not with your right .
The old system of restriction was based on the idea of creating
obstacles in order to multiply job opportunities. The new system of
restriction that we are proposing to take its place is based on exactly
the same idea. Sire, to make laws in this fashion is not to innovate; it
is to carry on in the traditional way.
As for the efficacy of the measure, it is incontestable. It is difficult,
much more difficult than people think, to do with the left hand what
one is accustomed to doing with the right. You will be convinced of
this, Sire, if you will deign to put our system to the test in performing
some act that is familiar to you, such as, for instance, that of shuffling
cards. We can, therefore, flatter ourselves on opening to labor an
unlimited number of job opportunities.
Once the workers in every branch of industry are restricted to the
use of their left hands alone, imagine, Sire, the immense number of
people that will be needed to meet the present demand for consumers’
goods, assuming that it remains constant, as we always do when we
compare different systems of production. So prodigious a demand for
manual labor cannot fail to bring about a considerable rise in wages,
and pauperism will disappear from the country as if by magic.
¡
But as soon as your new law is promulgated, as soon as all right hands
are either cut off or tied down, things will change. Twenty times,
thirty times as many embroiderers, pressers and ironers, seamstresses,
dressmakers and shirtmakers, will not suffice to meet the national
demand (shame to him who thinks ill of it), always assuming, as
before, that it remains constant.
It is true that this assumption may be disputed by dispassionate
theorists; for dresses will cost more, and so will shirts. The same could
be said of the iron that we extract from our mines, as compared with
what we could obtain in exchange for the produce of our vineyards.
Hence, this argument is no more acceptable against left-handedness
than against protectionism; for this high cost is itself at once the result
09/05/07
11
Baker-c01-3
12
MIND OVER MATERIALISM
and the sign of the superabundance of effort and labor that is precisely
the basis on which, in the one case as in the other, we maintain that
the prosperity of the working class is founded.
Yes, we may picture a touching scene of prosperity in the dressmaking
business. Such bustling about! Such activity! Such animation! Each
dress will busy a hundred fingers instead of ten. No young woman
will any longer be idle, and we have no need, Sire, to indicate to your
perspicacity the moral consequences of this great revolution. Not only
will more young women be employed, but each of them will earn
more, for all of them together will be unable to satisfy the demand;
and if competition reappears, it will no longer be among the workers
who make the dresses but among the fine ladies who wear them.
You see, Sire, our proposal is not only in accord with the economic
traditions of the government, but is essentially moral and democratic
as well.
In order to appreciate its consequences, let us assume that it has been
put into effect, and, transporting ourselves in imagination into the
future, let us imagine that the system has been in operation for twenty
years. Idleness has been banished from the country; steady employment has brought affluence, harmony, contentment, and morality to
every household; poverty and prostitution are things of the past. The
left hand being very clumsy to work with, jobs are superabundant, and
the pay is satisfactory. Everything has been organized on this basis;
consequently, the workshops are thronged. Is it not true, Sire, that if
at such a time utopian dreamers were suddenly to appear, demanding
freedom for the right hand, they would throw the country into a panic?
Is it not true that this supposed reform would upset everyone’s life?
Hence, our system must be good, since it cannot be destroyed without
causing suffering.
¡
Nevertheless, we do not intend to conceal from Your Majesty that
there is one respect in which our project is vulnerable. We may be
told that in twenty years all left hands will be as skillful as right
hands are now, and it will then no longer be possible to count on
left-handedness to increase the number of jobs in the country.
09/05/07
12
Baker-c01-3
DO TRADE DEFICITS DIMINISH WEALTH?
13
Our reply to this is that, according to learned doctors, the left side of
the human body has a natural weakness that is completely reassuring
for the future of labor.
If, then, Your Majesty consents to sign the decree, a great principle
will be established: All wealth stems from the intensity of labor . It will
be easy for us to extend and vary its applications. We shall ordain, for
example, that it shall no longer be permissible to work except with
the foot. This is no more impossible (as we have seen) than to extract
iron from the mud of the Seine. Men have even been known to write
without using either hands or feet. You see, Sire, that we shall not
be lacking in means of increasing the number of job opportunities in
your realm. As a last resort, we should take recourse to the limitless
possibilities of amputation.
Finally, Sire, if this report were not intended for publication, we should
call your attention to the great influence that all measures of the kind
we are proposing to you are likely to confer upon men in power. But
this is a matter that we prefer to reserve for a private audience.
Bastiat 1996: 258–265.
Bastiat passed away two years after one of the most famous
economists would write a slim volume—The Communist Manifesto —that would have an enormous impact on world events
far into the future. This economist also posited his own theory
of value and how wealth is created, and since it is still misunderstood to this day—much like materialism in Adam Smith’s
day—we will focus on his legacy next.
09/05/07
13
Baker-c01-3
09/05/07
14
Baker-c02-2
09/05/07
2
MIND OVER MARXISM
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways.
The point however is to change it.
—Inscription, Karl Marx’s tomb, Highgate Cemetery, London
Although Karl Marx’s tomb inscription (see Exhibit 2.1) appeals
to young revolutionaries who set out to remake the world in their
anointed image, the real work of economists and other students
of human behavior is not to change the world, but to understand
it. Until we understand why people behave as they do, guided
by their beliefs more than what they know, there is little hope of
changing their behavior.
Adam Smith certainly laid out an explanation of how humans
behave, guided by the invisible hand of the free market. Smith
argued that it was your conscience that made you do the right
thing, not greed. We desire not only to gain the external praise of
others, we desire to gain the internal respect and praise of ourselves. We ultimately want to be worthy of our praise. We desire
to be praiseworthy. Smith proposed a self-regulating system, also
known as the classical model of competition:
•
•
Freedom: the right to produce and exchange products, labor,
and capital.
Self-interest: the right to pursue one’s own business and to
appeal to the self-interest of others.
15
15
Baker-c02-2
16
MIND OVER MARXISM
EXHIBIT 2.1 KARL MARX’S TOMB, HIGHGATE CEMETERY, LONDON
Source: Photo by Paul O’Byrne
•
Competition: the right to compete in the production and
exchange of goods and services.
Smith further argued that these three conditions would lead to
a “natural harmony” of interests between workers, landlords, and
businesspeople. Smith spoke of an “Impartial Spectator” (“the
great inmate of the breast”)—that is, your internal conscience
and sentiments to do the right thing—and competition as the
external spectator to ensure you serve the interests of others (the
“invisible hand”).
Capitalism is based on trust, with the overwhelming majority
of market transactions being guided not just by Smith’s invisible
09/05/07
16
Baker-c02-2
MIND OVER MARXISM
17
hand, but also by an invisible handshake, harmonizing the interests
of both buyer and seller, making them each better off than in the
absence of mutual cooperation and exchange.
Ideas have consequences. As John Maynard Keynes wrote in
the final passage of his 1937 magnum opus, General Theory of
Employment, Interest, and Money:
[T]he ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when
they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than
is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else.
Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from
any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct
economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are
distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years
back. . .. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests which
are dangerous for good or evil (Buchholz 1990: 219).
Marx’s idea was that labor was the source of all value. This idea
has a very long history as humans have always correlated labor
with value, inputs with outputs. In medieval English, the word
acre meant the amount of land a team of eight oxen could plow
in a morning. Some scholars have suggested that the labor theory of value originated in the thirteenth century with St. Thomas
Aquinas, while Aristotle explained that a good could obtain a
price because there was a need for it. Yet each of these explanations leaves us devoid of a more precise theory of value.
Even Adam Smith himself equated value with labor, writing in
Wealth of Nations:
Labour alone, therefore, never varying in its own value, is alone the
ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities
can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their
real price, money is their nominal price only (quoted in Cohen
2001: 40).
If it usually costs twice the labour to kill a beaver as it does to
kill a deer, says Smith, “one beaver should naturally exchange for
or be worth two deer” (Cohen 2001: 40).
09/05/07
17
Baker-c02-2
18
MIND OVER MARXISM
“[The] real price of everything, what every thing really costs. . .
is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.” Or in Smith’s terms, “Labour,
therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of commodities” (Cohen 2001: 68).
The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but
to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of
labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour,
therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all
commodities (Cohen 2001: 72).
Yet Smith understood there were factors other than labor that
went into the cost of producing commodities, such as the cost of
capital, equipment, rent, and the risk the entrepreneur was assuming. All these factors also had to be compensated in the price of
the final commodity, so Smith posited a “cost of production” theory of value, in effect “adding up” labor, profit, rent, and cost of
capital to determine price. Of course, this begs the question of
how a company could ever lose money by following this theory,
since even the most inept businessperson would be able to add
up all of these factors to derive a price that generates a profit.
One of the wealthiest economists to have ever lived, the British
economist David Ricardo (1772–1823), who developed the law of
diminishing returns, along with probably one of the most famous
economic laws ever—the law of comparative advantage that
explains why international trade makes countries better off—in
his 1817 treatise, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation,
explains his theory of value:
The value of a commodity, or the quantity of any other commodity
for which it will exchange, depends on the relative quantity of
labour which is necessary for its production (Keen 2002: 276).
Ricardo also adopted a cost of production theory of value,
claiming price was determined by costs, although he did note
some exceptions such as rare works of art, books, coins, and
wines:
09/05/07
18
Baker-c02-2
KARL MARX, FALSE PROPHET
19
There are some commodities, the value of which is determined by
their scarcity alone. No labour can increase the quantity of such
goods, and therefore their value cannot be lowered by an increased
supply. Some rare statues and pictures, scarce books and coins,
wines of a peculiar quality, which can be made only from grapes
grown on a particular soil, of which there is a very limited quantity,
are all of this description. Their value is wholly independent of
the quantity of labour originally necessary to produce them, and
varies with the varying wealth and inclinations of those who are
desirous to possess them (Keen 2002: 272).
. . . [M]y proposition that with few exceptions the quantity of
labour employed on commodities determines the rate of which
they will exchange for each other . . . is not rigidly true, but I say
it is the nearest approximation to truth, as a rule for measuring
relative value, of any I have ever heard (Skousen 2001: 107).
In fact, Ricardo struggled with the labor theory of value until
the last days of his life. As Mark Skousen writes in his luminous
book The Making of Modern Economics:
About a month before his death he wrote a fellow economist, “I
cannot get over the difficulty of the wine which is kept in a cellar
for 3 or 4 years, or that of the oak tree, which perhaps had not 2/[pence] expended on it in the way of labour, and yet comes to be
worth $100” (Skousen 2001: 108).
Here we have two eminent economists—although they were
called moral philosophers in their day—who struggled to develop
a unifying and credible theory of value. It was not until Karl Marx
popularized his theory of value that the economics profession
discovered a more accurate theory of value. But before we get to
that more correct theory, let us first look at the flaws in Marx’s
theory.
KARL MARX, FALSE PROPHET
Perhaps Keynes was thinking of Karl Marx (1818–1883) when
he wrote the passage cited earlier, for we know he could not
stand Marx or the communist experiment, which he regarded as
09/05/07
19
Baker-c02-2
20
MIND OVER MARXISM
“an insult to our intelligence.” At a dinner with friends in 1934,
Keynes reportedly said that of all the “isms,” Marxism was “the
worst of all and founded on a silly mistake of old Mr. Ricardo’s
[labor theory of value]” (Skousen, 2001: 154).
Marx is far from dead. His flock might have perished, but his
church lives on. In a poll of 3 million Germans, he ranked as the
third “best German” of all time, behind Konrad Adenauer and
Martin Luther. His labor theory of value still wields enormous
influence over our present-day concept of value and price. Here
is how Marx explained his theory in Value, Price and Profit,
published in 1865:
A commodity has a value, because it is a crystallisation of social
labour. The greatness of its value, or its relative value, depends
upon the greater or less amount of that social substance contained
in it; that is to say, on the relative mass of labour necessary
for its production. The relative values of commodities are, therefore, determined by the respective quantities or amounts of labour,
worked up, realised, fixed in them. The correlative quantities of
commodities which can be produced in the same time of labour
are equal (Marx 1995: 31).
This sounds quite reasonable until you put this theory to the test
of explaining how people spend their money in the marketplace.
Marx’s theory cannot explain how land and natural resources
have value, since there is no labor contained in them. Taken to its
extreme, the labor theory of value would predict that those countries with the most labor hours—such as China or India—would
have the highest standards of living. But this is demonstrably
false, and what we witness instead in countries with less labor
input and more entrepreneurship—and secure private property
and other institutions conducive to economic growth—are vastly
higher standards of living, including shorter hours for workers.
If Marx’s theory was correct, a rock found next to a diamond in
a mine would be of equal value, since each took the same amount
of labor hours to locate and extract. Yet how many rocks do you
see in the local mall’s jewelry store? If you were to have pizza
09/05/07
20
Baker-c02-2
KARL MARX, FALSE PROPHET
21
for lunch today, under Marx’s theory, your tenth slice would be
just as valuable as your first, since each took the same amount of
labor hours to produce. One glaring flaw in Marx’s theory was
that it did not take into account the law of diminishing marginal
utility, which states that the value to the customer declines with
additional consumption of the good in question. Two friends, both
adherents to this theory, emerging from a movie would have to
have enjoyed it equally, since it took the same amount of labor
hours to produce, and therefore each would value it the same.
This idea led Fr´ed´eric Bastiat, introduced in Chapter 1, to illustrate the absurd by being absurd, especially in his essay, “The Left
Hand and the Right.” Ludicrous? Absolutely. Yet an effective way
to falsify a theory is to show where and how it will not work.
Marx attempted to avert these dilemmas, and even recognized
that art and land could appreciate in value without further labor,
but he dismissed these anomalies as being of minor importance
to the fundamental issue of labor power. He also constructed a
novel concept he coined “socially necessary labour,” which is the
only type that creates value:
It might seem that if the value of a commodity is determined by the
quantity of labour bestowed upon its production, the lazier a man,
or the clumsier a man, the more valuable his commodity, because
the greater the time of labour required for finishing the commodity.
This, however, would be a sad mistake. You will recollect that I
used the word “social labour,” and many points are involved in this
qualification of “social.” In saying that the value of a commodity
is determined by the quantity of labour worked up or crystallized
in it, we mean the quantity of labour necessary for its production
in a given state of society, under certain social average conditions
of production, with a given social average intensity, and average
skill of the labour employed.
If then the quantity of socially necessary labour realised in commodities regulates their exchangeable values, every increase in the
quantity of labour wanted for the production of a commodity must
augment its value, as every diminution must lower it (Marx 1995:
33–34).
09/05/07
21
Baker-c02-2
22
MIND OVER MARXISM
But how does one determine what is “socially necessary labour”?
Marx’s theory ignored the consumer, who ultimately determines
value, bringing Marx from a circuitous route right back to the values of the free market he so vehemently abhorred. The very nature
of a transaction between a willing buyer and seller is not based on
an equality of labor but rather the inequality in the subjective value
of the good bought and sold. This takes us back to one of Adam
Smith’s central insights, that both the buyer and seller must gain
from an exchange, or it will not take place. Were this not so, we
could simply exchange five-dollar bills with each other and achieve
a Marxian utopia.
After surveying these three seminal thinkers—Smith, Ricardo,
and Marx—we still lack a convincing theory of value. This was
not because the theory did not exist, for it did. Unfortunately, it
was mostly ignored. Some truths need resurrection, not discovery,
and nowhere is this more true than with respect to the Austrian
school of economics and its subjective theory of value.
THE MARGINALIST REVOLUTION
[Carl] Menger is the vanquisher of the Ricardian theory. . . . Menger’s
theory of value, price, and distribution is the best we have up to now.
—Joseph Schumpeter, Ten Great Economists from Marx to Keynes,
1951
In the middle of the nineteenth century, economic theory was
at a dead end. Although the Industrial Revolution was progressing, the theories of classical economists such as Smith, Ricardo,
and John Stuart Mill, among others, still lacked a comprehensive
theory of value and price. There are particular epochs that occur
throughout history, when an assembly of people construct the
events that cause a substantial advancement for human society.
One such year was 1776, with the publication simultaneously of
Smith’s Wealth of Nations and the Declaration of Independence.
Another was 1871–1874, when three economists ushered in the
09/05/07
22
Baker-c02-2
THE MARGINALIST REVOLUTION
23
“neoclassical” marginalist revolution, which was the undoing of
Marxian economics.
Three economists, from three different countries, developed the
theory of marginalism and created a revolution similar to the Keynesian tsunami of the 1930s, although it took longer to diffuse
into the economics profession, taking approximately 20 years
to become generally accepted theory: William Stanley Jevons
(1835–1882) from Great Britain, Leon Walras (1834–1910) from
France, and Carl Menger (1840–1921) from Austria. There were
forerunners to the marginal theory, such as Hermann Gossen from
Germany, Samuel Longfield, Antoine Cournot, and Jules Dupuit,
and the early Spanish philosophers. But it was not until these
three came together that the theory was accepted as valid in the
economics profession. “Swedish economist Knut Wicksell, who
lived through the marginalist revolution, described it as a ‘bolt
from the blue’” (Skousen 2001: 169).
What made this new theory so revolutionary? As Menger explains in his book Principles of Economics, written in 1871 when
he was 31 years old:
Value is . . . nothing inherent in goods, no property of them. Value
is a judgment economizing men make about the importance of
the goods at their disposal for the maintenance of their lives and
well-being. Hence value does not exist outside the consciousness
of men. . . . [T]he value of goods . . . is entirely subjective in nature
(Ebenstein 2003: 23).
The value of goods arises from their relationship to our needs,
and is not inherent in the goods themselves. . . . Objectification
of the value of goods, which is entirely subjective in nature, has
nevertheless contributed very greatly to confusion about the basic
principles of our science. . . . The importance that goods have for
us and which we call value is merely imputed (Menger, 1976:
120–121, 139).
Value is like beauty—it is in the eye of the beholder. Menger
further developed this theory with his law of imputation, wherein
he labeled final consumer goods “lower order” and the necessary
09/05/07
23
Baker-c02-2
24
MIND OVER MARXISM
producer goods “higher order” (sometimes called producer goods,
or capital goods). He then demonstrated that the demand for
the higher-order goods—land, equipment, and other necessary
inputs—“is derived from that of the corresponding goods of
lower order.”
Menger illustrated this concept with the example of tobacco.
Suppose, for some reason, that tobacco is no longer desired by
people and the demand for it disappears. Existing tobacco products’ price would fall to zero, even though it was produced at a
considerable cost. But what would happen to all of the necessary
factors of production—land, tobacco plants, tools, machinery,
and so forth—the higher-order goods? They, too, would drop in
price significantly, since the demand for these products is derived
from the consumers’ demand for tobacco. Some of these goods
might have a value, but only in alternative uses, not in the production of tobacco.
This was a refutation of the Ricardo-Marx labor theory of value.
Menger wrote:
The determining factor in the value of a good, then, is neither the
quantity of labor or other goods necessary for its production nor the
quantity necessary for its reproduction, but rather the magnitude of
importance of those satisfactions with respect to which we are conscious of being dependent on command of the good. This principle
of value determination is universally valid, and no exception to it
can be found in human economy (Skousen 2001: 182).
Menger here articulates the concept of marginal utility and
opportunity cost, although he did not use these terms. This theory has enormous explanatory and predictive capabilities, because
it explains why people dive for pearls. Marx would say pearls
have value because people dive for them (thus supplying labor).
Menger would retort that people dive for pearls because other
people value them.
Philip Wicksteed, a British clergyman, wrote the first scientific
critique of the Marxian labor theory of value in 1884, where he
explained:
09/05/07
24
Baker-c02-2
THE MARGINALIST REVOLUTION
25
A coat is not worth eight times as much as a hat to the community
because it takes eight times as long to make it. . . . The community is
willing to devote eight times as long to the making of a coat because
it will be worth eight times as much to it (Howey 1989: 157).
Marginalism and the subjective theory of value, when combined, allow economists to explain much human behavior, far
more accurately than the labor theory of value or Smith’s cost of
production theory of value. If the customers change their preferences, needs, wants, or desires, the value of some goods will
increase while others decrease.
When we changed from a horse-and-carriage economy to the
automobile, all sorts of goods of a higher order lost their value—
hay production dropped, and blacksmiths, among others who supplied the old industry, lost jobs. Prices reflect what we value
today, not of the “frozen labour”—Marx’s term—required to
create what we valued yesterday.
Value depends entirely upon the utility —a measure of pleasure
or satisfaction—the customer will receive. Where psychiatrists
speak of subjective well-being, economists use the term utility.
Both are conveying the same idea: you engage in activities you
receive pleasure or satisfaction from, not because others have
toiled. People do not smoke to make the tobacco companies rich
and happy, but rather from the utility they derive from doing so.
The popularity of the Atkins Diet caused some workers in the
companies that make pasta, doughnuts, chocolate, beer, and other
high-carbohydrate products to lose their jobs. The reason labor
unions cannot “save jobs” is that they cannot control what customers value, and it is what customers value that gives them the
jobs in the first place. The Channel Tunnel between London and
Paris cost billions to build, but the return-on-investment calculations and sunk costs do not matter to today’s customers. They are
concerned only with the relative price of taking the “Chunnel,”
flying, or taking the ferry.
New evidence alters beliefs, yet most scholars are born and die
within the same paradigm. A few, like Einstein, Darwin, and the
09/05/07
25
Baker-c02-2
26
MIND OVER MARXISM
marginalist economists, create new ones. Whereas revolutionaries
in the nineteenth century spent their time trying to overthrow capitalism, twentieth-century revolutionaries spent theirs attempting
to defend the labor theory of value. I have had the misfortune of
arguing the labor versus the subjective theory of value with Marxist professors, and have concluded that their beliefs are not based
on the scientific method of positing, observation, and falsifiability
of theories, but rather a sort of blind faith—what Marx himself
might have labeled the opiate of the communist economists. As
Thomas Sowell wrote in plain words in Basic Economics:
By the late nineteenth century, however, economists had given up
on the notion that it is primarily labor which determines the value
of goods. . . . This new understanding marked a revolution in the
development of economics. It is also a sobering reminder of how
long it can take for even highly intelligent people to get rid of a
misconception whose fallacy then seems obvious in retrospect. It
is not costs which create value; it is value which causes purchasers
to be willing to repay the costs incurred in the production of what
they want (Sowell 2004: 177).
Some critics of the subjective theory of value maintain that
it is too simplistic to explain value. Most economic theories are
relatively simple; it is the fallacies that get complicated. It is an
unnecessary complication to believe that complex effects must
have complex causes. The fact that the earth tilts on its axis is
fairly straightforward, but this certainly causes complex reactions
in plants, animals, people, ocean currents, and so forth.
As John Maynard Keynes said, “The difficulty lies, not in the
new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for
those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of
our minds,” to which philosopher Bertrand Russell added, “The
resistance to a new idea increases as the square of its importance.”
Just as geologists fought for decades against plate tectonics theory to explain earthquakes, and germ theory remained on the
fringes of medical science until the late nineteenth century, the
subjective theory of value is not widely taught, or practiced,
09/05/07
26
Baker-c02-2
THE MARGINALIST REVOLUTION
27
in businesses. Yet when people see this theory explained, they
intuitively understand it, because it comports to human behavior.
And isn’t this what learning is all about—understanding something you have known all along, but in a new way?
Despite this lesson, the labor theory of value—like mercantilism and materialism before it—die hard, much like the Brezhnev
Doctrine: Once a Communist nation, always a Communist nation.
Luckily, science and modern civilization do not progress like this.
One person who steadfastly refused to believe in the tenets of
Marxism-Leninism was Ronald Reagan. Echoing the teaching of
Leonardo da Vinci that “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication,”
Reagan had an uncomplicated idea about the Cold War: America
wins, the Soviets lose. In the last year of his presidency, he had
the opportunity to articulate his vision of the new economy to a
group of Soviet students at the alma mater of Mikhail Gorbachev,
in what was perhaps one of the most prescient of his presidential
speeches.
09/05/07
27
Baker-c02-2
09/05/07
28
Baker-c03-2
09/05/07
3
THE ECONOMY IN MIND
We were among the last to understand that in the age of information
science the most valuable asset is knowledge, springing from human
imagination and creativity. We will be paying for our mistake for
many years to come.
—Mikhail Gorbachev
In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith wrote of four stages in
society:
1.
2.
3.
4.
An
An
An
An
age of hunters
age of shepherds
agrarian age
age of commerce
Alvin and Heidi Toffler write in Revolutionary Wealth of the
world’s three wealth systems: “If the First Wave wealth system
was chiefly based on growing things, and the Second Wave on
making things, the Third Wave wealth system is increasingly
based on serving, thinking, knowing and experiencing” (Toffler
and Toffler 2006: 23). Iconically, these ages are represented by
the plow, the assembly line, and the computer.
The transition from the agrarian age to the Industrial Age is
conventionally dated from the late eighteenth to the early nineteenth century. The French employed the term la r´evolution industrielle (the Industrial Revolution) as early as the 1820s; Marx
29
29
Baker-c03-2
30
THE ECONOMY IN MIND
used it in his writings in the mid-1800s, while historian Arnold
Toynbee introduced the phrase to common parlance in the 1880s.
In the 1980s, it was popular to speak of the “Service Economy,”
given prominence by Karl Albrecht and Ron Zemke’s book,
Service America! In fact, the term service worker was coined
around 1920, when fewer than half of all nonmanual workers
were actually employed in service jobs—such as banking, insurance, restaurants, government, and so on. The terms knowledge
industries, knowledge work , and knowledge worker are less than
half a century old. They were coined around 1961, simultaneously but independently, the first by a Princeton economist, Fritz
Machlup, the second and third by Peter Drucker.
Drucker later expanded on this new phenomenon in his 1968
book, The Age of Discontinuity. He posited it was the 1944 G.I.
Bill of Rights—which made available higher education to millions of veterans and was certainly the largest single investment
in human capital up to that time—that helped cause the shift to
a knowledge society.
Perhaps the term we use to describe this new economy is not
up to us, just as the Industrial Revolution was not labeled by the
people who launched that era. Echoing economist Joan Robinson’s insistence that “There is no advantage (and much error) in
making definitions of words more precise than the subject matter
they refer to,” I remain uncomfortable with the terms knowledge economy and knowledge workers. The idea of a knowledge
economy is a bit of an exaggeration since man cannot live on
knowledge alone. Yet these definitions are distinguishing—and
accurate—enough from prior ages that they will be used throughout this book.
Knowledge workers are not like workers from the Industrial
Revolution, who were dependent on the employing organization’s
providing the means of production (factories and machines). Today,
knowledge workers themselves own the firm’s means of production in their heads. This is a seismic shift in our economy, the ramifications of which we are still trying to comprehend.
09/05/07
30
Baker-c03-2
THE ECONOMY IN MIND
31
Any structural change in the economy is bound to cause severe
dislocations as creative destruction undermines the existing industrial infrastructure. We witness the materialist fallacy rear its ugly
head even today when politicians and pundits constantly ask if
America can long sustain its present standard of living without
a strong manufacturing base—the so-called “hamburger flipper”
theory of low-paying service jobs. But this is precisely the wrong
question. A better question would be to ask if a manufacturing
base could long survive without a strong knowledge sector. In
fact, the distinction between goods and services is an anachronism, mostly used by governmental agencies. General Electric
manufactures jet engines but makes more money from servicing
them, and General Motors Acceptance Corporation makes more
profit financing the cars GM manufactures. Is an Apple iPod
merely a product or a service experience—an escape from the
mundane?
In an ironic twist on Karl Marx’s idea of the proletarian revolution, in today’s capitalist society, labor—what economists prefer to call human capital—trumps capital as the chief source of
all wealth. British Prime Minister Tony Blair delivered a keynote
speech at “Knowledge 2000: Conference on the Knowledge Driven
Economy,” where he stated:
I strongly believe that the knowledge economy is our best route
for success and prosperity. But we must be careful not to make a
fundamental mistake. We mustn’t think that because the knowledge
economy is the future, it will happen only in the future. The new
knowledge economy is here, and it is now (Harrison and Sullivan
2006: 149).
Twelve years prior to Blair’s speech, another world leader stood
before the icons of a materialist mind-set as an ambassador from
the future, illuminating how the New Age economy, rooted in
human creativity and imagination, would usher in a new era of
prosperity for mankind.
09/05/07
31
Baker-c03-2
32
THE ECONOMY IN MIND
THE ASH HEAP OF HISTORY
Not since Richard Nixon had a president of the United States
stood east of the Berlin Wall and spoken directly to the Soviet
Union. Ronald Reagan, notorious for his virulent anticommunism,
was certainly an improbable personality to address the citizens of
the country he once described as an “evil empire.” In an address
to members of the British Parliament at the Palace of Westminster
on June 8, 1982, Reagan prophetically predicted:
What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long
term—the march of freedom and democracy which will leave
Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other
tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression
of the people (Reagan 1989: 118–119).
Less than a year later, in his famous “evil empire” speech—at
the annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals on March 8, 1983—Reagan again envisaged communism’s
imminent implosion:
I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human
history whose last pages even now are being written. I believe this
because the source of our strength in the quest for human freedom
is not material, but spiritual. And because it knows no limitation, it
must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave
their fellow man (Reagan 1989: 180).
Despite this rhetoric, and given the friendship that had developed between Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the 1988 Moscow
Summit was an opportunity for Reagan to speak directly to the
future of the Soviet Union. According to Joshua Gilder, one of
the speechwriters for the Moscow State University address (see
Exhibit 3.1), Reagan, “ever so nicely, explained that freedom
and technology were going to leave the Soviets on the dust bin
of history unless they changed their act—which of course they
did, much sooner than we expected” (Gilder [undated]: 6).
Here is how Reagan explained this rare opportunity in his
memoirs:
09/05/07
32
Baker-c03-2
THE ASH HEAP OF HISTORY
33
For more than thirty years, I’d been preaching about freedom and
liberty. During my visit to Moscow, I was given a chance to do
something I never dreamed I would do: Gorbachev let me lecture to some of the brightest young people of Moscow—among
them some of the future leaders of the Soviet Union—about the
blessings of democracy and individual freedom and free enterprise.
On what was for me an extraordinary day I never thought possible, I tried in a few minutes at Moscow State University to
summarize a philosophy that had guided me most of my life (Reagan 1990: 713).
There will be bumps in the road. But after talking with these
bright young people in Moscow and seeing what was happening
in their country, I couldn’t help but feel optimistic: We were at
the threshold of a new era in the political and economic history of
the world.
I can’t wait to see where it will lead us (Reagan 1990: 716).
Before reproducing the speech in its entirety, here is how Reagan set the stage in his book, Speaking My Mind :
The trip to Moscow was one of the most intriguing experiences
of my years in office. You can understand more about a place by
just seeing it. One thing I noticed was that there is such a visible
break in the history of the Russian people. It’s right there in the
architecture.
The architecture of Moscow State University is quite ominous.
The university is housed in this threatening, yes, evil-looking,
building erected by Stalin. But speaking to these students, I felt
I could have been speaking to students anywhere. The coldness
disappeared.
What a step forward it was just being there in that auditorium
with the big bust of Lenin right behind me. I couldn’t speak to
the entire student body because the hall wasn’t large enough, so
the Soviets only let in students who were members of the Young
Communist League. I didn’t know that at the time, but it didn’t
seem to make any difference because I could feel that I was still
getting a good reaction. I could see the students turn to each other
and nod every once in a while, occasionally smile. I came away
from there with a very good feeling (Reagan 1989: 373–374).
09/05/07
33
Baker-c03-2
34
THE ECONOMY IN MIND
EXHIBIT 3.1 ‘‘THEY GAVE HIM A STANDING OVATION THAT BEATS AGAINST
LENIN’S CARVED COLLOSUS LIKE WAVES OF AN IMMINENT
STORM’’ (EDMUND MORRIS, DUTCH: A MEMOIR OF RONALD
REAGAN, 1999: 635).
REMARKS AT MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY,
MAY 31, 1988
Thank you, Rector Logunov, and I want to thank all of you very
much for a very warm welcome. It’s a great pleasure to be here at
Moscow State University, and I want to thank you all for turning
out. I know you must be very busy this week, studying and taking
your final examinations. So, let me just say zhelayu vam uspekha
[I wish you success]. Nancy couldn’t make it today because she’s
visiting Leningrad, which she tells me is a very beautiful city, but
she, too, says hello and wishes you all good luck.
Let me say it’s also a great pleasure to once again have this
opportunity to speak directly to the people of the Soviet Union.
Before I left Washington, I received many heartfelt letters and
telegrams asking me to carry here a simple message, perhaps, but
also some of the most important business of this summit: It is a
09/05/07
34
Baker-c03-2
THE ASH HEAP OF HISTORY
message of peace and good will and hope for a growing friendship
and closeness between our two peoples.
As you know, I’ve come to Moscow to meet with one of your
most distinguished graduates. In this, our fourth summit, General
Secretary Gorbachev and I have spent many hours together, and I
feel that we’re getting to know each other well. Our discussions,
of course, have been focused primarily on many of the important
issues of the day, issues I want to touch on with you in a few
moments. But first I want to take a little time to talk to you much
as I would to any group of university students in the United States.
I want to talk not just of the realities of today but of the possibilities
of tomorrow.
Standing here before a mural of your revolution, I want to
talk about a very different revolution that is taking place right
now, quietly sweeping the globe without bloodshed or conflict. Its
effects are peaceful, but they will fundamentally alter our world,
shatter old assumptions, and reshape our lives. It’s easy to underestimate because it’s not accompanied by banners or fanfare. It’s
been called the technological or information revolution, and as its
emblem, one might take the tiny silicon chip, no bigger than a
fingerprint. One of these chips has more computing power than a
roomful of old-style computers.
As part of an exchange program, we now have an exhibition touring your country that shows how information technology
is transforming our lives—replacing manual labor with robots,
forecasting weather for farmers, or mapping the genetic code of
DNA for medical researchers. These microcomputers today aid the
design of everything from houses to cars to spacecraft; they even
design better and faster computers. They can translate English into
Russian or enable the blind to read or help Michael Jackson produce on one synthesizer the sounds of a whole orchestra. Linked
by a network of satellites and fiber-optic cables, one individual
with a desktop computer and a telephone commands resources
unavailable to the largest governments just a few years ago.
Like a chrysalis, we’re emerging from the economy of the
Industrial Revolution—an economy confined to and limited by the
Earth’s physical resources—into, as one economist titled his book,
“the economy in mind,” in which there are no bounds on human
imagination and the freedom to create is the most precious natural
35
09/05/07
35
Baker-c03-2
36
THE ECONOMY IN MIND
resource. Think of that little computer chip. Its value isn’t in the
sand from which it is made but in the microscopic architecture
designed into it by ingenious human minds. Or take the example
of the satellite relaying this broadcast around the world, which
replaces thousands of tons of copper mined from the Earth and
molded into wire. In the new economy, human invention increasingly makes physical resources obsolete. We’re breaking through
the material conditions of existence to a world where man creates
his own destiny. Even as we explore the most advanced reaches
of science, we’re returning to the age-old wisdom of our culture,
a wisdom contained in the book of Genesis in the Bible: In the
beginning was the spirit, and it was from this spirit that the material
abundance of creation issued forth.
But progress is not foreordained. The key is freedom—freedom
of thought, freedom of information, freedom of communication.
The renowned scientist, scholar, and founding father of this university, Mikhail Lomonosov, knew that. “It is common knowledge,”
he said, “that the achievements of science are considerable and
rapid, particularly once the yoke of slavery is cast off and replaced
by the freedom of philosophy.” You know, one of the first contacts
between your country and mine took place between Russian and
American explorers. The Americans were members of Cook’s last
voyage on an expedition searching for an Arctic passage; on the
island of Unalaska, they came upon the Russians, who took them
in, and together with the native inhabitants, held a prayer service
on the ice.
The explorers of the modern era are the entrepreneurs, men
with vision, with the courage to take risks and faith enough to
brave the unknown. These entrepreneurs and their small enterprises
are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United
States. They are the prime movers of the technological revolution.
In fact, one of the largest personal computer firms in the United
States was started by two college students, no older than you,
in the garage behind their home. Some people, even in my own
country, look at the riot of experiment that is the free market and
see only waste. What of all the entrepreneurs that fail? Well, many
do, particularly the successful ones; often several times. And if you
ask them the secret of their success, they’ll tell you it’s all that
they learned in their struggles along the way; yes, it’s what they
09/05/07
36
Baker-c03-2
THE ASH HEAP OF HISTORY
learned from failing. Like an athlete in competition or a scholar
in pursuit of the truth, experience is the greatest teacher.
And that’s why it’s so hard for government planners, no matter
how sophisticated, to ever substitute for millions of individuals
working night and day to make their dreams come true. The fact
is, bureaucracies are a problem around the world. There’s an old
story about a town—it could be anywhere—with a bureaucrat who
is known to be a good-for-nothing, but he somehow had always
hung on to power. So one day, in a town meeting, an old woman
got up and said to him: “There is a folk legend here where I come
from that when a baby is born, an angel comes down from heaven
and kisses it on one part of its body. If the angel kisses him on his
hand, he becomes a handyman. If he kisses him on his forehead,
he becomes bright and clever. And I’ve been trying to figure out
where the angel kissed you so that you should sit there for so long
and do nothing.” [Laughter]
We are seeing the power of economic freedom spreading around
the world. Places such as the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Taiwan have vaulted into the technological era, barely pausing in the
industrial age along the way. Low-tax agricultural policies in the
subcontinent mean that in some years India is now a net exporter
of food. Perhaps most exciting are the winds of change that are
blowing over the People’s Republic of China, where one-quarter
of the world’s population is now getting its first taste of economic freedom. At the same time, the growth of democracy has
become one of the most powerful political movements of our age.
In Latin America in the 1970s, only a third of the population lived
under democratic government; today over 90 percent does. In the
Philippines, in the Republic of Korea, free, contested, democratic
elections are the order of the day. Throughout the world, free markets are the model for growth. Democracy is the standard by which
governments are measured.
We Americans make no secret of our belief in freedom. In fact,
it’s something of a national pastime. Every 4 years the American
people choose a new President, and 1988 is one of those years.
At one point there were 13 major candidates running in the two
major parties, not to mention all the others, including the Socialist and Libertarian candidates—all trying to get my job. About
1,000 local television stations, 8,500 radio stations, and 1,700 daily
37
09/05/07
37
Baker-c03-2
38
THE ECONOMY IN MIND
newspapers—each one an independent, private enterprise, fiercely
independent of the Government—report on the candidates, grill
them in interviews, and bring them together for debates. In the
end, the people vote; they decide who will be the next President.
But freedom doesn’t begin or end with elections.
Go to any American town, to take just an example, and you’ll
see dozens of churches, representing many different beliefs—in
many places, synagogues and mosques—and you’ll see families
of every conceivable nationality worshiping together. Go into any
schoolroom, and there you will see children being taught the Declaration of Independence, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights—among them life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness—that no government can justly deny; the
guarantees in their Constitution for freedom of speech, freedom
of assembly, and freedom of religion. Go into any courtroom, and
there will preside an independent judge, beholden to no government power. There every defendant has the right to a trial by a
jury of his peers, usually 12 men and women—common citizens;
they are the ones, the only ones, who weigh the evidence and
decide on guilt or innocence. In that court, the accused is innocent
until proven guilty, and the word of a policeman or any official
has no greater legal standing than the word of the accused. Go to
any university campus, and there you’ll find an open, sometimes
heated discussion of the problems in American society and what
can be done to correct them. Turn on the television, and you’ll see
the legislature conducting the business of government right there
before the camera, debating and voting on the legislation that will
become the law of the land. March in any demonstration, and there
are many of them; the people’s right of assembly is guaranteed in
the Constitution and protected by the police. Go into any union
hall, where the members know their right to strike is protected by
law. As a matter of fact, one of the many jobs I had before this
one was being president of a union, the Screen Actors Guild. I led
my union out on strike, and I’m proud to say we won.
But freedom is more even than this. Freedom is the right to
question and change the established way of doing things. It is the
continuing revolution of the marketplace. It is the understanding
that allows us to recognize shortcomings and seek solutions. It is
the right to put forth an idea, scoffed at by the experts, and watch
09/05/07
38
Baker-c03-2
THE ASH HEAP OF HISTORY
it catch fire among the people. It is the right to dream—to follow
your dream or stick to your conscience, even if you’re the only
one in a sea of doubters. Freedom is the recognition that no single
person, no single authority or government has a monopoly on the
truth, but that every individual life is infinitely precious, that every
one of us put on this world has been put there for a reason and
has something to offer.
America is a nation made up of hundreds of nationalities. Our
ties to you are more than ones of good feeling; they’re ties of
kinship. In America, you’ll find Russians, Armenians, Ukrainians, peoples from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. They come
from every part of this vast continent, from every continent, to
live in harmony, seeking a place where each cultural heritage is
respected, each is valued for its diverse strengths and beauties and
the richness it brings to our lives. Recently, a few individuals and
families have been allowed to visit relatives in the West. We can
only hope that it won’t be long before all are allowed to do so and
Ukrainian-Americans, Baltic-Americans, Armenian-Americans can
freely visit their homelands, just as this Irish-American visits his.
Freedom, it has been said, makes people selfish and materialistic, but Americans are one of the most religious peoples on
Earth. Because they know that liberty, just as life itself, is not
earned but a gift from God, they seek to share that gift with the
world. “Reason and experience,” said George Washington in his
Farewell Address, “both forbid us to expect that national morality
can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. And it is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular
government.” Democracy is less a system of government than it
is a system to keep government limited, unintrusive; a system of
constraints on power to keep politics and government secondary
to the important things in life, the true sources of value found only
in family and faith.
But I hope you know I go on about these things not simply
to extol the virtues of my own country but to speak to the true
greatness of the heart and soul of your land. Who, after all, needs
to tell the land of Dostoyevski about the quest for truth, the home
of Kandinski and Scriabin about imagination, the rich and noble
culture of the Uzbek man of letters Alisher Navoi about beauty
and heart? The great culture of your diverse land speaks with a
39
09/05/07
39
Baker-c03-2
40
THE ECONOMY IN MIND
glowing passion to all humanity. Let me cite one of the most
eloquent contemporary passages on human freedom. It comes, not
from the literature of America, but from this country, from one
of the greatest writers of the 20th century, Boris Pasternak, in the
novel Dr. Zhivago. He writes: “I think that if the beast who sleeps
in man could be held down by threats—any kind of threat, whether
of jail or of retribution after death—then the highest emblem of
humanity would be the lion tamer in the circus with his whip, not
the prophet who sacrificed himself. But this is just the point—what
has for centuries raised man above the beast is not the cudgel, but
an inward music—the irresistible power of unarmed truth.”
The irresistible power of unarmed truth. Today the world looks
expectantly to signs of change, steps toward greater freedom in the
Soviet Union. We watch and we hope as we see positive changes
taking place. There are some, I know, in your society who fear that
change will bring only disruption and discontinuity, who fear to
embrace the hope of the future—sometimes it takes faith. It’s like
that scene in the cowboy movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance
Kid , which some here in Moscow recently had a chance to see.
The posse is closing in on the two outlaws, Butch and Sundance,
who find themselves trapped on the edge of a cliff, with a sheer
drop of hundreds of feet to the raging rapids below. Butch turns to
Sundance and says their only hope is to jump into the river below,
but Sundance refuses. He says he’d rather fight it out with the
posse, even though they’re hopelessly outnumbered. Butch says
that’s suicide and urges him to jump, but Sundance still refuses
and finally admits, “I can’t swim.” Butch breaks up laughing and
says, “You crazy fool, the fall will probably kill you.” And, by the
way, both Butch and Sundance made it, in case you didn’t see the
movie. I think what I’ve just been talking about is perestroika and
what its goals are.
But change would not mean rejection of the past. Like a tree
growing strong through the seasons, rooted in the Earth and drawing life from the Sun, so, too, positive change must be rooted in traditional values—in the land, in culture, in family and community—
and it must take its life from the eternal things, from the source of
all life, which is faith. Such change will lead to new understandings, new opportunities, to a broader future in which the tradition
09/05/07
40
Baker-c03-2
THE ASH HEAP OF HISTORY
is not supplanted but finds its full flowering. That is the future
beckoning to your generation.
At the same time, we should remember that reform that is not
institutionalized will always be insecure. Such freedom will always
be looking over its shoulder. A bird on a tether, no matter how
long the rope, can always be pulled back. And that is why, in my
conversation with General Secretary Gorbachev, I have spoken
of how important it is to institutionalize change—to put guarantees on reform. And we’ve been talking together about one sad
reminder of a divided world: the Berlin Wall. It’s time to remove
the barriers that keep people apart.
I’m proposing an increased exchange program of high school
students between our countries. General Secretary Gorbachev mentioned on Sunday a wonderful phrase you have in Russian for
this: “Better to see something once than to hear about it a hundred
times.” Mr. Gorbachev and I first began working on this in 1985.
In our discussion today, we agreed on working up to several thousand exchanges a year from each country in the near future. But
not everyone can travel across the continents and oceans. Words
travel lighter, and that’s why we’d like to make available to this
country more of our 11,000 magazines and periodicals and our
television and radio shows that can be beamed off a satellite in
seconds. Nothing would please us more than for the Soviet people
to get to know us better and to understand our way of life.
Just a few years ago, few would have imagined the progress our
two nations have made together. The INF treaty, which General
Secretary Gorbachev and I signed last December in Washington and
whose instruments of ratification we will exchange tomorrow—the
first true nuclear arms reduction treaty in history, calling for the
elimination of an entire class of U.S. and Soviet nuclear missiles.
And just 16 days ago, we saw the beginning of your withdrawal
from Afghanistan, which gives us hope that soon the fighting may
end and the healing may begin and that that suffering country may
find self-determination, unity, and peace at long last.
It’s my fervent hope that our constructive cooperation on these
issues will be carried on to address the continuing destruction
and conflicts in many regions of the globe and that the serious
discussions that led to the Geneva accords on Afghanistan will
41
09/05/07
41
Baker-c03-2
42
THE ECONOMY IN MIND
help lead to solutions in southern Africa, Ethiopia, Cambodia, the
Persian Gulf, and Central America. I have often said: Nations
do not distrust each other because they are armed; they are armed
because they distrust each other. If this globe is to live in peace and
prosper, if it is to embrace all the possibilities of the technological
revolution, then nations must renounce, once and for all, the right
to an expansionist foreign policy. Peace between nations must be
an enduring goal, not a tactical stage in a continuing conflict.
I’ve been told that there’s a popular song in your country—
perhaps you know it—whose evocative refrain asks the question, “Do the Russians want a war?” In answer it says: “Go ask
that silence lingering in the air, above the birch and poplar there;
beneath those trees the soldiers lie. Go ask my mother, ask my
wife; then you will have to ask no more, ‘Do the Russians want
a war?’” But what of your one-time allies? What of those who
embraced you on the Elbe? What if we were to ask the watery
graves of the Pacific or the European battlefields where America’s fallen were buried far from home? What if we were to ask
their mothers, sisters, and sons, do Americans want war? Ask us,
too, and you’ll find the same answer, the same longing in every
heart. People do not make wars; governments do. And no mother
would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology. A people free to choose will always
choose peace.
Americans seek always to make friends of old antagonists. After
a colonial revolution with Britain, we have cemented for all ages
the ties of kinship between our nations. After a terrible Civil War
between North and South, we healed our wounds and found true
unity as a nation. We fought two world wars in my lifetime against
Germany and one with Japan, but now the Federal Republic of
Germany and Japan are two of our closest allies and friends.
Some people point to the trade disputes between us as a sign
of strain, but they’re the frictions of all families, and the family
of free nations is a big and vital and sometimes boisterous one.
I can tell you that nothing would please my heart more than in
my lifetime to see American and Soviet diplomats grappling with
the problem of trade disputes between America and a growing,
exuberant, exporting Soviet Union that had opened up to economic
freedom and growth.
09/05/07
42
Baker-c03-2
‘‘LIKE A CHRYSALIS’’
43
And as important as these official people-to-people exchanges
are, nothing would please me more than for them to become unnecessary, to see travel between East and West become so routine that
university students in the Soviet Union could take a month off in
the summer and, just like students in the West do now, put packs
on their backs and travel from country to country in Europe with
barely a passport check in between. Nothing would please me
more than to see the day that a concert promoter in, say, England could call up a Soviet rock group, without going through any
government agency, and have them playing in Liverpool the next
night. Is this just a dream? Perhaps, but it is a dream that is our
responsibility to have come true.
Your generation is living in one of the most exciting, hopeful
times in Soviet history. It is a time when the first breath of freedom
stirs the air and the heart beats to the accelerated rhythm of hope,
when the accumulated spiritual energies of a long silence yearn to
break free. I am reminded of the famous passage near the end of
Gogol’s Dead Souls. Comparing his nation to a speeding troika,
Gogol asks what will be its destination. But he writes, “There was
no answer save the bell pouring forth marvelous sound.”
We do not know what the conclusion will be of this journey, but
we’re hopeful that the promise of reform will be fulfilled. In this
Moscow spring, this May 1988, we may be allowed that hope: that
freedom, like the fresh green sapling planted over Tolstoy’s grave,
will blossom forth at last in the rich fertile soil of your people and
culture. We may be allowed to hope that the marvelous sound of
a new openness will keep rising through, ringing through, leading
to a new world of reconciliation, friendship, and peace.
Thank you all very much, and da blagoslovit vas gospod —God
bless you (Reagan 1989: 374–384).
‘‘LIKE A CHRYSALIS’’
There is perhaps no better living proof of Reagan’s message than
a Finnish-born fanatical computer programmer who at the age of
20 posted an e-mail on a Newsgroup, which began, “. . . I’m doing
a (free) operating system . . .” In a twist of irony, this youngster’s
father, Nil Torvalds, was active in the Communist party since
09/05/07
43
Baker-c03-2
44
THE ECONOMY IN MIND
he was a student in college during the 1960s, of which he later
admitted “his enthusiasm for communism may have been born of
naivet´e” (Torvalds and Diamond 2001: 15).
Nil’s son, Linus Torvalds, developed the Linux operating system as a graduate student at the University of Helsinki, the largest
collaborative project in the history of the world, made possible by
the very revolution then taking place that Reagan had described in
his speech. Today, approximately 40 percent of American companies use the Linux operating system, along with more than
160 governments. Both Linus and Bill Gates created enormous
wealth, yet both required only a modicum of capital; while the
latter used a corporation, the former did not. Both relied on intellectual capital, the source of all wealth.
Reagan used the metaphor of a chrysalis to describe how the
world economy was shifting from the Industrial Revolution to the
Information Era—what I am calling the knowledge or intellectual
capital economy—even giving a nod to the subjective theory of
value by describing how the value of a silicon chip lies not “in the
sand from which it is made but in the microscopic architecture
designed into it by ingenious human minds.” Think of the wealth
Intel has created since its beginnings in 1968, largely from products made by one of nature’s most abundant resources—sand.
As of 2005, Intel was the seventh largest American company
measured by market capitalization, worth more than $180 billion, and ranked eighteenth in terms of profitability. If a farmer
in Palo Alto, California, had been told in 1900 that in less than
100 years’ time only 2 percent of the population would be farmers, as opposed to a majority of workers at that time, he would
have thought the Valley to be a desert wasteland rather than the
innovative and creative fount of technology it has become. Even
Detroit now spends more on silicon chips than it does on steel
for its automobiles—another illustration of the triumph of mind
over matter.
The chrysalis metaphor sounds romantic, but the transformation
is anything but romantic for the caterpillar, which loses its legs
09/05/07
44
Baker-c03-2
‘‘LIKE A CHRYSALIS’’
09/05/07
45
and its sight, and whose very body is torn apart until it emerges
with its splendid wings. Likewise, when economies shift from
one era into another, there are the inevitable dislocations, adjustments, and creative destruction that take place to the existing
infrastructure.
This very process is still unfolding in the former Soviet Union.
Many books have been published since Karl Marx’s day on—what
he believed—was the inexorable transition from capitalism to communism. Very few books have been written on the actual alteration
from communism to capitalism taking place around the world.
Consider the predicament of Mikhail Gorbachev when he took
over the former Soviet Union. Here was a man whose entire
world paradigm of communism was literally swept onto the ash
heap of history, as Reagan had stated. He immediately blamed
his predecessors for all his problems. In fact, a running joke in
the Soviet Union at the time went something like this:
A new manager of a collective farm finds two letters from his
predecessor, with instructions to open the first when difficulties
begin. When the farm fails to meet its quotas, the manager opens
the first letter, which says, “Blame me.” He does. It buys some
time. But the farm fails again and he comes under fresh criticism,
so he opens the second letter. It says: “Prepare two letters” (Will
1992: 67).
It is time for leaders in the business community to stop emulating their predecessors blindly and instead embrace the opportunities of the intellectual capital economy. This transition will take
an enormous amount of faith in the future, an unleashing of the
human spirit, the recognition of the universal desire for freedom,
and the creativity of the ordinary person to perform extraordinary
acts of wealth creation and contribute to something larger than
themselves. It requires a country, or a company, to forget about
yesterday and begin creating tomorrow.
Throughout history, the “physical fallacy” was an idea that
reigned supreme. Economists now have a far better understanding
45
Baker-c03-2
46
THE ECONOMY IN MIND
of how wealth is created from free minds operating in free markets. This can be seen by observing various developing economies
escaping the shackles of poverty, creating wealth and a better
standard of living for their populations. It is now clear that approximately 75 percent of the wealth-creating capacity of a country
resides in human capital, and economists have proven this at the
macro level of economic organization. What is needed now is to
apply these same ideas at the micro level of the business entity
by positing a new theory for the intellectual capital company of
the future. Before we do, though, let us examine the old theory
of the company so we can improve upon it.
09/05/07
46
Baker-c04-2
4
A FLAWED THEORY —THE OLD
BUSINESS EQUATION
A theory that cannot be refuted is not scientific.
—Karl Popper
The self-important barnyard rooster Chanticleer—in poet Geoffrey
Chaucer’s fable, “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale”—had a theory: When
he crowed every morning the sun came up. One morning Chanticleer forgot to crow, and lo and behold the sun still arose. The
rooster had to modify his theory.
Theories are powerful because they seek to do at least one of
three things: explain, predict, or prescribe. Yet, when one reads
a typical business book today, the author will usually begin by
saying something to the effect that “this book is not based on
some ‘ivory tower’ theoretical model, but based on practical,
real-world experience and examples.” Beware when you read
such a qualifier, because as Dr. W. Edwards Deming used to say,
“Without theory, experience has no meaning. No one has questions to ask. Hence without theory, there is no learning. Theory
leads to prediction. Without prediction, experience and examples
teach nothing” (Deming 1994: 103). In a business environment,
whether we know it or not, we are guided to a large degree by
theoretical constructs that have evolved to simplify—and thus
explain, predict, or control—our various behaviors. As Immanuel
47
09/05/07
47
Baker-c04-2
48
A FLAWED THEORY—THE OLD BUSINESS EQUATION
Kant said, “Concepts without perceptions are empty; perceptions
without concepts are blind.” Theories build buildings and bridges,
fly airplanes, and put men on the moon.
Practical knowledge not guided by a theory is usually knowledge
of only the most superficial kind. A fact not illuminated by a theory
is not very enlightening; we might as well read the phone book. In
a world where Google has a larger market value than Boeing and
Airbus combined, and Detroit spends more money on silicon than
steel, the old notions of efficiency, productivity, cost accounting—
and how they measure wealth creation—no longer apply.
How did Microsoft, in a little more than one generation, exceed
the value—in terms of market capitalization, and depending on
the day of analysis—of behemoths such as General Motors, Ford,
Boeing, Sears, Lockheed, Kellogg’s, Safeway, Marriott (including Ritz-Carlton), Kodak, Caterpillar, Deere, USX, Weyerhaeuser,
Union Pacific, and others combined ? It leveraged intellectual capital (IC), the chief source of all wealth.
Our understanding of the role IC plays in generating wealth
is not well recognized by accountants or, for that matter, accurately measured by them. Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) do a horrendous job of valuing IC, as most of the
cost of creating IC is treated as a period expense for GAAP. This
explains how Microsoft’s GAAP assets, as reported on its balance
sheet, account for less than 10 percent of its market capitalization. Contrary to what every accounting student is taught, in the
real world, debits do not equal credits.
Today, intellectual capital is sometimes thought of as nothing
more than another “buzzword.” However, IC is not about the
“new economy,” the dotcom, or the dot-bomb. IC has always
been the chief driver of wealth, as economists have argued since
the term human capital was first coined in 1961, and as far back
as the late eighteenth century when Adam Smith discredited the
idea of mercantilism. Wealth doesn’t reside in tangible assets
or money—it resides in the IC that exists in the human spirit;
09/05/07
48
Baker-c04-2
THE THREE TYPES OF IC
49
and since this is so hard to measure (how does one measure the
ambition of Steve Jobs to “change the world”), we tend to ignore
it until it becomes so obvious—as in the case of Microsoft and
Google—that we have to acknowledge our old theories of wealth
creation are no longer relevant.
THE THREE TYPES OF IC
The wealth-creating ability of intangible assets over physical
assets is indisputable as we move from capital-based enterprises
to knowledge-based enterprises. An excellent example of this is
American Airlines’ Sabre reservation and information system.
On October 11, 1996, AMR Corporation, the parent company
of American Airlines, sold (an equity carve-out) 18 percent of its
Sabre subsidiary in an initial public offering that valued Sabre at
$3.3 billion. On the previous day, AMR had a total market value
(including Sabre) of about $6.5 billion. Thus, a reservation system generating income from travel agents and other users of its
services constituted half of the market value of AMR, equaling
the value of the world’s second largest airline, owning 650 airplanes (in 1996) and other physical and financial assets, including
valuable landing rights. A $40 million research and development
(R&D) investment in Sabre during the 1960s and 1970s mushroomed into a market value of $3.3 billion in the mid-1990s.
By October 30, 1999, Sabre’s share in the total market value
of AMR had increased to 60 percent, demonstrating the value
creation potential (scalability) of intangibles relative to that of
intangibles (Lev 2001: 24).
While the airplanes American Airlines owns show up on its
balance sheet, Sabre was nowhere to be found. A teacher once
asked Yogi Berra, “Don’t you know anything?” and he replied, “I
don’t even suspect anything.” GAAP’s deficiencies in measuring
intellectual capital notwithstanding, for our purposes we are going
to separate a company’s IC into three categories, as originally
09/05/07
49
Baker-c04-2
50
A FLAWED THEORY—THE OLD BUSINESS EQUATION
proposed by Karl-Erik Sveiby, a leading thinker in knowledge
theory, in 1989:
•
•
•
Human capital
Structural capital
Social capital (customers, suppliers, networks, referral
sources, alumni, joint venture, alliances, etc.)
We will explore each of these in greater detail. Meanwhile,
the crucial point to understand now is that it is the interplay
among the three types of IC above that generates wealth-creating
opportunities for your company. Human capital, for example, can
grow in two ways: when the business utilizes more of what each
person knows, and when people know more things that are useful to the firm and/or its customers. And since knowledge is a
“nonrival” good—meaning we can both possess it at the same
time—knowledge shared is knowledge that is effectively doubled
throughout the organization. That is why former Hewlett-Packard
CEO Lew Platt said: “If HP knew what HP knows, we would be
three times as profitable.”
Since knowledge can be found almost anywhere, and it does not
have to be newly created, it is critical we incorporate social capital
into our company’s IC, because defining our knowledge solely by
our own human and structural capital is too inward looking. The
boundaries of a business do not just keep knowledge in; they keep
it out as well. Expanding our definition of IC to the social environment within which a company operates gives us many more
opportunities to leverage other’s knowledge. This is why BP (formerly British Petroleum) gives a “Thief of the Year” award to the
person who has “stolen” the best ideas, and Texas Instruments has
a “Not Invented Here, but I Did It Anyway” award for ideas taken
inside or outside the company. Knowledge companies constantly
celebrate learning, not just the application of knowledge to the
services it offers its customers. Knowledge companies have to do
much more than merely extract eight hours of work from their
human capital; they have to leverage their minds as well. This
09/05/07
50
Baker-c04-2
NEGATIVE INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL
51
requires a different level of thinking, and a totally different set
of metrics to assess the effectiveness of organizational learning.
NEGATIVE INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL
Before we leave this brief introduction to IC, it is necessary to
explain something that may, at first impression, not seem obvious. When IC is discussed, it is normally done in a very positive
context, as most of the examples used are from successes in leveraging IC, such as Microsoft or with the Sabre reservation system.
Naturally, not all R&D projects or new products are successful,
and, in fact, the failure rate is astonishingly high. Most new drugs
fail, as do most consumer products and books published. Investments in intangibles contain much higher levels of risk and more
uncertainty than in tangible assets. If my software product fails,
those costs are usually gone for good, unless I can somehow
leverage the knowledge I acquired into another attempt. However, if I purchase an office building or a mall and it fails, I can
at least recover a portion of my investment.
But that is not the main point to make here and now. What is
important is that there is such a thing as negative human capital,
negative structural capital, and negative social capital. Certainly,
this sounds counterintuitive, but it is nonetheless true. Not everything we know is beneficial. Think of the IC a thief possesses;
it is knowledge in the sense that he knows how to perform his
craft, just as much as United Airlines knows how to fly planes
and transport people around the world. But that does not make
the knowledge valuable; and with respect to thieves, the social
loss they impose is a societal negative.
Think of countries that dogmatically adhere to the principles
of socialism or Marxism, even though both of these theories of
social organization have been repudiated by empirical evidence.
There has been enormous negative social capital built up over
the past five decades in Castro’s Cuba, just as there was in the
former Soviet Union. As the latter struggles to make its transition
09/05/07
51
Baker-c04-2
52
A FLAWED THEORY—THE OLD BUSINESS EQUATION
to a free market economy, these negative legacies are being felt.
Vital social institutions, such as secure private property rights, an
effective system of jurisprudence to adjudicate disputes, an efficient banking and credit system, and other institutions necessary
for economic growth are conspicuously absent. When President
Ronald Reagan was asked what he thought of the Berlin Wall during a visit to Germany, he gestured at the Wall and said succinctly,
“It’s as ugly as the idea behind it” (Morris 1999: 461).
Examples of negative intellectual capital in an organization
would include a rigid adherence to old methods that are hindering your people from achieving their potential, and subtracting
from value creation. High on this list would include cost-plus
pricing, Industrial Age efficiency metrics, focusing on activities and costs rather than results and value, and other forms
of negative IC that have embedded themselves into the culture.
These negative ideas have permeated each type of knowledge
discussed herein—human, structural, and certainly social—and
have become part of our tacit and explicit knowledge systems.
One of the duties of this book is to point out how these legacy
systems are indeed negative forms of IC and need to be replaced
in the knowledge company of the future.
Indeed, the purpose of this chapter is to examine the negative
IC ingrained in the old theory of the Industrial Age enterprise in
order to construct a better theory for today’s intellectual capital
enterprise. In general, the theory that originally explained the
Wright brothers’ flying machine has been significantly enhanced
by Boeing to keep its 787 in the air. This is how theories and
knowledge progress—and they can have an enormous impact on
our behavior.
‘‘ANALYZING’’ THE PREDOMINANT
BUSINESS EQUATION
In Greek language, analyze means “unloosen, separate into parts,”
which we will proceed to do with this theory before positing a
09/05/07
52
Baker-c04-2
‘‘ANALYZING’’ THE PREDOMINANT BUSINESS EQUATION
53
better theory. When you think about the traditional theory of an
enterprise, you would no doubt construct a model similar to this:
Revenue = Capacity × Efficiency × Cost-Plus Price
Since this model dominates the thinking of business leaders to
this day, it is worth explaining the model in greater detail to understand both its strength and—as will be increasingly detailed—its
fundamental weaknesses.
Consider a professional knowledge firm—such as accounting,
legal, architecture, engineering, consulting, advertising, and so
on—the archetypal pyramid firm model rested on the foundation
of leveraging people power, in effect their “capacity.” The theory
is this: Since the two main drivers of profitability are leverage
(number of team members per owner) and the hourly rate realization, if each partner could oversee a group of professionals,
this would provide the firm with additional capacity to generate
top-line revenue, and thus add to the profitability and size of the
firm. If a firm wanted to add to its revenue base, it had two primary choices: It could work its people more hours, or it could
hire more people. It is no secret which choice the average firm
tends to choose, much to the chagrin of its already overworked
team members. In most firms, the partners wait until demand is
bursting at the seams before they add more professionals.
Now compare this practice with respect to capacity in other
industries—this process of adding capacity after revenue is backward. If you think of any other industry or company—from Intel
to General Electric, from FedEx to Microsoft—capacity is almost
always added before revenue. Consider specifically FedEx: Before
Fred Smith could deliver his first overnight package, he had to
have trucks, drivers, airplanes, and facilities throughout the country, all at enormous fixed costs (indeed, those large fixed costs
almost bankrupted FedEx in the early days). Most organizations
operate with capacity to spare, which is vital to maintain flexibility
in changing market conditions.
09/05/07
53
Baker-c04-2
54
A FLAWED THEORY—THE OLD BUSINESS EQUATION
Next, let us look at the second element in the old theory—
efficiency. Efficiency is a word that can be said with perfect impunity, since no one in their right mind would dispute the goal of
operating efficiently. In fact, it is well known that in free market
economies, efficiency is critical, as it ensures a society’s resources
are not going to waste. It is also well established that different
levels of productivity largely explain differences in wages across
countries. An American farmer will earn more plowing with a tractor than a Cuban farmer with an ox and hand plow; the American
farmer is more productive, hence higher wages and more profits.
There is no doubt that increasing efficiency—or at least not
sliding into inefficiency—is important. But the pendulum has
swung too far in the direction of efficiency over everything else.
It seems innovation, dynamism, customer service, investments in
human capital, and effectiveness have all been sacrificed on the
altar of efficiency. It is critical to bear in mind that a business
does not exist to be efficient; rather, it exists to create value
outside of itself. This value creation function can be thought of
as the difference between the maximum price a customer would
be willing to pay minus the opportunity costs of the activities
necessary to bring to market the product or service.
Peter Drucker was fond of pointing out that the last buggy-whip
manufacturers were models of efficiency. So what? What happens
if you are efficient at doing the wrong things? That cannot be
labeled progress. In fact, one indicator an industry is in the mature
or decline stage of the product/service life cycle is when it is at
the apogee of its theoretical level of efficiency.
The point is this: In industry after industry, the history of economic progress has not been to wring out the last 5 to 10 percent
of efficiency, but rather to change the model to more effectively
create wealth. From Walt Disney and Fred Smith to Bill Gates
and Larry Ellison, these entrepreneurs did not get where they
are by focusing on efficiency. All of these entrepreneurs created
enormous wealth by delivering more effectively what customers
were willing to pay for.
09/05/07
54
Baker-c04-2
‘‘ANALYZING’’ THE PREDOMINANT BUSINESS EQUATION
55
Next is cost-plus pricing, a direct cousin of the DuPont
return-on-investment formula. But the real antecedent of cost-plus
pricing is the Labor Theory of Value, posited by economists of
the eighteenth century and Karl Marx in the middle nineteenth,
and falsified by the 1871 Marginalist Revolution, as described in
Chapter 2.
The offense of believing that internal costs have anything to do
with value is serious. A business should be judged—and price
based—on the results and wealth it creates for its customers. The
cost-plus pricing paradigm is not worthy of businesses operating
in an intellectual capital economy, and it is time we throw it
on the ash heap of history. It is an idea from the day before
yesterday. This topic is covered in depth in the first book of the
Intellectual Capitalism Series, Pricing on Purpose: Creating and
Capturing Value (Baker 2006).
Last, consider revenue. It is one thing to get more business,
it is quite another to get better business. The “bigger is better”
mentality is an empty promise for most companies. Acquiring
more customers is not necessarily better. Growth simply for the
sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell, not a strategy
for a viable, profitable company. Eventually, the cancer kills its
host. It is worth looking at the historical origins of this market
share myth. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, market share theory was an excellent rationale for antitrust enforcements. You
can certainly see it in the algebraic effect of greater revenue in
the equation. Once fixed costs are covered, any marginal revenue will contribute to the bottom line. Of course, this implicitly
implies that any customer is a good customer, which is certainly
a debatable proposition.
One widely quoted study is that of Harvard Business School
professor Robert D. Buzzell, who, in 1975, published an article
in Harvard Business Review, “Market Share—A Key to Profitability.” This article provided empirical evidence that companies
that had dominant market share had higher profitability levels.
Of course, if one is not grounded in theory, then it is easier to
09/05/07
55
Baker-c04-2
56
A FLAWED THEORY—THE OLD BUSINESS EQUATION
confuse cause and effect by merely observing the manifestations
of a competitive advantage. Height and weight are closely associated but you won’t grow taller by eating more. Market share is
the result of a sustainable competitive advantage, not the cause.
If market share explained profitability, General Motors, United
Airlines, Sears, and Philips should be the most profitable companies in their respective industries. Yet they have all turned in
mediocre profitability records. Growth in profitability usually precedes market share, not vice versa. Wal-Mart, for example, was
far more profitable than Sears long before it had a sizeable market
share. It seems that profitability and market share grow in tandem
with a viable value proposition customers are willing to pay for.
The road to hell is paved with the pursuit of volume. Don’t make
this mistake. More often than not, less is more.
BMW has approximately 1 percent market share, while recording record profits in the automobile market. Other traditional
marketing and sales leaders, such as Procter & Gamble, General
Electric, and Southwest Airlines, began to switch their focus from
top-line revenue growth and market share to increasing profitability. Southwest Airlines is a leader in the low-fare travel niche, and
it has remained focused on that niche like a laser beam. As former
CEO Herb Kelleher pointed out, “Market share has nothing to do
with profitability. Market share says we just want to be big; we
don’t care if we make money doing it. That’s what misled much
of the airline industry for 15 years, after deregulation. In order
to get an additional 5 percent of the market, some companies
increased their costs by 25 percent. That’s really incongruous if
profitability is your purpose” (Freiberg and Freiberg, 1996: 49).
I have exposed some of the flaws of the traditional Industrial
Era business equation. Although this discussion is not meant to
be comprehensive, it nevertheless sets forth a compelling case
against the old theory. Is there a better theory, one that takes into
account the real wealth-producing capacity and other critical success factors of the business of the future? It is a valuable accomplishment in and of itself to point out defects in a theory—or
09/05/07
56
Baker-c04-2
‘‘ANALYZING’’ THE PREDOMINANT BUSINESS EQUATION
57
falsify it entirely. As the eighteenth-century French cartographer
Jean Baptiste Bourguignon d’Anville wrote: “To destroy false
notions without even going any further is one of the ways to
advance knowledge.” Another way to advance knowledge is to
construct a new theory, which we turn to next.
09/05/07
57
Baker-c04-2
09/05/07
58
Baker-c05-2
09/05/07
5
A BETTER THEORY —THE NEW BUSINESS
EQUATION
The mere formulation of a problem is far more often essential than
its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or
experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to
regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination
and marks real advances in science.
—Albert Einstein
Only a theory can replace a theory. If we reject our old notions
of the way the world works, we need a new place to go. Certainly, we can make incremental improvements to the old business
equation presented in the last chapter. Indeed, business books
are full of such ideas—Total Quality Management, Six Sigma,
reengineering, benchmarking, and so on. But if we endeavor
to make significant improvements in performance and effectiveness in today’s intellectual capital economy, we have to move
beyond tactics and techniques. We have to work on our theories. Doctors used to believe in leeches and bloodletting, and
no matter how efficiently they executed the procedures based on
those theories, they simply were not medically effective. There
is no right way to do the wrong thing. As Peter Senge wrote
in The Dance of Change: “It is not enough to change strategies, structures, and systems, unless the thinking that produced
59
59
Baker-c05-2
60
A BETTER THEORY—THE NEW BUSINESS EQUATION
those strategies, structures, and systems also changes” (Coens and
Jenkins 2000: 11).
The old canard that good ideas and knowledge are everywhere
and it is really execution that matters would be relatively easy to
overcome if only it were true. But it is not true; for if it were,
we would have better movies (not remakes of Bewitched and The
Dukes of Hazzard ), books, and other products; more memorable
experiences; and longer-lasting transformations from the companies we patronize. Both ideas and execution are important, yet
ideas are the more valuable of the two, as we learned in our discussion of materialism in Chapter 2. There is no effective way to
implement a bad idea, with history providing many lessons, from
Napoleon invading Russia to countries attempting to implement
socialism and communism. Were these bad ideas or simply a case
of poor execution? The old adage applies: “It is a poor carpenter
who blames his tools.”
THE NEW THEORY
Buckminster Fuller (designer, cosmologist, philosopher, mathematician, and architect—he designed the geodesic dome) once
said, “You can’t change anything by fighting or resisting it. You
change something by making it obsolete through superior methods.” The correspondence principle is what scientists use when
comparing two theories. The new theory should be able to replicate the successes of the old theory and explain where it fails,
while offering new insights. It is time to replace the old business
equation described in the previous chapter with this new model:
Profitability = Intellectual Capital × Price × Effectiveness
Let us explore each component of the above equation; then we
will discuss why it is a better theory for explaining the success
of companies operating in today’s marketplace.
We start with profitability, rather than revenue, because we are
not interested in growth merely for the sake of growth. As many
09/05/07
60
Baker-c05-2
THE NEW THEORY
61
companies around the world have learned—some the hard way,
such as the airlines, retailers, and automobile manufacturers—
market share is not the open sesame to more profitability. We are
interested in finding the right customer, at the right price, consistent with our purpose and strategy, even if that means frequently
turning away customers. I have coined a corollary to Gresham’s
law—bad money drives out good—from monetary economics,
Baker’s Law: Bad customers drive out good customers.
Adopting this belief means you need to become much more
selective about whom you do business with, even though that
marginal business may be “profitable” by conventional accounting standards. Very often, the most important costs—and benefits,
for that matter—do not ever show up on a profit-and-loss statement. There is such a thing as good and bad profits. Accepting
customers who are not a good fit for your company—either
because of their personality or because they reject your purpose—
has many deleterious effects, such as negatively affecting team
member morale, and committing fixed capacity to customers who
do not value your offerings. This is why the new equation focuses
on profitability, not simply gross revenue. When it comes to customers, less is usually more.
As pointed out in Chapter 4, for our purposes in this book,
intellectual capital is comprised of three primary components:
1.
Human capital (HC). This comprises your team members
and associates who work either for you or with you. As
one industry leader said, this is the capital that leaves in the
elevator at night. The important thing to remember about
HC is that it cannot be owned, only contracted, since it is
completely volitional. In fact, more and more, knowledge
workers own the means of your company’s production, and
knowledge workers will invest their HC in those organizations that pay a decent return on investment, both economic
and psychological. In the final analysis, your people are not
assets (they deserve more respect than a copier machine and
09/05/07
61
Baker-c05-2
62
2.
3.
A BETTER THEORY—THE NEW BUSINESS EQUATION
a computer); they are not resources to be harvested from the
land like coal when you run out; ultimately, they are volunteers and it is totally up to them whether or not they get
back into the elevator the following morning.
Structural capital. This is everything that remains in your
company once the HC has stepped into the elevator, such
as databases, customer lists, systems, procedures, intranets,
manuals, files, technology, and all of the explicit knowledge
tools you utilize to produce results for your customers.
Social capital. This includes your customers, the main reason a business exists; but it also includes your suppliers,
vendors, networks, referral sources, alumni, joint venture
and alliance partners, reputation, and so on. Of the three
types of IC, this is perhaps the least leveraged, and yet it is
highly valued by customers.
In the business of the future, effectiveness takes precedence
over efficiency. A business does not exist to be efficient, it exists
to create wealth for its customers. An obsessive compulsion to
increase efficiency (doing things right) reduces the firm’s effectiveness at doing the right things. The pursuit of efficiency has
hindered many companies’ ability to pursue opportunities; hence,
these organizations spend most of their time solving problems.
One cannot grow a company and continuously cut costs and
increase efficiency. Today’s IC companies are composed of human beings who do not check their emotions at the door, and
they are subject to fears, doubts, variable levels of self-esteem,
uncertainty, anger, rage, and a whole range of other emotions
that cannot be captured by traditional efficiency measurements.
In other words, humans are messy. Focusing on effectiveness does
not eliminate these issues, but it does take them into account far
better than efficiency metrics, which can be desensitizing and
inhumane at times.
This new equation comports with the realities of an IC economy, taking into account knowledge workers who use their hearts
09/05/07
62
Baker-c05-2
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
09/05/07
63
and minds, not their brawn and hands. This equation recognizes
the importance of mind over matter, the price thereof, and the
effectiveness of the workers who produce it, as well as the customers who purchase it. It may not yet be a perfect theory, but it
is far superior to the alternative discussed in the prior chapter.
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
I am going to rely on the reader’s ability to hold two opposite
thoughts in his or her head at the same time, while still functioning. I have a love/hate relationship with the above equation.
On the one hand, it is a superior model for the business of the
future because it recognizes the realities of the marketplace in
which companies operate, and it focuses on leveraging the right
things. It takes into account the importance of dynamism, innovation, and a whole host of other human activities that are simply
not captured in the old equation. On the other hand, because it
is nothing more than an algebraic equation, it is an incredible
simplification of the components that comprise the typical organization. When we look at equations, we tend to think of each
component comprising a separate part that can be individually
manipulated and controlled, a very one-dimensional view of a
business made up of human beings. What the equation does not
explain is how to raise prices, or how to increase effectiveness
and intellectual capital, nor does it explain the interconnections
and interdependencies of the various components. Certainly, the
equation can describe an abstract feature such as effectiveness,
but it does not really enhance one’s understanding of how change
occurs in the firm as a whole. In other words, it can explain the
ends (profitability), but not the means (how does one measure
effectiveness?).
Any equation assumes a certain cause-and-effect relationship that
tends to lead us to believe these patterns are sequential and linear
and not subject to the perpetual feedback of prior causes. In the old
equation, increase capacity and revenue grows; in the day-to-day
63
Baker-c05-2
64
A BETTER THEORY—THE NEW BUSINESS EQUATION
realities of a company, trying to work your team members more
hours is going to have a whole host of unintended consequences
that will ultimately affect the goal of increasing profit. No equation
can capture the richness of these interrelated means.
Another problem with the equation is that it presents the characteristics of a firm as nothing but the sum of the parts; if you
change one aspect, you invariably change another by an equal
amount. But in a living, breathing, system such as a firm, parts
and wholes are not linked so linearly. Thus, a small change in one
of the parts can have a profound and dramatic influence on everything else. Think of the effects of a toxic manager who belittles
and intimidates his team members. He may achieve higher efficiency in one aspect of the equation, but so totally destroy morale
and motivation that the ultimate outcome will be a reduction in
firm effectiveness, customer service, and profitability.
Peter Drucker has left business executives a rich legacy in
his writings, extensively detailing why traditional management
science fails to perform. Executives who believe they can change
one aspect of a company without affecting others are ignoring
the reality of a firm’s being an interdependent system. Drucker
explained the phenomenon this way:
There is one fundamental insight underlying all management
science. It is that the business enterprise is a system of the highest
order: a system whose parts are human beings contributing voluntarily of their knowledge, skill and dedication to a joint venture.
And one thing characterizes all genuine systems, whether they be
mechanical like the control of a missile, biological like a tree,
or social like the business enterprise: it is interdependence. The
whole of a system is not necessarily improved if one particular
function or part is improved or made more efficient. In fact, the
system may well be damaged thereby, or even destroyed. In some
cases the best way to strengthen the system may be to weaken a
part—to make it less precise or less efficient. For what matters
in any system is the performance of the whole; this is the result
of growth and of dynamic balance, adjustment, and integration,
rather than of mere technical efficiency.
09/05/07
64
Baker-c05-2
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
65
Primary emphasis on the efficiency of parts in management
science is therefore bound to do damage. It is bound to optimize
precision of the tool at the expense of the health and performance
of the whole (Drucker 2004: 97).
Any equation is similar to the difference between a map and
a territory—one is a two-dimensional explanation, and the other
is full of complex and rich interconnections that could never be
captured on paper. It has been said that studying a living entity
on paper is like performing an autopsy on dolphins versus swimming with them. Certainly, both activities will give you a better
understanding of dolphins, but which one will let you observe the
rich and contextual feel of a living creature? Clinical pathologists
implicitly understand this difference, as they instruct physicians
to never treat a test result but, rather, treat the patient.
The careful reader—perhaps the reader with scientific or marketing training—will note that the equation doesn’t answer the
important question of why we are in business, as it appears to
put profitability above all else. This is a serious omission. The
fact that a business needs to make a profit is a tautology, and is
in fact quite irrelevant. Most importantly, a business must create
and retain customers and add wealth to their lives by providing
them more in value than the price they are paying.
Peter Drucker indefatigably pointed out that “there is only one
valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer” (Flaherty 1999: 131). This is known as the marketing concept. The
purpose of any organization—from a governmental agency or
nonprofit foundation to a corporation or a church—exists to create results outside of itself. The result of a school is an educated
student, as is a cured patient for a hospital, or a saved soul for a
church. A business exists to create wealth for its customers.
The only things that exist inside of a business are costs, activities, efforts, problems, mediocrity, friction, politics, and crises. In
fact, Peter Drucker wrote, “One of the biggest mistakes I have made
during my career was coining the term profit center, around 1945. I
am thoroughly ashamed of it now, because inside a business there
09/05/07
65
Baker-c05-2
66
A BETTER THEORY—THE NEW BUSINESS EQUATION
are no profit centers, just cost centers” (Drucker 2002: 49, 84). The
only profit center is a customer’s check that doesn’t bounce. Customers are indifferent to the internal workings of your company in
terms of costs, desired profits levels, and efforts. Nobody wants to
hear about the labor pains—they want to see the baby. Value is only
created when you have produced something the customer voluntarily, and willingly, pays for. What makes the marketing concept so
breathtakingly brilliant is that the focus is always on the outside of
the organization. It does not look inside and ask, “What do we want
and need?” but, rather, it looks outside to the customer and asks,
“What do you desire and value?”
In fact, what is routinely called capitalism is more accurately
described as consumerism, wherein the customer is sovereign—
those with the gold rule. While the marketing concept has existed
for decades, it is regularly ignored as businesses routinely lose
sight of the fact that the sole reason they exist is to serve customers outside of their four walls.
A company exists to serve real flesh-and-blood people, not
some mass of demographics known as “the market.” As Stanley
Marcus (the son of one of the founders of Neiman-Marcus) used
to love to point out, no market ever purchased anything in one of
his stores, but a lot of customers came in and bought things and
made him a rich man. In the final analysis, a business doesn’t
exist to be efficient, control costs, perform cost accounting, or
give people fancy titles and power over the lives of others. It
exists to create results and wealth outside of itself. This profound
lesson from Drucker must not be forgotten.
Unfortunately, in many instances, this lesson has never been
learned. The conventional wisdom in business is to buy low and
sell high and measure the bottom line by the historical profit-andloss statement, which any first-year accounting student can manipulate. Our 500-year-old accounting model is utterly inadequate
at relating internal costs to external wealth created, and simply
ignores the wealth-producing capacity of an organization. This is
why we see market valuations many multiples of book value.
09/05/07
66
Baker-c05-2
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
67
Rather than maximizing shareholder value, leaders should focus
on the wealth-creating capacity of their organizations, which is,
ultimately, the leading indicator for optimizing shareholder value.
As Jack Welch pointed out, “One thing we’ve discovered with
certainty is that anything we do that makes the customer more
successful inevitably results in a financial return for us” (Khalsa
1999: 25).
Another reason we lose sight of the truth that firms exist to
create wealth is that the language of business is drawn largely
from war and sports analogies. In sports, a competition is usually zero-sum, meaning one competitor wins and the other loses.
This is not at all relevant in a business setting. Just because
your competitors flourish does not mean you lose. There is room
for both FedEx and UPS, Airbus and Boeing, Pepsi and Coke,
Ford and General Motors, and while their sparring might be mistaken by some as war, as John Kay points out “not in Pepsi’s
wildest fantasies does it imagine that the conflict will end in
the second burning of Atlanta [Coca-Cola’s head office]” (Koch
2001: 73). When Coca-Cola changed its recipe to New Coke,
company spokesman Carlton Curtis stated, “You’re talking about
having some guts—and doing something that few managements
would have the guts to do.” If you find it amusing that grown
men talk about guts and recipes in the same sentence, then it
should be obvious that business has nothing to do with war.
Business is not about annihilating your competition; it is about
adding more value to your customers. War destroys, commerce
builds. Both sides to a transaction must profit or it would not
take place, the exact point made in the 1700s by Adam Smith.
Marketplaces are conversations, derived from the Greek marketplace, the agora. It is where buyers and sellers meet to discuss
their wares and share visions of the future, where supply and
demand intersect at the equilibrium point with a handshake. It is
as far removed from war as capitalism is from communism, and
perhaps this war analogy, too, needs to be tossed onto the ash
heap of history.
09/05/07
67
Baker-c05-2
68
A BETTER THEORY—THE NEW BUSINESS EQUATION
One more criticism of this equation should be mentioned before
we leave this analysis of cognitive dissonance. New realities
require new words. The word efficiency has been deliberately
replaced with effectiveness, bowing to the observation that a business does not exist to be efficient but, rather, effective. What
happens if you are 100 percent efficient at doing the wrong thing?
Effectiveness stresses the ability of getting the right things done.
Still, this word, too, is not quite precise enough at describing
the effect a modern firm, based on the intangibles of intellectual
capital, is trying to create. I much prefer the word efficacious,
meaning “having the power to produce a desired effect.” This
term is used to describe the miraculous power of many drugs,
since it suggests possession of a special quality or virtue that
makes it possible to achieve a result. In an IC economy, where
wealth is created using the power of the mind—as opposed to
the body—these characteristics better explain the value created
by knowledge workers.
In any event, while one could point out other weaknesses in
the new equation, in a book we must break things down into separate components to deal with them more effectively. We cannot
do everything at once. This is the advantage of a theory, because
while it will never capture the true essence of a living organization, it can be studied in its quantitative and qualitative parts,
advancing our understanding of how those parts are interdependent. A theory need not be elegant (Einstein quipped, “Elegance
is for tailors”), nor capture the entire essence of the phenomenon
it is trying to explain; all it has to do to be effective is allow
us to predict, explain, or prescribe the behavior we observe. It is
similar to a camera, not a photograph, in that it is a tool that can
be used well or badly, to capture reality, not depict it.
Another important element of theory building is to have a preference to shave with Occam’s razor—that is, any hypothesis must
not be developed beyond necessity. Unfortunately, most business
books contain a paucity of theory, and when they do, the razor
couldn’t cut butter. To this end, the new equation is presented
09/05/07
68
Baker-c05-2
WHERE DO PROFITS COME FROM?
09/05/07
69
only as a model—a map—to help us capture a deeper understanding of how organizations can operate more effectively in an
IC economy. No one would argue that you can get anywhere by
looking at maps without venturing out to sea. But no one would
suggest you would be very safe at sea without a map.
WHERE DO PROFITS COME FROM?
A ship in harbor is safe—but that is not what ships are for.
–John A. Shedd (1859 to circa 1928)
In seminars around the world, we have presented to participants
the following factors of production in any economy, and the type
of income derived therefrom:
Land = Rents
Labor = Salaries and Wages
Capital = Interest, Dividends, and Capital Gains
We then ask a deceptively simple question: Where do profits
come from? The answers range from entrepreneurs and value to
revenue minus expenses and customers. Nevertheless, the real
answer is that profits come from risk . The word entrepreneur
comes from the French word, entreprendre, meaning “to undertake.” It is the basis for the English word enterprise. But not just
entrepreneurs (or feminine, entrepreneuses) make profits; so do
established enterprises.
When a business engages in innovation, it is taking a risk. In
Italian, the word risk derives from risicare, which means “to
dare,” which implies a choice, not a fate, as Peter L. Bernstein
points out in his outstanding study of risk, Against the Odds. In
other words, risk is an economic positive. There are five responses
when confronted with risk: avoid it, reduce it, transfer it, accept
it, or increase it. In the final analysis, a business cannot eliminate
risk, as that would eliminate profits. The goal is to take calculated
risks and choose them wisely. The dilemma in many firms is that
they are allocating a disproportionate share of their resources in
69
Baker-c05-2
70
A BETTER THEORY—THE NEW BUSINESS EQUATION
perpetuating yesterday and today rather than creating tomorrow.
By setting a nice, comfortable floor on their earnings (via the
cost-plus pricing mechanism), they have placed an artificial ceiling over their heads as well. This is self-imposed, and it comes
from the attempt to avoid risk and uncertainty (which is very
costly in terms of lost opportunities).
Consider labor unions, the epitome of an institution attempting
to avoid risk. Talk with union members and you quickly discover
that they credit the union for their standard of living. Certainly,
they are paid an above-market wage (Milton Friedman has proved
this point), and receive good benefits, a healthy pension, and generous time off. But have you ever met a wealthy rank-and-file
union member? The trade-off they made for their union compensation package is an artificial ceiling they can never rise above,
at least not while employed in a union job, since seniority and
other stultifying restrictions limit their potential. Risk avoidance
is the antithesis to a successful enterprise, condemning it to mediocrity, perhaps even extinction. The goal should be to maximize
wealth-creating opportunities rather than to minimize risk, as
Peter Drucker pointed out:
A business always saws off the limb on which it sits; it makes
existing risks riskier or creates new ones. . . . Risk is of the essence,
and risk making and risk taking constitute the basic function of
enterprise. . . . This risk is something quite different from risk in
the statistician’s probability; it is risk of the unique event, the
irreversible qualitative breaking of the pattern (Kehrer 1989: 53).
Drucker is explaining a basic economic theory known as
B¨ohm-Bawerk’s Law—named after the Austrian economist Eugen
B¨ohm-Bawerk (1851–1926)—which states, “Existing means of
production can yield greater economic performance only through
greater uncertainty; through taking greater risk” (Kehrer 1989: 298).
Businesses have very sophisticated means of measuring the costs
and benefits of risks, once they have been taken. But the risk occurs
only before the event, and cannot be accurately measured until after
09/05/07
70
Baker-c05-2
WHERE DO PROFITS COME FROM?
71
it has occurred. There is no theory—in economics or finance—that
measures the cost of not taking a risk. Yet, it is precisely these losses
that cost the business the most.
Risk and uncertainty are the twin banes of human existence.
Consider what people will sacrifice to avoid them. Risk avoidance has created a $1.5 trillion worldwide insurance industry. It is
why rental car companies make more from the collision damage
waiver insurance they sell then they do renting cars. It is why
buyers of appliances (e.g., microwaves, stereos, and other electronic goods) will spend large sums on extended warranties for
products that could be replaced more cheaply. It is why criminals
and prosecutors plea-bargain, each being uncertain as to what a
jury is going to do.
Peter Drucker classified risk into three categories: the affordable, the nonaffordable, and the compulsory:
First, there was the risk a business could afford to take. If it succeeded at the innovation, it would not achieve major results, and
if it failed, it would not do great corporate damage. Second, there
was the risk a business could not afford to take. This risk usually
involved an innovation that the company lacked the knowledge to
implement, and usually would end up building the competition’s
business. Third, there was the risk a business could not afford not
to take. Failure to undertake this innovation meant there might not
be a business several years hence (Flaherty 1999: 172).
Naturally, in this book, the third type of risk taking will be
advocated, that is, taking those risks that will spur the firm to
higher levels of effectiveness and profitability. Too often in organizations, risk taking is seen as a negative, a reckless use of
resources better spent on other functions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Committing a portion of today’s resources to
future expectations certainly entails risk, but since that is the
source of profits—not to mention innovation, dynamism, and
economic growth—it is a process inherent in the function of
business entities. Economy-wide, profits may constitute only 10
percent of what the American economy produces, but in terms of
09/05/07
71
Baker-c05-2
72
A BETTER THEORY—THE NEW BUSINESS EQUATION
creating an incentive to effectively produce the other 90 percent,
they are essential. And profits are derived from risk; complacency
is not an option.
This, by the way, is another defect you may care to note about
the new equation, because it makes it look as if profitability
appears by effectively leveraging intellectual capital at the right
price, but misses the importance of risk. We must always remember that profits, ultimately, are derived from risk taking, and no
equation, no matter how complex and intricate, will ever be able
to capture the essence of an entrepreneur, an effective executive,
or a profit-making enterprise with a distinguished purpose.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This chapter has laid the groundwork for the remaining chapters
and all of the books in the Intellectual Capitalism Series. We
have covered a lot of material here and have presented some
radical (from Latin for “root”) ideas. I have argued that the old
equation is not worthy of enterprises that, more and more, are
composed of knowledge workers because it leverages the wrong
things and does not explain the elements of success in an IC
economy. The new equation is a worthy model for the noble
calling of enterprise. And while there are still shortcomings in
the equation, it is a starting point for understanding the drivers
of success for the business of the future.
When I first publicly presented and contrasted the new equation
with the old one at a seminar for a professional knowledge firm,
an attendee explained to me at the break why she thought the
new equation was so superior to the old. She said, and I’m paraphrasing here, “Your equation presents so many more factors
that enable a firm to achieve its objectives than the old one did.
It is like being freed from a cage that has restricted our firm for
decades.” It is my fervent hope this new paradigm has a similar effect on all who study it and will change their behavior
as a result. The old paradigm is indeed far too restricting, and
09/05/07
72
Baker-c05-2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
73
it doesn’t represent the realities of the marketplace in which
companies find themselves currently. As Peter Drucker said in
a 1994 interview in Harvard Business Review , “The assumptions
on which most businesses are being run no longer fit reality”
(Edersheim 2007: 19). Ronald Reagan delivered the same message six years earlier to the students at Moscow State University.
The enterprises of the future must lead the way by following a
model worthy of a proud heritage of free minds operating in free
markets being the catalyst for dynamism and growth.
Modern firms are knowledge organizations, and it is time for
them to begin acting as if they understood this fact, rather than
trying to constantly enhance efficiency by treating their human
capital as if they had no mind of their own. Humans are not
simply machines that exist to operate at peak efficiency, and
the old equation keeps us mired in this mentality. I believe we
can—indeed, must—do better than the opportunities presented
by an antiquated model. Let us now explore the nature of knowledge, the dominant force of all wealth creation.
09/05/07
73
Baker-c05-2
09/05/07
74
Baker-c06-2
09/05/07
6
THE SCARCEST RESOURCE OF ALL
After all, the caveman had the same natural resources at their
disposal as we have today, and the difference between their standard
of living and ours is a difference between the knowledge they could
bring to bear on those resources and the knowledge used today.
—Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, 1996
The distinction between ideas and knowledge may be subtle, yet
is well illustrated by the following tale:
A peasant discovers that many of his chickens are dying, so he
seeks advice from a consultant. The consultant recommends that
the peasant play music in the chicken coop, but the deaths continue.
The consultant then recommends changing the lighting in the coop,
but the deaths continue unabated. Pondering again, the consultant
recommends repainting the chicken coop in bright colors. Finally,
all the chickens die. “What a shame,” the consultant tells the peasant, “I had so many more good ideas” (Wheelan 2002: 225).
In reality, specific knowledge is rare, despite all of the glib generalities of knowledge being everywhere. Data and information are
certainly everywhere, especially since the introduction of the Internet, but information is not knowledge. The cost of reproducing
information has dropped significantly, while the cost of replicating knowledge is a far more expensive process. Epistemologists
have spent centuries trying to comprehend what it means to know
something. Epistemology comes from the Greek word episteme,
which means “absolute certain truth.” But how do we know
75
75
Baker-c06-2
76
THE SCARCEST RESOURCE OF ALL
something for sure? For that matter, how much does the world
know? Is it all worth knowing? What is the value of the world’s
stock of knowledge? How much of it is obsolete? David Hume,
the Scottish philosopher, was convinced you can know nothing for
sure, “But now I am going to light my pipe and go out for a meal.”
THOMAS SOWELL AND FRIEDRICH HAYEK ON
KNOWLEDGE
. . . [T]he most severe constraints facing human beings in all societies
and throughout history—inadequate knowledge for making all the
decisions that each individual and every organization nevertheless has
to make, in order to perform the tasks that go with living and achieve
the goals that go with being human.
—Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, 1996
In his landmark work on knowledge, Knowledge and Decisions,
Thomas Sowell delineates various kinds of ideas by their relationship to the authentication process:
There are ideas systemically prepared for authentication (“theories”),
ideas not derived from any systematic process (“visions”), ideas
which could not survive any reasonable authentication process (“illusions”), ideas which exempt themselves from any authentication
process (“myths”), ideas which have already passed authentication
processes (“facts”), as well as ideas known to have failed—or certain to fail—such processes (“falsehoods”—both mistakes and lies)
(Sowell 1996: 4–5).
Sowell points out the difference between “general expertise”
and highly specific knowledge with this historical example:
One of the classic disasters of government planning involved the
British government’s attempts to grow peanuts in colonial Rhodesia after World War II. Although this scheme turned out to be a
costly failure, ordinary farmers around the world had been deciding for generations where and how to grow peanuts, each on his
own particular land, whose individual characteristics were known
09/05/07
76
Baker-c06-2
THOMAS SOWELL AND FRIEDRICH HAYEK ON KNOWLEDGE
09/05/07
77
directly from personal experience. Why was this government plan
to grow peanuts such an economic disaster, when poorly educated or even illiterate farmers have been able to do what highly
educated experts were not able to do? The farmers had highly specific knowledge, which is often far more important than general
“expertise” (Sowell 2000: 250).
In a business enterprise, two sources of profit are possible: an
economic profit and an epistemological profit, the latter of which
has the ability to advance specific knowledge. The free market,
meaning the sovereign consumer, is the authentication process
Sowell alludes to, at least as it relates to product and service
offerings. Any offering not valued by consumers will be ruthlessly
repudiated in a free market. Compare this authentication process
with many of the ideas of academics, which either do not work or
have not been authenticated by experience. The only test appears
to be if your colleagues agree with what you are saying.
The interesting thing about the difference between an advanced
civilization and a primitive one is not that each person has more
knowledge but actually that he or she requires far less. Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead said, “Civilization advances by
extending the number of operations we can perform without thinking about them.” A primitive savage must be able to produce a
wide range of goods and services for himself and his family,
whereas an auto mechanic today can get by with just knowing
his area of expertise, as he will rely on the specific knowledge of
others to provide his wood, food, clothing, and medical services.
A photographer during the Civil War had to have far more knowledge of the photographic process than today’s digital camera user.
In an effort to feed a family, perform productive work, and make
a contribution to society, individuals engage in enterprise to serve
the needs of others. In reality, Homo sapiens is the only animal
that coordinates elaborate task-sharing activities among unrelated
members of the same species. Our ancestors 12,000 years ago, who
wandered the plains in small bands in search of food worrying about
opportunistic strangers inflicting warfare, murder, and thievery,
77
Baker-c06-2
78
THE SCARCEST RESOURCE OF ALL
would be in awe of our ability to step out our front door into a city
of 10 million anonymous people, drive to a supermarket stocked
with just the right amount of meat, produce, and other essentials
for daily sustenance—all done with no central coordinating intelligence. The amount of knowledge required to get products and
services delivered to a place convenient for customers is an enormous challenge in terms of the general expertise that exists among
millions of people that has to be shared. Consider those bananas
you purchased. How would any one of us get people in Costa Rica,
some of whom may not even like Americans, to work hard, grow,
harvest, and ship bananas? What do any of us know about truckand shipbuilding, or navigation? This knowledge is widely dispersed, residing in the minds of millions of people. It is beyond the
capacity of the world’s supercomputers combined.
Friedrich A. Hayek, the 1974 Nobel Prize winner in economics,
believed that “Civilization rests on the fact that we all benefit
from knowledge which we do not possess.” As Will Rogers said,
“Everybody is ignorant, only in different subjects.” Hayek classified knowledge into scientific knowledge (general rules) and
knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place.
Hence, the economic quandary confronting any society is not
just how to allocate resources but how to utilize knowledge not
possessed by anyone in its totality. Hayek explains:
The real central problem of economics as a social science . . .
is how the spontaneous interaction of a number of people, each
possessing only bits of knowledge, brings about a state of affairs
. . . which could be brought about by deliberate direction only by
somebody who possesses the combined knowledge of all these
individuals (Hayek 1948: 79).
When Hayek addressed the American Economic Association in
1945 on the occasion of his retirement as its president, the title
of his address was “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” wherein
he called attention to the important social role of prices as carriers
of information and contrasted this knowledge with so-called
09/05/07
78
Baker-c06-2
THOMAS SOWELL AND FRIEDRICH HAYEK ON KNOWLEDGE
79
scientific knowledge. I quote Hayek here at length because in
this address he articulated the concept of “special knowledge of
circumstances of the fleeting moment not known to others:”
Today it is almost heresy to suggest that scientific knowledge is
not the sum of all knowledge. But a little reflection will show that
there is beyond question a body of very important but unorganized knowledge which cannot possibly be called scientific in the
sense of knowledge of general rules: the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place. It is with respect to this
that practically every individual has some advantage over all others in that he possesses unique information of which beneficial use
might be made, but of which use can be made only if the decisions
depending on it are left to him or are made with his active cooperation. We need to remember only how much we have to learn in
any occupation after we have completed our theoretical training,
how big a part of our working life we spend learning particular
jobs, and how valuable an asset in all walks of life is knowledge of
people, of local conditions, and special circumstances. To know of
and put to use a machine not fully employed, or somebody’s skill
which could be better utilized, or to be aware of a surplus stock
which can be drawn upon during an interruption of supplies, is
socially quite as useful as the knowledge of better alternative techniques. And the shipper who earns his living from using otherwise
empty or half-filled journeys of tramp-steamers, or the estate agent
whose whole knowledge is almost exclusively one of temporary
opportunities, or the arbitrageur who gains from local differences
of commodity prices, are all performing eminently useful functions based on special knowledge of circumstances of the fleeting
moment not known to others.
It is a curious fact that this sort of knowledge should today
be generally regarded with a kind of contempt, and that anyone
who by such knowledge gains an advantage over somebody better
equipped with theoretical or technical knowledge is thought to
have acted almost disreputably. To gain an advantage from better
knowledge of facilities of communication or transport is sometimes
regarded as almost dishonest, although it is quite as important that
society make use of the best opportunities in this respect as in
using the latest scientific discoveries (Hayek 1945: 521–522).
09/05/07
79
Baker-c06-2
80
THE SCARCEST RESOURCE OF ALL
This observation has far-reaching implications for the study of
intellectual capital. The majority of the most important knowledge
in any field of endeavor, be it sports, entertainment, or business,
is tacit knowledge—that is, knowledge specific to time, place,
and circumstances. This form of knowledge is extremely difficult
to articulate and relatively expensive to transfer, often traveling only through apprenticeship and trial and error. Your local
Starbucks’ knowing exactly how you like your morning ritual, a
barber’s understanding exactly how his customer likes his hair
cut, the local hotel operator’s being aware of how the college
football schedule influences the demand for rooms, travelers in
unfamiliar cities befriending a local resident to discover good
restaurants and sightseeing locations, and the advantage a golfer
has who has played on the course many times and is said to have
local knowledge—all point to the fluctuating value of location,
location, location.
INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE,
KNOWLEDGE ISN’T
In the late 1960s, journalist, publisher, and cultural entrepreneur
Stewart Brand founded the countercultural Whole Earth Catalog.
The central idea contained in the Catalog was that technology
could be liberating rather than oppressive, as many had imagined
thanks to George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 . Brand uttered a
statement that made its way into the age of the Internet, assuring
us “Information wants to be free.” Many people foretold of the
information explosion, including Nobel Prize–winning economist
Herbert Simon, who claimed, “A wealth of information creates
a poverty of attention.” He posited that people develop shortcuts to decipher all of the information that bombards them on a
daily basis—known as heuristics —and allow us to make more
effective choices. One of the ways in which we achieve this is
to purchase brands, since they reduce the search costs of buying
goods and services.
09/05/07
80
Baker-c06-2
INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE, KNOWLEDGE ISN’T
81
Another prophet of the potential of the information age was
Norman Macrae, then editor of The Economist, who in a moment
of rare prescience wrote in 1972:
The prospect is, after all, that we are going to enter an age when
any duffer sitting at a computer terminal in his laboratory or
office or public library or home can delve through unimaginable
increased mountains of information in mass-assembly data banks
with mechanical powers of concentration and calculation that will
be greater by a factor of tens of thousands than was ever available
to the human brain of even an Einstein (Cialdini 2001: 237).
In his address to the students at Moscow State University,
Ronald Reagan spoke of computers “Linked by a network of
satellites and fiber-optic cables, one individual with a desktop
computer and a telephone commands resources unavailable to the
largest governments just a few years ago.” These statements are
undeniable when you are discussing data and information, but,
as Sowell and Hayek make clear from the last section, not so if
we are talking about knowledge. We need to draw a distinction
between data, information, and knowledge:
Data. Factual information (as measurements or statistics) used
as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation. There is
no judgment, interpretation, context, or basis for action. It
knows nothing of its own importance or irrelevance.
Information. Root in Latin is formare, meaning “to shape.” Peter
Drucker said information is “data endowed with relevance
and purpose.” It has to have a sender and a receiver, and
it is the receiver, not the sender, who decides if the message is information or not. “We add value to information in
various ways: Contextualized; Categorized; Calculated; Corrected; Condensed” (Davenport and Prusak 1998: 3–4).
Knowledge. The fact or condition of knowing something with
familiarity gained through experience or association. To turn
information into knowledge we need: “Comparison; Consequences; Connections; Conversation” (Davenport and Prusak
1998: 6).
09/05/07
81
Baker-c06-2
82
THE SCARCEST RESOURCE OF ALL
Knowledge is information in context, combined with understanding. Information, in and of itself, is very inefficient for
transferring knowledge, especially tacit knowledge, since it is the
receiver who gives the message meaning. If he does not understand the message, or cannot act on the information, we can hardly
call the situation an effective knowledge transfer. Another way of
analyzing the difference between information and knowledge is
to consider who pays for information? Usually, the suppliers of
it, which is the exact opposite of what you would expect with a
valuable resource. Since it requires time and shoe leather—what
economists term search costs —to convert information into useful knowledge, and since we cannot know whether it was worth
the costs until after we are done, an inordinate amount of information has a negative value. In a world of TiVo and other digital
recording devices, viewers can now skip over ads, which they
perceive to be minuses, not pluses. A person in a poor country
can use a cellular telephone and even hook up to the Internet,
both of which plug him into the information economy. But it is
a far cry from being in a knowledge economy.
Knowledge by itself is static, but knowing is dynamic. Knowledge enables us to act, which is its ultimate purpose. Knowledge
requires us to use theory, since without theory there is no way
to filter all of the information that is required to take effective
action. Knowledge by itself is not the goal, as Peter Drucker
wrote: “Executives are not paid for knowing, but for getting the
right things done” (Drucker and Maciariello, 2006: Foreword). If
knowledge alone were enough, millions of children would not be
dying annually of dehydration due to diarrhea. Another distinction is that data and information tell us conclusively only about
the past. To peer into the future, we need a theory.
All ideas and knowledge are, ultimately, subjected to the
authentication process Sowell discussed above. When Milton
Friedman (1912–2006) taught his graduate seminar courses in
economics at the University of Chicago, he used to ask what his
students came to call his two terrifying questions:
09/05/07
82
Baker-c06-2
INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE, KNOWLEDGE ISN’T
1.
2.
83
How do you know?
So what?
In terms of constructing a theory, these questions are profound:
the first making us observe the world, the second forcing us to
say what the effect is. In order to answer the latter, we need
theory—a statement of cause and effect. Philosophers of science,
such as Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, have explained how
to construct a theory, which is done in a cyclical pattern, as
follows:
Observation
Categorization
Prediction
Confirmation
Karl Popper believed that if a theory could not be refuted, it
was not scientific. This is why all scientifically valid theories are
formulated in a manner exposing them to being disproved. Scientists always ask, “What would it take to admit your theory is
wrong?” If you answer nothing, you are arguing an assertion—a
matter of faith—not reason. If you cannot be wrong, you cannot
be right either. This is why scientists are constantly looking for
anomalies. Indeed, many scientific breakthroughs come from such
anomalies, and scientists are given awards for falsifying the theories of others. This is what David Hume meant when he wrote,
“Knowledge is only ignorance postponed.”
Theories are not judged based on their complexity, but rather
on their usefulness to predict, prescribe, or explain, or as China’s
former communist leader Deng Xiaoping used to say: “It doesn’t
matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.” Some
of the best theories are relatively simple, which is fortunate since
life is complex enough. Occam’s razor applies—Entia non sunt
multiplicanda praeter necessitatem —Latin for “Entities should
not be multiplied unnecessarily.” A theory is like a map—a mere
way to capture the territory—and a life-size map would be useless
(as comedian Steven Wright cracks: “How would you fold it?”).
09/05/07
83
Baker-c06-2
84
THE SCARCEST RESOURCE OF ALL
For example, a lot of consultants will espouse best practices,
which is nothing but mimicking the actions of successful companies—also known as benchmarking. Even worse is benchmarking only in one’s own industry, the equivalent of measuring
a ruler with itself. Harvard Business School Professor Clayton
Christensen humorously points out the flaws in this method in
The Innovator’s Solution:
Consider, for illustration, the history of man’s attempts to fly.
Early researchers observed strong correlations between being able
to fly and having feathers and wings. Possessing these attributes
had a high correlation with the ability to fly, but when humans
attempted to follow the “best practices” of the most successful
flyers by strapping feathered wings onto their arms, jumping off
cliffs, and flapping hard, they were not successful . . . It was not
until Bernoulli’s study of fluid mechanics helped him articulate
the mechanism through which airfoils create lift that human flight
began to be possible (Christensen and Raynor 2003: 14).
Rather than mimicking what successful companies do, executives should contemplate how they think . Christensen goes on to
level this charge against management research:
Many writers, and many who think of themselves as serious academics, are so eager to prove the worth of their theories that they
studiously avoid the discovery of anomalies. . . . We need to do
anomaly-seeking research, not anomaly-avoiding research.
We have urged doctoral students who are seeking potentially
productive research questions for their thesis research to simply ask
when a “fad” theory won’t work—for example, “When is process
reengineering a bad idea?” (Christensen and Raynor 2003: 27).
Unfortunately, many of those engaged in management research
seem anxious not to spotlight instances their theory did not accurately predict. They engage in anomaly-avoiding, rather than
anomaly-seeking, research and as a result contribute to the perpetuation of unpredictability. Hence, we lay much responsibility
for the perceived unpredictability of business building at the feet
of the very people whose business it is to study and write about
these problems (Christensen and Raynor 2003: 28).
09/05/07
84
Baker-c06-2
INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE, KNOWLEDGE ISN’T
85
In their endless quest to provide practical, nontheoretical tools
executives can use on Monday morning, consultants are doing
a disservice to their customers by confusing information with
knowledge. If we desire true insight and wisdom, we should follow the advice of physicist David Bohm and “hang our assumptions in front of us.” Henry Mintzberg, professor of Management
Studies at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, explains in his
enlightening and provocative book, Managers Not MBAs, why
theory is an essential part of education:
Managers who are doing their job live practice every day. They
hardly need the educational setting to get them more practical.
Education is hands-off ; otherwise it is not education. It has to provide something different—conceptual ideas that are quite literally
unrealistic and impractical, at least seemingly so in conventional
terms. People learn when they suspend their disbeliefs, to entertain provocative ideas that can reshape their thinking. That is what
education is all about.
Certainly managers have to be “practical”—they have to get
things done. But they also have to be thoughtful. The best of them
think for themselves. . . .The worst copy others—not learn from
others, just copy them, mindlessly. They look for some external
secret to managerial success, some formula or technique, without
realizing that this itself is a formula for failure. Put differently,
a central purpose of management education is to encourage the
development of wisdom. This requires a thoughtful atmosphere in
the classroom, where individuals can probe into their own experience, primed by interesting ideas, concepts, theories.
Theory is a dirty word in some managerial quarters. That is
rather curious, because all of us, managers especially, can no more
get along without theories than libraries can get along without
catalogs—and for the same reason: theories help us make sense
of incoming information.
It would be nice if we could carry reality around in our heads
and use it to make our decisions. Unfortunately, no head is that big.
So we carry around theories, or models, instead: conceptual frameworks that simplify the reality to help us understand it. Hence,
these theories better be good! (Mintzberg 2004: 249).
09/05/07
85
Baker-c06-2
86
THE SCARCEST RESOURCE OF ALL
Managers these days are inundated with prescriptions. These are
the problem in management, not the solution, because situations
vary so widely. Who would go to a drugstore that dispenses one
kind of pill? So why do managers go to courses that prescribe one
kind of technique, the solution for every company, whether strategic
planning or shareholder value? What managers need is descriptive
insight to help them choose or develop prescriptions for their own
particular needs. The fact is that better description in the mind of
the intelligent practitioner is the most powerful prescriptive tool we
have, for no manager can be better than the conceptual frameworks
he or she uses. That is the basis of wisdom (Mintzberg 2004: 252).
Another reason theories are subject to constant falsification is
they can show correlation but not necessarily causation, as Christensen’s example of man attempting to fly by attaching feathers
and leaping off cliffs proves. In Britain, the number of ham radio
operator licenses granted annually was highly correlated with the
number of people certified insane, illustrating how statistically
significant information can be insignificant, especially if not illuminated by a theory. Many people die in hospitals, but that does
not prove that hospitals cause death. Wet streets do not cause rain.
One of the most cited anecdotes regarding correlation and causation, and how selection bias in the data we assemble can lead
to false conclusions, is regarding statistician Abraham Wald, who
assessed the vulnerability of airplanes to enemy fire during World
War II. The data showed that certain parts of the plane were hit
more than others, and the military concluded that these parts should
be reinforced. Wald, however, came to the opposite conclusion,
advising to protect the parts hit least often. He understood the selection bias inherent in the military’s data, which was based on those
planes that had returned safely to the air base. Wald figured planes
hit in a critical spot would not be likely to return, whereas those
that did were hit in noncritical areas. Thus, reinforcing parts on the
returned planes would not increase their safety.
Alvin Toffler provides the answer to a relevant question: Why
(rather than what) do people believe what they do? He maintains
that humans use six criteria for validating our knowledge:
09/05/07
86
Baker-c06-2
SAPERE AUDE!
87
1. Consensus
2. Consistency (fits with other patterns)
3. Authority
4. Revelation
5. Durability
6. Science (Toffler and Toffler 2006: 123–126).
Of these six methods, science is the least relied upon, since
only a small fraction of the decisions we make every day are
based on it. The other five methods may not be as precise as a
testable scientific hypothesis, but comprise the shortcuts economist Herbert Simon says we use to make better decisions. Just
take one of the methods, consensus, to illustrate how dangerous it can be to make decisions because a majority of others
think it is correct. Real science is not based on consensus, nor
does it advance by majorities believing in certain theories. Real
science progresses by dissent, constantly testing and falsifying
theories to develop better ones. This has been the history of
the scientific method, which ushered in the Enlightenment
Period.
SAPERE AUDE!
Dare to know! The motto of the Enlightenment. The concepts of
hypothesis, falsification, parsimony, and the experimental method
are all components of the scientific method, one of the 14 metainventions Charles Murray documents in his fascinating and
scholarly book, Human Accomplishment. Murray claims the scientific method has given us the world we inhabit today, and he
dates its creation from 1589, with the publication of Galileo’s De
Motu, to 1687, with the publication of Newton’s Principia. But
he also points out that he could date the invention to 1200, and
then writes: “That the basic ideas were in the air for so long without being developed suggests how complex and mind-stretching
the change was” (Murray 2003: 237).
09/05/07
87
Baker-c06-2
88
THE SCARCEST RESOURCE OF ALL
Mind-stretching indeed. The diffusion of a new theory or idea is
the process whereby an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. The
term diffusion originates from chemistry to explain, for example,
how purple iodine placed in a glass of water will diffuse until the
water is lavender. It is essentially a social process, and often takes
a substantial amount of time before an idea becomes accepted by
an overwhelming majority of a population. When one studies the
history of diffusing new ideas into a population, the timeline can
stretch from decades to centuries, contrasted with the diffusion of
new technology—say, for instance, going from dial-up to broadband, or the next-generation computer chip—which usually takes
only a few years to reach a critical mass, or tipping point, to use
the title of Malcolm Gladwell’s best-selling book.
Contemplate, as evidence, germ theory—the idea that diseases
are transmitted by specific germs, or microorganisms, as has
been proved for many infectious diseases. Scholars have traced
this theory back to the sixteenth century, when it was generally
ignored until Jacob Henle revived it in 1840. At least since 1847,
we know that the German-Hungarian physician Ignaz Philipp
Semmelweis (who discovered the cause of puerperal [“childbed”]
fever and introduced antisepsis into medical practice) insisted that
medical students at the Vienna General Hospital wash their hands
between performing autopsies and examining pregnant women.
(Semmelweis was later commemorated on an Austrian postage
stamp.) Still, it remained on the fringes of medical science and
was not accepted by Florence Nightingale, who believed diseases
were spontaneously generated from dirty or unventilated rooms
and hospital wards. Not until 1865 did germ theory reach a critical mass of acceptance, becoming conventional wisdom by 1914.
It is one of the most significant theories that bettered the human
condition. Prior to its acceptance—until the 1920s, in fact—a trip
to the doctor, on average, didn’t do much good, and sometimes
did a net harm.
Ponder the fax machine, invented in 1843 by Alexander Bain,
a Scottish clockmaker who called it a recording telegraph. In
09/05/07
88
Baker-c06-2
SAPERE AUDE!
89
1948, RCA introduced a fax machine that transmitted messages
via radio waves, yet the fax machine did not diffuse into the general population until 1987—150 years to become an “overnight”
success. History, science, economics, and other books are filled
with similar stories.
Despite being over 400 years old, the scientific method has not
been widely used by business thinkers or writers. This is one of
the most glaring weaknesses in most business books and management ideas: they are all practice with no theory. Most do little else
than propound platitudes and compose common sense into endless checklists and seven-step programs. The management consultant industry is replete with jargon, and a lot of it is even copyrighted, since legally one cannot copyright an idea. Any theory
worth having can be used by others in the marketplace of ideas with
impunity, so the consultants are left to protect their own verbiage.
The schism between management theory and the scientific
method is profound, one reason being that the latter is relatively
young compared to its older siblings in the hard sciences, which
date back hundreds of years. In their piercing book The Witch
Doctors: What Management Gurus Are Saying and Why It Matters, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, two staff editors
for The Economist, level this charge against the immature discipline of management theory:
Management theory, according to the case against it, has four
defects: it is constitutionally incapable of self-criticism; its terminology usually confuses rather than educates; it rarely rises above
basic common sense; and it is faddish and bedeviled by contradictions that would not be allowed in more rigorous disciplines. The
implication of all four charges is that management gurus are con
artists, the witch doctors of our age, playing on business people’s
anxieties in order to sell snake oil. The gurus, many of whom have
sprung suspiciously from the “great university of life” rather than
any orthodox academic discipline, exist largely because people let
them get away with it. Modern management theory is no more
reliable than tribal medicine. Witch doctors, after all, often got it
right—by luck, by instinct, or by trial and error (Micklethwait and
Wooldridge 1996: 12).
09/05/07
89
Baker-c06-2
90
THE SCARCEST RESOURCE OF ALL
All theories are subject to falsification, precisely how all science progresses. This is an interesting phenomenon, because it
implies that most new theories—and especially management fads
of the month—have to be wrong or irrelevant or else knowledge
would proceed at lightning speed and advance by Newtonian or
Einsteinian leaps every day. It does not. This makes it difficult
for editors and publishers to admit that most of what they publish
is trivial or just plain incorrect. In reality, knowledge progresses
slowly, in a never-ending iterative process best characterized as
knowledge creep. Fortunately, this schism is starting to narrow
in the field of management research with thinkers such as Christensen and Mintzberg (cited earlier).
Theory, data, and information are obviously dependent upon
each other, but clearly theory is the senior partner. A verifiable
theory combined with information is impregnable and becomes
knowledge, at least until it is falsified; data and information without a theory are statistical orphans. Psychologist John Meacham
summed up the balance we must all strike concerning what we
know: “I have concluded that the essence of wisdom is to hold
the attitude that knowledge is fallible and to strive for a balance
between knowing and doubting” (Pfeffer and Sutton 2006: 220).
British economist, political thinker, and philosopher of science
John Stuart Mill was reputed to have been the last man to know
everything there was to know. Yet, our knowledge is greatly
exceeded by our ignorance, which is why the future is unknowable and unpredictable—we simply cannot now know what still
remains to be known. Hayek believed the mind could not see its
own advance, which is why we all need humility as we function
in the IC economy, always bearing in mind Milton Friedman’s
questions: “How do you know?” and “So what?”
Now that we have explored what knowledge is, let us turn our
attention to the antecedents of knowledge and economic growth—
ideas and innovation.
09/05/07
90
Baker-c07-2
09/05/07
7
IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES
I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is
limited. Imagination encircles the world.
—Albert Einstein
The distinction between ideas and knowledge may be subtle, but
perhaps management consultant Sid Caesar clarified it best when he
quipped: “The guy who invented the first wheel was an idiot. The
guy who invented the other three, he was a genius” (Stewart 2001:
90). As Thomas Sowell taught us in the last chapter, ideas need to
go through an authentication process to become knowledge or facts.
Since so much knowledge is tacit and specific to time and place, it
stands to reason that knowledge is far more scarce than ideas.
Another reason ideas are so abundant is that it may take hundreds
of them just to produce one good one. The dairy farmer’s cows
do not just produce cream. Most new products, drugs, books published, and businesses launched fail. Capitalism is really based on
consumer sovereignty—it is a profit-and-loss system. We celebrate
the profits but tend to ignore the losses. Yet the creative destruction
is responsible for much of the dynamism inherent in the system.
Silicon Valley may be a fount of creativity, but only because it
rests atop a mass cemetery of bankrupted hypotheses falsified by
the sovereignty of the customer. Similar to the scientific method
described previously, this built-in falsification process is critical to
91
91
Baker-c07-2
92
IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES
ensure the survival of only those firms that continue to add more
value to society than the resources they consume.
Ideas are what economists describe as nonrival assets—meaning
more than one person can use it at a time. Contrast this with traditional rival assets, such as a building or an airplane, which can
only be used for one purpose at a time. If I give you the tie off my
shirt, now you have it and I don’t; but when I give you an idea,
now we both have it, can expand upon it, test it, and make it more
valuable. Ideas are subject to increasing, rather than diminishing,
returns. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Isaac McPherson in 1813,
understood this concept:
If nature has made one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he
keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself
into the possession of everyone. . . . Its peculiar character, too, is
that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the
whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction
himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine
receives light without darkening me (Howkins 2001: 24).
Economists have always struggled with how to explain economic growth. Many of their models embody the physical fallacy,
a world where traditional factors of production—land, labor, and
capital—are rival resources, innovation and entrepreneurship are
treated as unexplained luck, and ideas are ignored since they cannot be quantified. Even Adam Smith, who did so much to falsify
the physical fallacy, thought that only industrial work could be
“productive.” The work of a service provider, in contrast, “adds
to the value of nothing.” This is the hamburger-flipper argument
of the eighteenth century. As usual, Thomas Sowell explains the
impact on a country’s standard of living between generating ideas
and the physical act of carrying them out:
Many of the products that create a modern standard of living are
only the physical incorporation of ideas—not only the ideas of an
Edison or Ford but the ideas of innumerable anonymous people
09/05/07
92
Baker-c07-2
NEW GROWTH THEORY
93
who figure out the design of supermarkets, the location of gasoline stations, and the million mundane things on which our material
well-being depends. It is those ideas that are crucial, not the physical act of carrying them out. Societies which have more people
carrying out physical acts and fewer people supplying ideas do not
have higher standards of living. Quite the contrary. Yet the physical fallacy continues on, undaunted by this or any other evidence
(Sowell 1996: 71–72).
On October 30, 1996, 36-year-old University of Chicago
economist Paul Romer attempted to fill the void in the economics
profession’s inability to explain growth, with a paper entitled
“Endogenous Technological Change.” It may not sound like the
most exciting document to read, but it did present a framework
for explaining why some countries grow and others do not, and
became known in the literature as “new growth theory.”
NEW GROWTH THEORY
Great advances have always sprung from ideas. They don’t fall from
the sky, but come from people.
—Paul Romer
Prior to World War II, Japan was an insular economy, resistant
to new ideas from the rest of the world. After World War II, with
its economy and infrastructure decimated, Japan became receptive
to incorporating ideas from other countries, such as those of Dr.
W. Edwards Deming, Joseph Juran, and Peter Drucker, which put
it on a trajectory of what can only be described as an economic
miracle. Paul Romer explains the importance of ideas this way:
Economic growth occurs whenever people take resources and rearrange them in ways that are more valuable. A useful metaphor for
production in such an economy comes from the kitchen: To create
valuable final products, we mix inexpensive ingredients together
according to a recipe. . . . Human history teaches us, however, that
economic growth springs from better recipes, not just from more
cooking (Dougherty 2002: 128).
09/05/07
93
Baker-c07-2
94
IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES
In other words, economic growth revolves around the human
mind and its capacity for invention, discovery, and the transformation of physical objects and ideas into valuable goods and
services. Animals, too, rearrange physical objects, often with
incredible precision, with birds building nests and bees constructing hives. Yet ideas are cumulative since human beings have
the infinite capacity to improve upon their circumstances. We all
stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, as Nobel laureate Charles Townes, the inventor of the laser, illustrated when
he noted in his Nobel acceptance speech: “It’s like the beaver told
the rabbit as they stared at the Hoover Dam. ‘No, I didn’t build it
myself. But it’s based on an idea of mine!’” Unlike animals, man
creates wealth through his capacity to dream, imagine, experiment, think, and take risks. Capitalism creates wealth not just
because of private property, free markets, and the profit motive,
all of which existed in precapitalist times, including the biblical
era. The main engine is its receptiveness to testing new ideas.
Prior to Romer’s model, the conventional explanation for economic growth was embodied in the Solow model, named after
Robert Solow, whose paper, “A Contribution to the Theory of
Economic Growth,” was published in the Quarterly Journal of
Economics in 1956, just prior to the Soviet’s Sputnik launch.
Solow’s model allowed the determinants of economic growth to
be separated into increases in inputs (labor and capital) and technical progress. Solow calculated that approximately four-fifths of
the growth of the U.S. economy is attributable to technological
innovation. In another article, “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function,” published in 1957, Solow reached a
surprising conclusion, as told by David Warsh in Knowledge and
the Wealth of Nations:
When Solow applied his model data for U.S. gross national product
in order to estimate the relative contributions of capital and technical change to growth from 1909 to 1949, out popped another
surprising conclusion. Assuming each received its marginal product, increased inputs of capital and labor explained barely half of
09/05/07
94
Baker-c07-2
NEW GROWTH THEORY
95
the increased output. Once adjustments were made for increased
population, additions to capital explained barely an eighth; fully 85
percent of the increase was unexplained by what was in the model.
This was the Residual, the portion of growth that the model did
not explain (Warsh 2006: 146–147).
You could say the Residual was a measure of economists’
ignorance in explaining economic growth. Solow’s model treated
knowledge as an external input, whereas Romer treated it as both
an input and an output of production. Rather than traditional constraining factors of production—land, labor, and capital—Romer
distinguishes between rival and nonrival goods. Ideas and knowledge are nonrival because they can be used at the same time, and
the larger the market the greater the wealth-creating capacity of
knowledge. Thus, Romer replaced land, labor, and capital with
people, ideas, and things, and he described the main engine of
growth as invention driven by entrepreneurs. It is not just knowledge that makes countries rich or poor, but how that knowledge
is used. Formal education is not enough. While it is no doubt easier to measure the amount of schooling a country’s citizens have
completed, it does not necessarily correlate to how ideas are used
by entrepreneurs. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Michael Dell were
all college dropouts, yet they have all contributed to the wealth
of nations. Cuba and Sri Lanka may invest heavily in formal
education and have high literacy rates, yet they remain marginal
players in the global production of technological progress.
Charles Murray, in Human Accomplishment, explores 14 of
the world’s most important meta-inventions that occurred after
800 BC until 1950, essentially cognitive (not physical) tools for
improving the world around us:
▪
Artistic realism
▪
Linear perspective
▪
Artistic abstraction
▪
Polyphony
▪
Drama
09/05/07
95
Baker-c07-2
96
IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES
▪
The novel
▪
Meditation
▪
Logic
▪
Ethics
▪
Arabic numerals
▪
The mathematical proof
▪
The calibration of uncertainty
▪
The secular observation of nature
▪
The scientific method (Murray 2003: 211).
All of the above are nonrival goods, meaning we can all utilize
them at the same time without their being diminished—your use
of the alphabet does not inhibit mine. These ideas changed the
world, creating untold wealth. They were also the contributions of
an incredibly small number of individuals—4,002 to be precise,
according to Murray.
In the arena of business management, ideas have an enormous
capacity to apply knowledge to knowledge, thereby increasing
innovation and wealth. Management consultant and author Gary
Hamel has identified 175 significant management ideas between
1900 and 2000. He applied three questions to each idea to create the most important advances: Was it a marked departure
from previous management practices? Did it confer a competitive advantage on the pioneering company or companies? And
could it be found in some form in organizations today? Think of
the global impact the following dozen management innovations
have had, which all met Hamel’s criteria:
▪
Scientific management (time and motion studies)
▪
Cost accounting and variance analysis
▪
The commercial research laboratory (the industrialization of
science)
▪
Return on investment (ROI) analysis and capital budgeting
▪
Brand management
09/05/07
96
Baker-c07-2
NEW GROWTH THEORY
▪
Large-scale project management
▪
Divisionalization
▪
Leadership development
▪
Industry consortia (multicompany collaborative structures)
▪
Radical decentralization (self-organization)
▪
Formalized strategic analysis
▪
Employee-driven problem solving (Hamel 2006: 80)
97
Paul Romer is right—innovation rests on individuals’ ability to
create and test ideas, thereby creating new knowledge and wealth.
Even something as prosaic as a pill bottle can become the genesis of a new idea that creates value and even saves lives. Deborah
Adler’s grandmother mistakenly took her grandfather’s prescription medication amoxicillin by accident. While Adler was working
on her master of fine arts thesis, she came up with an idea for an
easier-to-read, user-friendly pill bottle with color-coded rings and
other safety features. Target was so impressed with her redesigned
bottle, it bought the design from her. In the autumn of 2005, the
bottle was displayed in the New York Museum of Modern Art.
Business is about people, ideas, and things, not land, labor, and
capital. Yet ideas are not easily measured or quantifiable, so they
are not given the resources they deserve by many organizations.
Creativity and dreaming take time, which does not enhance conventional productivity statistics. But in an intellectual economy,
creativity is what propels economic growth. Tim Delaney, vice
president, executive designer, creative development with Disney
says, “The success of the Walt Disney Company has centered
on two basic fundamental concepts: our ability to be great storytellers, and the constant and the vigilant search for exciting new
ideas” (The Imagineers 2003: 72).
Let us turn our attention to a framework that incorporates
Paul Romer’s new factors of production—people, ideas, and
things—and explore the characteristics of what is known as intellectual capital.
09/05/07
97
Baker-c07-2
09/05/07
98
Baker-c08-2
09/05/07
8
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF INTELLECTUAL
CAPITAL
We know that the source of wealth is something specifically human:
knowledge. If we apply knowledge to tasks that we already know
how to do, we call it productivity. If we apply knowledge to tasks
that are new and different, we call it innovation. Only knowledge
allows us to achieve these two goals.
—Peter Drucker
Former Federal Reserve Bank of the United States Chairman Alan
Greenspan use to stump audiences with his question, “How much
does the new economy weigh?” Considering that New York City
alone is estimated to contain on the order of 1010 stock keeping
units (SKUs), it would seem as if the answer is heavier than ever
before. But the truth is, the economy weighs the same even though
its output is five times greater than it was in 1950. The entire
music collection of hundreds of yesterday’s jukeboxes can now be
carried on your iPod, not to mention that every newspaper in the
country can be delivered to your home, not physically, but online.
Increasingly, as Paul Romer posits, the economy is made up of
ideas and knowledge, and while people may be getting heavier,
the output of our economy is creating less of a planetary footprint.
We no longer have so many large smokestack factories belching pollution into the air and turning out tangible products. In a
knowledge economy, it is as if we have thousands of invisible
99
99
Baker-c08-2
100
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL
factories working on turning ideas into knowledge and knowledge into value for customers, saving us from the strenuous
labor our ancestors endured while equalizing opportunity for the
sexes. It has been estimated that 97 percent of the world’s wealth
has been created in just the last 0.01 percent of our history
(Beinhocker 2006: 11). FedEx Chairman Fred Smith estimates
that goods transported by sea account for 98 percent of all the
tons moved in international trade, while FedEx moves only 1.5
to 2 percent of all goods, yet that small percentage accounts for
40 percent of the entire value, and if agricultural and petroleum
were removed, probably over 50 percent.
Brains trump brawn. According to the New York Times, Merv
Griffin has made “close to $70 million to $80 million” in royalties from the Jeopardy! theme song, which he wrote in less
than a minute. One of Japan’s largest export industries, reaching
an astounding $80 billion in 2004, is animation. Not even two
years old, with no profits, YouTube was purchased by Google for
$1.65 billion. Disney’s Snow White video release generated $800
million in revenue, $500 million to the bottom line, from a movie
made in the 1930s. Compare these supposedly ephemeral products to the value of an automobile from the same decade, and you
quickly realize how important knowledge is to wealth creation.
The knowledge economy has been a gradual evolution, resting
on the shoulders of those who came before us, a testimony to the
importance of mind over matter, as well as a further refutation
of the physical fallacy.
KNOWLEDGE IS A VERB
Knowledge has always been at the heart of economic development,
recognized by economist Alfred Marshall (1842–1924), who wrote,
“Knowledge is our most powerful engine of production; it enables
us to subdue nature and force her to satisfy our wants” (Warsh 2006:
82). Even Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations recognized the
importance of knowledge, labeling it “the acquired and useful
09/05/07
100
Baker-c08-2
KNOWLEDGE IS A VERB
09/05/07
101
abilities of all the inhabitants or members of the society” (O’Rourke
2007: 74–75). Smith attributed the wealth of nations to the division
and specialization of labor, but Austrian economist—and one of
the founders of the Marginalist Revolution—Carl Menger believed
Smith wasn’t exactly correct. He thought knowledge was ultimately
what made nations prosperous.
Peter Drucker certainly brought the importance of knowledge
to the attention of business leaders when he coined the terms
knowledge economy and knowledge worker. Edith Penrose, in
her classic 1959 management book, The Theory of the Growth of
the Firm, recognized knowledge as one of the two constraints in
growing a business (the other being complexity).
Austrian economist Fritz Machlup, who independently from
Peter Drucker also coined the term knowledge worker, distinguished among five types of knowledge in his extensive study,
The Production and Distribution of Knowledge:
1. Practical knowledge
a. Professional
b. Business
c. Workman’s
d. Political
e. Household
f. Other practical
2. Intellectual knowledge
3. Small-talk and pastime knowledge
4. Spiritual knowledge
5. Unwanted knowledge (Machlup 1962: 21–22).
Obviously, not all knowledge is encoded in language—music
and body language is also a type of knowledge. Knowledge has
no finite capacity, since it can be used simultaneously without
diminishing. When knowledge is sold, the seller’s inventory is
not diminished, as with traditional physical goods, much like
telling someone the time while retaining your watch. This is
101
Baker-c08-2
102
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL
what economists mean by a nonrival asset. On the other side
of the transaction, the buyer usually does not need to purchase
knowledge several times, even if it is used over and over. The
knowledge is also cumulative and uncontrollable, since the buyer
can add to it, improve it, and create more of it. Thomas Jefferson
explained this cumulative property: “The fact is that one new idea
leads to another, that to a third, and so on through a course of
time until someone, with whom no one of these ideas was original, combines it all together, and produces what is justly called a
new invention” (Foray 2004: 94). Moreover, the buyer is unable
to judge the value of knowledge until he or she has had a chance
to use it, much like your purchasing this book without knowing how valuable it is going to be until you have read it. These
three characteristics of knowledge—nonrivalry, uncontrollability,
and cumulativeness—can be combined to create new value. This
makes it quite difficult to simply sum up the individual properties
of knowledge.
Though Alvin and Heidi Toffler attempt to do just that, when
they define the characteristics of knowledge in their book Revolutionary Wealth:
1. Knowledge is inherently non-rival
2. Knowledge is intangible
3. Knowledge is non-linear
4. Knowledge is relational
5. Knowledge mates with other knowledge
6. Knowledge is more portable than any other product
7. Knowledge can be compressed into symbols or abstractions
8. Knowledge can be stored in smaller and smaller spaces
9. Knowledge can be explicit or implicit, expressed or not expressed, shared or tacit
10. Knowledge is hard to bottle up. It spreads (Toffler and Toffler
2006: 100–101).
09/05/07
102
Baker-c08-2
KNOWLEDGE IS A VERB
09/05/07
103
Knowledge is like the dark matter of the cosmos—we know
it is out there, but we cannot see, touch, or measure it. Much
argument has taken place, especially in the accounting profession, surrounding the difference between tangible and intangible assets. The former, auditors can kick and tick—to use their
parlance—but the latter can be recorded only on a historical
cost basis. Intellectual property such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, databases, and the like, are recorded on a firm’s financial
statements at cost, which does not at all reflect their value-creating
capacity. Baruch Lev, professor at New York University’s Stern
School of Business, estimates that intangibles comprise $6 trillion of the balance sheets of American companies, two-thirds of
the total assets. Indeed, the U.S. stock of intangible assets began
to exceed that of tangible capital—such as property, plant, and
equipment—at the end of the 1960s, approximately a decade after
Drucker identified the knowledge economy. By the mid-1980s,
the contribution of knowledge industries to the gross domestic product of all Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) countries topped the 50 percent mark.
The United States Patent Office defines intellectual property
as: “Creations of the mind—creative works or ideas embodied
in a form that can be shared or can enable others to recreate,
emulate, or manufacture them.” The U.S. Constitution, Article I,
Section 8, provides for the protection of intellectual property: “To
promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to
their respective Writings and Discoveries.” This is adequate for
those assets that can be codified by law, but intellectual capital
(IC) goes far beyond these types of assets, and reaches across
and outside an entire organization.
While historical accounting cannot see, let alone measure,
knowledge assets until there is a transaction, we need a framework that allows us to understand this vital capital. Ultimately, we
want to incorporate intellectual property within the broader context of IC into a coherent framework, turning knowledge into an
103
Baker-c08-2
104
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL
actionable verb that firms can use to create value. Consequently,
IC needs to be expanded beyond the concepts of tangible versus
intangible assets, and even the intellectual property rights recognized by common law. This is much more than just a semantic
distinction, since IC is defined by the economic utility and behavior of the asset, not just its physical or legal form. Tangible assets
remain the same, but IC is defined by its context. In addition,
managing and leading IC is a much different task than that of
traditional tangible assets.
DEFINING INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL
The Intellectual Capital Management Gathering Best Practices
conference in 1995 defined intellectual capital as “knowledge that
can be converted into profits,” which is an adequate definition for
our purposes since it considers knowledge as a verb (Lev 2001:
155). IC should not be equated with knowledge management,
which is merely a process, whereas IC is an entity.
Another useful way to think about IC is by ownership. Human
capital is owned by the knowledge worker; structural capital is
owned by the firm; and social capital is owned by no one, though
it can be leveraged, accruing benefits to the owners of the firm.
Contemplate who owns the Coca-Cola brand. The company’s
leaders learned the hard way when it reformulated the soft drink
into New Coke just who, ultimately, is in charge of value—the
customers.
It is in the interplay of these three types of IC where valuable knowledge and technical know-how combine, providing the
leverage necessary to create wealth for others. As Walt Disney
explained when asked about the secret to his success: “There’s
really no secret about our approach. We keep moving forward—
opening new doors and doing new things—because we are curious. And curiosity keeps leading us down new paths. We’re
always exploring and experimenting . . . we call it Imagineering
09/05/07
104
Baker-c08-2
DEFINING INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL
09/05/07
105
[a term Disney coined]—the blending of creative imagination
and technical know-how” (Disney Institute 2001: 111).
Specific knowledge may be scarce, as Thomas Sowell has
taught us, but within any firm there resides all sorts of specific,
applicable knowledge. The goal is to leverage this knowledge
and use it to create new knowledge that can be validated in the
marketplace by customers. In turn, this becomes the firm’s IC,
the ultimate fulcrum for the IC company of the future.
Ultimately, whether we are discussing ideas or knowledge, it
springs from the human mind. The essential drama in economics
is acted out in the area of human capital, which we will turn to
next.
105
Baker-c08-2
09/05/07
106
Baker-c09-2
09/05/07
9
HUMAN CAPITALISM
The most valuable of all capital is that invested in human beings.
—Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics, 1890
We should really call our economy a “human capitalist economy,” for
that is what it mainly is. While all forms of capital— physical capital,
such as machinery and plants, financial capital, and human capital—
are important, human capital is the most important. Indeed, in a
modern economy, human capital is by far the most important
form of capital in creating wealth and growth.
—Gary Becker, 1992 Nobel Laureate
The term human capital was first used by Nobel Prize–winning
economist Theodore W. Schultz in a 1961 article in American
Economic Review . During 1946, Schultz spent a term teaching
at Auburn University, where he interviewed farmers in a particular neighborhood. As retold by economics professor Deirdre
McCloskey:
One day he interviewed an old and poor farm couple and was struck
by how contented they seemed. Why are you so contended, he asked,
though poor? They answered: You’re wrong, Professor. We’re not
poor. We’ve used up our farm to educate four children through college, remaking fertile land and well-stocked hog pens into knowledge of Law and Latin. You can see that we’re rich. The parents
had informed Schultz that the physical capital, which economists
think they understand, is in some sense like the human capital of
education. The sense is accounting (McCloskey 2000: 177).
107
107
Baker-c09-2
108
HUMAN CAPITALISM
Schultz went on to develop a theory of human capital, the basic
thesis of which was that investments in human capital should
be accounted for in the same manner as investments in plant
and machinery. This was not exactly a new idea; even Adam
Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations: “Man educated at the
expense of much labor and time . . . may be compared to one
of those expensive machines,” but it did lead to an intersection
of the economics and accounting profession, at least in theory.
The economists were in essence saying that accountants should
treat investments in people the same as they treat investments in
things; but we accountants never learned the lesson, continuing
to this day to treat employees as nothing but expenses.
The obvious challenge is that investments in tangible, physical
assets can be counted and comprehended, but those in people cannot. It is as if accountants would value the average human being at
$10 since that is the approximate worth of our various chemical
components. While the traditional factors of production—land,
labor, and capital—are stocks, human capital is a flow, the most
significant factor in generating knowledge. Gary Becker, who has
done pioneering work in the field, estimates that human capital
comprises 75 percent of the United States’ total wealth. In spite
of this, human capital is nowhere near as visible as other representations of wealth, such as the capital markets. When the U.S.
stock market plummeted by approximately 25 percent on October 19, 1987, Becker wrote a column in BusinessWeek explaining
why this was not really a substantial loss of wealth—a counterintuitive conclusion to be sure, but a correct one given the theory
of human capital:
The 25% decline in share prices over the last two months lopped
almost $1 trillion from the value of stocks. Although that’s a huge
number, the average person’s total wealth took only a modest fall
because most wealth is embodied in the skills and training that
generate present and future earnings. Such “human wealth” constitutes 75% or more of the U.S.’s total wealth. The rest consists
09/05/07
108
Baker-c09-2
HUMAN CAPITALISM
09/05/07
109
of corporate capital, capital in unincorporated businesses, housing,
consumer durables, government capital, and cash.
The Commerce Dept. estimates nonhuman wealth at about $13
trillion. Thus a $1 trillion fall in the value of stocks reduces this
wealth by less than 8%—and total wealth by less than 2%. Such
a decline would have a noticeable effect on spending and a major
effect on the demand for luxury homes and cars. But the decline in
spending from a 2% fall in wealth cannot cause a major depression
(Becker and Becker 1997: 301).
This is why wealth is not simply how much money you have;
rather it is what you have left after losing all your money. Perhaps
this is what U.S. Steel entrepreneur Andrew Carnegie meant when
he once stated, in total confidence, “Take away my people but
leave my factories, and soon grass will grow on factory floors.
Take away my factories but leave my people, and soon we will
have a new and better factory.” Carnegie certainly understood
the importance of human capital, emboldened on his tombstone:
“Here lies a man / Who knew how to enlist / In his service /
Better men than himself.” People do not contribute just work
to the organizations that employ them, but also knowledge. If
it were just physical exertion that mattered, we would expect to
see younger workers earning the most since that is the point in
life which physical strength is at its apogee. In reality, what we
witness is that, as knowledge workers age, their incomes rise, and
this is consistent with the theory of human capital postulated by
Schultz, Becker, and other economists since. Rising income can
be thought of as increasing profits from investments in human
capital, even though we may term this income wages from an
accounting sense. Human capital transcends mere accounting, as
the following example from Thomas Sowell illustrates:
A failure to understand the importance of human capital contributed to the defeat of Germany and Japan in World War II. Experienced and battle-hardened fighter pilots represented a very large
investment of human capital. Yet the Germans and the Japanese
did not systematically take their experienced pilots out of combat
109
Baker-c09-2
110
HUMAN CAPITALISM
missions to safeguard their human capital and have them become
instructors who could spread some of their human capital to new
and inexperienced pilots being trained for combat. Both followed
policies described by the Germans as “fly till you die.”
The net result was that, while German and Japanese fighter
pilots were very formidable opponents to the British and American
pilots who fought against them early in the war, the balance of
skills swung in favor of the British and American pilots later in
the war, after much of the German and Japanese human capital
in the air was lost when their top fighter pilots were eventually
shot down and replaced by inexperienced pilots who had to learn
everything the hard way in aerial combat, where small mistakes
can be fatal. Economic concepts apply even when no money is
changing hands. German and Japanese air forces were less efficient
at allocating scarce resources that had alternative uses.
Uneasy as some people may be with the idea of thinking of
human beings as capital, this is not a denigration but an enhancement of the value of human life. In addition to the intrinsic value
of life to each individual, that individual’s value to others is highlighted by the concept of human capital. The old military practice
of going to great efforts to save cannon in combat, while using
soldiers as if they were expendable, has since given way to using
very expensive high-tech weapons, as in the Gulf War of 1991,
in order to minimize casualties among one’s own military personnel, who represent very valuable human capital (Sowell 2000:
341–342).
Even though the concept of human capital is uncontroversial currently, it was treated with much hostility when first discussed in the 1950s and 1960s, with critics complaining that
economists were equating humans with machinery, and education
as an investment rather than moral development and a cultural
experience. Historically, this is perhaps understandable since people have felt uneasy about the buying and selling of labor, mostly
as a legacy of slavery (an institution that existed on every inhabited continent at various times throughout history). The word capital first appeared in the thirteenth century in the trading cities of
northern Italy, which later developed double-entry bookkeeping.
09/05/07
110
Baker-c09-2
HUMAN CAPITALISM
09/05/07
111
It describes any asset that enables or enhances future economic
activity. Capital comes from the Latin caput, meaning head. In
other words, all capital springs from the human mind. Today,
the majority of personal income is derived from salaries and
wages; thus, thinking in terms of employees being human capital
investors lends dignity and respect to the value of each person.
When the G.I. Bill of Rights was passed in 1944—making education available to some 2,332,000 veterans—it was the largest
single investment in human capital up to that time, which convinced Peter Drucker we were shifting to a knowledge society
full of knowledge workers, terms he coined in 1961 and later
expanded on in his 1968 book, The Age of Discontinuity. As
Drucker later explained in his book The Ecological Vision:
A simple example is the emergence of the knowledge as a key
resource. The event that alerted me to the fact that something was
happening was the passage of the GI Bill of Rights in the United
States after the Second World War. This law gave every returning
war veteran the right to attend college, with the government paying
the bill. It was a totally unprecedented development. These considerations led me to the question: “What impact does this have
on expectations, on values, on social structure, on employment,
and so on?” And once this question was asked—I first asked it
in the late 1940s—it became clear that knowledge as a productive resource had attained a position in society as never before
in human history. We were clearly on the threshold of a major
change. Ten years later, by the mid-1950s, one could confidently
talk of a “knowledge society,” of “knowledge work” as the new
center of the economy, and of the “knowledge worker” as the new,
ascendant workforce (Drucker and Maciariello 2004: 367).
But not everyone agreed this was a prudent policy, with some
of the most vociferous critics coming from the major universities:
In the wartime year of 1944, shortly after the Normandy invasion,
FDR signed the GI Bill of Rights, a multibillion-dollar commitment to provide free college education and low-cost housing loans
to what ultimately amounted to thirteen million returning veterans.
111
Baker-c09-2
112
HUMAN CAPITALISM
. . . [Leaders of elite universities were appalled]. Harvard’s president warned that academe would be overrun with “unqualified
people, the most unqualified of this generation.” The president
of the University of Chicago envisioned waves of “educational
hobos” riding the rails coast to coast and mooching on one campus
after another (Feulner and Wilson 2006: 70–71).
Between 1946 and 1950, the number of college graduates doubled, directly contradicting the critics regarding the potential of
the new students. The G.I. Bill of Rights, it has been argued,
became one of the most successful models of social legislation.
But formal education, although it can be precisely quantified in
terms of years of schooling, money spent, and graduation rates,
is not the sum total of human capital. There are many forms of
life experience that comprise human capital that defy definitive
measurement.
THE MORE HUMAN THE CAPITAL, THE LESS WE CAN
MEASURE IT
The September 10, 2005, issue of The Economist contained a
survey of higher education titled “The Brain Business,” and contained the following facts regarding college:
• The proportion of adults with higher educational qualifications in the OECD countries almost doubled between 1975
and 2000, from 22 percent to 41 percent.
• Between 1985 and 1997 the contribution of knowledge-based
industries to total value added increased from 51 percent to
59 percent in Germany and from 45 percent to 51 percent in
Britain.
• The best companies are now devoting at least a third of
their investments to knowledge-intensive intangibles such
as research and development, licensing, and marketing.
• The World Bank calculates that global spending on higher
education amounts to $300 billion a year, or 1 percent of
global economic output.
09/05/07
112
Baker-c09-2
THE MORE HUMAN THE CAPITAL, THE LESS WE CAN MEASURE IT
•
•
•
09/05/07
113
There are more than 80 million students worldwide, and 3.5
million people are employed to teach them or look after them.
America spends more than twice as much per student as the
OECD average (about $22,000 versus $10,000 in 2001).
European countries spend only 1.1 percent of their gross
domestic product (GDP) on higher education, compared
with 2.7 percent in the United States (The Economist 2005:
3, 4, 6, 10).
Yet primary and secondary education is only a proxy for human
capital, certainly not the only means for acquiring knowledge.
Economist Fritz Machlup, in his study of knowledge, published
in 1962, distinguished among eight types of education:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Education in the home
Education in school
Training on the job
Instruction in church
Training in the armed forces
Education over television
Self-education
Learning from experience (Machlup 1962: 51)
While in the first six methods, knowledge is “taught,” the
last two are acquired by reading and/or doing, either in solitude or in interactions with others (a form of social capital).
Consider the knowledge transmitted from parents to children,
which economists label voluntary labor. Alvin Toffler frequently
demonstrated this point with what he terms the potty test, by
asking corporate managers the following “indelicate question”:
“How productive would your workforce be if someone hadn’t
toilet-trained it?” (Toffler and Toffler 2006: 155). This form of
homemade knowledge is vitally important, but it does not enter
the national-product statistics cited above. A lot of knowledge
is not guided solely by market mechanisms since it is provided
free of charge. This makes it difficult for economists to determine
which investments in human capital will pay the largest rewards.
113
Baker-c09-2
114
HUMAN CAPITALISM
Politicians and the special interest education lobby will always
call for more investments in schooling; indeed, the European Union
(EU) has recently made this very argument as a way to become
the premier knowledge society of the future. Taking the advice of
Winston Churchill that “the empires of the future will be empires
of the mind,” at an EU summit in Lisbon in March 2000, Europe’s
leaders announced the goal of transforming Europe into “the most
competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world
by 2010,” referred to now as the Lisbon Agenda. Former deputy
foreign minister of Poland, Radek Sikorski, expressed his doubts:
“I hadn’t laughed so hard and so much since the Communist Politburo used to announce totally unrealistic production targets. It was
the same kind of thing.” In 2004, Germany confessed this goal was
“unrealistic” and a “big failure” (Toffler and Toffler 2006: 351).
The Economist proclaimed the goal was “not likely.”
The contradiction between the EU’s objective and reality is
easy to diagnose: it confuses formal education with knowledge
and economic dynamism. The Industrial Revolution was launched
by individuals with very little formal education, with such pioneers as Thomas Edison having only three months of formal
schooling, disqualifying him today from becoming a licensed
engineer. The inventors of the airplane, two bicycle mechanics who never attended college, the Wright Brothers would most
likely be denied a leadership position at Boeing today. Even Frank
Lloyd Wright and Mies van der Rohe would not qualify to sit
for the architect’s certifying examination under current educational requirements. More recently, the list of entrepreneurs who
launched successful enterprises with no, or very little, college
education reads like a Who’s Who of the business press—Michael
Dell, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Steve Wozniak, among many
others.
Far more important than formal education is an economy that
allows for economic experimentation, trial and error, profit and
loss, secured by the liberties and freedom Adam Smith so
eloquently wrote about. Thomas Sowell explains the difference
09/05/07
114
Baker-c09-2
THE MORE HUMAN THE CAPITAL, THE LESS WE CAN MEASURE IT
09/05/07
115
between formal education and economic development in his textbook Basic Economics:
Education has of course also made major contributions to economic development. But this is not to say that all kinds of education have. From an economic standpoint, some education has great
value, some has no value and some can even have a negative value.
Large numbers of young people with schooling, but without economically meaningful skills, have produced much unemployment
in Third World nations. Since the marketplace has little to offer
such people that would be commensurate with their expectations,
governments have created swollen bureaucracies to hire them, in
order to neutralize their potential for political disaffection, civil
unrest or insurrection. In turn, these bureaucracies and the voluminous and time-consuming red tape they generate can become
obstacles to others who do have the skills and entrepreneurship
needed to contribute to the country’s economic advancement.
Hostility to entrepreneurial minorities like the Chinese in Southeast Asia or the Lebanese in West Africa has been especially fierce
among the newly educated indigenous people, who see their own
diplomas and degrees bringing them much less economic reward
than the earnings of minority business owners who may have less
formal schooling than themselves.
In short, more schooling is not automatically more human capital. It can in some cases reduce a country’s ability to use the
human capital that it already possesses (Sowell 2004: 192–194).
The spirit of enterprise is just as necessary if ideas and knowledge are to be turned into wealth-creating businesses, but how
do we measure the passion of Steve Jobs to change the world
one desktop at a time without the authentication process of the
free market to verify the result of his output? We can measure
the literacy of the population of Cuba, but how do we go about
explaining the difference between Cuba’s abject poverty and the
wealth of the Cuban immigrant population in Miami, Florida?
India has been exporting entrepreneurs who have launched successful enterprises in all parts of the world, especially Silicon
Valley. According to The Economist, 20 million Indians live
115
Baker-c09-2
116
HUMAN CAPITALISM
abroad, collectively generating an annual income that is 35
percent of India’s GDP. How do we explain the fact that as of
1994, 36 million overseas Chinese had produced as much wealth
as the population in China itself? Obviously, there is more to
creating the knowledge economies of the future than merely subsidizing higher and higher levels of formal education. As George
Gilder explained in his seminal work Recapturing the Spirit of
Enterprise:
Economists see the rise of wealth as incremental gains in productivity, slow accumulation of plant and machinery, and investments
in human capital. But, in fact, all these sources of growth are
dwarfed by the role of entrepreneurs launching new companies
based on new concepts or technologies (Gilder 1992: 164).
There is one shining example of an EU country that has achieved
tremendous progress on the road to becoming the most competitive
and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010—
Ireland. Since the 1980s, the country has orchestrated an aggressive campaign of cutting taxes and reducing regulation to counteract its prior economic slide in the 1970s, earning it the nickname “Celtic Tiger.” In 2003, it cut its corporate income tax rate
to 12.5 percent, making it the lowest in the world to that point.
When Ireland entered the EU in the 1970s, it was among the poorest members. As of 2003, Ireland’s per capita GDP was $38,430,
exceeding the United Kingdom ($30,280), France ($29,240), Germany ($29,130), Italy ($25,580), and the rest of the EU nations
except Denmark ($39,330) and Luxembourg ($52,990).
Ireland runs advertisements in business publications with the
slogan “Ireland, knowledge is in our nature.” The ad copy,
under an artistic image of the musician Bono, goes on to tout the
benefits of doing business in Ireland:
The Irish. Creative. Imaginative. And flexible. Agile minds with a
unique capacity to initiate, and innovate, without being directed.
Always thinking on their feet. Adapting and improving. Generating
new knowledge and new ideas. Working together to find new ways
09/05/07
116
Baker-c09-2
THE MORE HUMAN THE CAPITAL, THE LESS WE CAN MEASURE IT
09/05/07
117
of getting things done. Better and faster (advertisement in The
Economist; www.idaireland.com).
Whether or not the rest of the EU can cast off yesterday and
embrace the changes of an opportunity economy remains to be
seen. Peter Drucker wrote that the reason he left Europe in 1935
to live in America was that “America was starkly different from
Europe. In America, people were looking to tomorrow. In Europe
they were trying to re-create yesterday” (Edersheim 2007: 86).
Some commentators, such as novelist Tom Wolfe and Megatrends
author John Naisbitt, believe that Europe, with its sclerotic welfare state and declining populations, will become nothing more
than a historical theme park people will visit for its bucolic and
architectural splendor. Time will tell. What is beyond doubt is
that the competition for human capital will intensify, not only
among nations but within countries’ cities as well. As Ireland
advertises the benefits of its economy, Singapore is doing the
same through its Web site, www.sedb.com, and New Zealand’s
minister for research, science, and technology, Peter Hodgson,
claims: “We no longer think of immigration as a gatekeeping
function but as a talent-attraction function necessary for economic
growth” (Florida 2005: 8). Like any capital investor, human capital will go where it can earn a decent economic return and is
well treated.
In any event, human capital is more than just formal education. It is knowledge, experience, judgment, leadership, problemsolving ability, motivation, ability to adapt, and wisdom put to
use to serve others, the essential expression of wealth. Whether it
is embedded in gradual accumulations over time or in the testable
hypothesis of launching a new enterprise that creates a whole new
industry, human capital is ultimately owned by sentient human
beings. To complicate matters, converting that brain power into
useful intellectual capital that organizations can use and reuse
requires us to understand the difference between tacit and explicit
knowledge.
117
Baker-c09-2
118
HUMAN CAPITALISM
WE KNOW MORE THAN WE CAN TELL
A teacher tells one of his pupils to write a letter to his parents,
but the student complains: “It is hard for me to write a letter.”
“Why! You are now a year older, and ought to be better able to
do it.” “Yes, but a year ago I could say everything I knew, but
now I know more than I can say” (Gregory 1995: 59).
Albert Einstein’s research assistant-turned-philosopher, Michael
Polanyi, drew a distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge.
To illustrate tacit knowledge, he said, try explaining how to ride
a bike or swim. You know more than you tell. Tacit knowledge is
“sticky,” in that it is not easily articulated and exists in people’s
minds. It is complex and rich, whereas explicit knowledge tends
to be thin and low-bandwidth, like the difference between looking
at a map and taking a journey of a certain terrain. It is the difference between reading the employee manual and spending one
hour chatting with a coworker about the true nature of the job and
culture of the firm. The Web site www.vault.com transmits such
tacit knowledge, allowing prospective employees to learn what it
is really like to work for the company without the noise and spin of
the human resources department. For tacit knowledge to become
explicit knowledge—that is, stored somewhere where it can be
viewed, reviewed, and used by others—it must first be converted
from the mind to another medium (a database, white paper, report,
manual, video, picture, etc.). Tacit knowledge tends to be dynamic,
while explicit knowledge is static; both are required for innovation
and leverage to take place.
Converting tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge is one of
the major roles of a chief knowledge officer (CKO). John Peetz,
former CKO for Ernst & Young, summed up his knowledge mission this way: “For us knowledge management is critical. It’s
one of our four core processes—sell work, do work, manage
people, and manage knowledge.” As Thomas Stewart further
explained, “In his self-written job description, Peetz outlined
three responsibilities for a CKO: evangelizing about the value
09/05/07
118
Baker-c09-2
WE KNOW MORE THAN WE CAN TELL
09/05/07
119
of sharing knowledge; running and backing projects that find,
publish, and distribute knowledge around the firm; and managing a staff of about 200 people, mostly in the firm’s Center for
Business Knowledge in Cleveland, and a firmwide infrastructure
of Web sites” (Stewart 2001: 82).
I have serious reservations about “managing people,” especially
since we are talking about knowledge workers, whom I firmly
believe cannot be “managed” in the traditional sense. Nonetheless, the essential role of a CKO is to capture the knowledge that
exists within the minds of people. As Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka
Takeuchi point out in their book The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, “The individual is the ‘creator’ of knowledge and the organization is the ‘amplifier’ of knowledge” (Nonaka and Takeuchi
1995: 240).
Tacit from the Latin means “silent or secret.” This is why it is
so hard to explain how to ride a bike or swim. Try describing, in
words, Marilyn Monroe’s face to someone, an almost impossible
task, yet you would be able to pick her out among photographs
of hundreds of faces in a moment. You could read all of the
explicit knowledge contained in books, for instance, on the subject of playing golf like Tiger Woods, but until you actually got
out on the links your understanding would be severely limited.
Compare reading books on how to golf like Tiger to playing
18 holes with him. This is not to say that tacit knowledge is
always superior, since the two complement each other. Explicit
is from the Latin meaning “to unfold”—to be open, to arrange, to
explain. Germans say Fingerspitzengef¨uhl , “a feeling in the fingertips,” which is similar to tacit knowledge (Stewart 2001: 123).
The French say je ne sais quoi (“I don’t know what”), a pleasant
way of describing tacit knowledge. It is usually a totally different
experience to read an author’s book than it is to have a chance to
talk to her about it. The latter will give you a much richer, contextual feel for the explicit knowledge documented in the book,
and in some cases may even be more valuable. Or consider the
119
Baker-c09-2
120
HUMAN CAPITALISM
difference between reading a customer profile and talking with
the customer in person. The highest levels of knowledge and
competence are inherently tacit, being difficult and expensive to
transmit, which is why the concept of master and journeyman still
exist, albeit in different forms. For instance, to become a licensed
London cab driver, one has to learn “the Knowledge,” which is
the location of all the streets in a 10-kilometer radius; it takes
years of part-time study. If it were simply a matter of making
tacit knowledge explicit, then novices could perform at the experienced cabbie level, so learning from one’s colleagues is just as
important as having a rich bank filled with explicit knowledge.
This type of knowledge transfer is a “social” process between
individuals, and is especially important in knowledge organizations where so much of the IC is “sticky” tacit knowledge. Studies
have shown that managers receive two-thirds of their information
through face-to-face meetings and phone calls, and during the
physical meetings, body language can convey up to three times
as much meaning as the words spoken for some types of interactions. Nonaka and Takeuchi postulate four different modes of
knowledge conversion:
1. From tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge, which we call
socialization;
2. From tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, or externalization;
3. From explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge, or combination; and
4. From explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge, or internalization (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995: 62).
All four are important to capture in a company, but how much
time does the average firm spend in documenting and sharing
what it knows when its primary metric is how efficient you were
last week? How often do firms take the time to mentor their colleagues on the importance of learning and sharing knowledge?
09/05/07
120
Baker-c09-2
WE KNOW MORE THAN WE CAN TELL
09/05/07
121
“He’s learning me all his experience,” as Yogi Berra said about
Bill Dickey. No doubt this gets done in most firms, but it is on an
ad hoc and as-needed basis, rather than as a systemized, assessed
part of the performance criteria of team members. There is simply no mechanism in most firms to reward continuous learning,
the sharing of tacit knowledge with peers, or externalizing tacit
knowledge to explicit knowledge by conducting an After Action
Review, a process borrowed from the U.S. Army, which will
be discussed in further detail in Chapter 12. Because most companies are so caught up in day-to-day work and worrying about
this quarter’s profit-and-loss statement, they are not building their
invisible balance sheet—and the primary asset is the knowledge
that exists in the firm. Yet capturing this type of knowledge would
be incredibly valuable to the firm in terms of leveraging, ability
to delegate to less experienced team members, and as a way
to increase the structural capital of the firm just in case certain
human capital investors decide not to return to work.
Managing explicit knowledge is certainly easier than managing
tacit knowledge, since the latter exists in the heads of knowledge
workers who are difficult to manage, to say the least. Nor is it
possible to capture 100 percent of the tacit knowledge that exists
in each team member’s head, but that’s not the goal. The goal
is to capture as much of it as we can and place it somewhere
(e.g., a file, intranet, Web portal, or blog) where anyone else
in the firm can get it when they need it. This way we are not
constantly reinventing the wheel, but rather trying to figure out
the most effective way to place the other three wheels so we can
get to our destination. Thomas Stewart gives this artful advice
for managing explicit knowledge:
Assemble it; validate it; as much as possible, standardize and simplify it; keep it up to date; leverage it; make sure everyone who
needs it knows that it exists, where to get it, and how to use it;
automate and accelerate the processes of retrieving and applying
it; add to it; sue any bastard who steals it (Stewart 2001: 124).
121
Baker-c09-2
122
HUMAN CAPITALISM
Consultant Stan Davis likes to make his clients think about
creating “smart products,” and to that end he poses a question:
“What would a Coke machine like to know?” (Stewart 2001:
146). Some of the more obvious answers would be its inventory and the phone number of its distributor so it could restock
when needed, its physical location, the repairman’s phone number to call when it’s broken or malfunctioning, and whether the
money fed into it is real or counterfeit. Another important piece
of knowledge—and Coca-Cola actually announced this policy in
a press release, but then decided to repeal it after it got negative
publicity—is the temperature outside so it could adjust the price
of drinks on hot days. The point of the exercise is to try and turn
tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge to create value. With
some creative thinking, your company can do the same thing.
KARL MARX’S REVENGE
Human capital determines the performance capacity of any
organization. Today’s knowledge workers, unlike the factory
workers of the Industrial Revolution, own the company’s means
of production. This is what Daniel Pink, author of Free Agent
Nation, calls “Karl Marx’s revenge.” It is time for leaders to
start treating their people with the respect and dignity worthy of
serious moral enterprises, and to stop viewing employees as simply machines who can check their emotions at the door. People
are not assets—and will not be replaced by computers no matter
how far advanced artificial intelligence becomes—or inventory,
or resources; they are individuals entitled to a sense of mission
and purpose in their lives, who congregate in firms to make a difference in the lives of others. The universal need of every worker
is to perform meaningful work, in a community with others of
like mind, to make a difference in the world. The real aspiration
of an organization is to make people better, not just make them
better off .
09/05/07
122
Baker-c09-2
KARL MARX’S REVENGE
09/05/07
123
Characteristics like passion, desire, obsession, motivation, innovation, creativity, and knowledge may not show up anywhere
on a firm’s financial statements, but they are the traits that will
ultimately determine the fate of the firm. Knowledge work is nonlinear and not subject to the cadences and rhythms of an assembly
line from the Industrial Revolution; rather it moves by iteration
and reiteration. Thinking is invisible. We simply cannot treat people as if they were bags of cement that companies can move
around to maximize efficiency. We must stop thinking in terms
of command-and-control management and operational efficiency
metrics. Knowledge workers need to focus on effectiveness and
deserve better than these other outdated modes of thinking.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin asks the following provocative question in
his book Thou Shall Prosper: “Why do people raise their food
to their mouths instead of lowering their mouths to the plate?”
Lapin provides the answer:
The head represents a person’s spiritually lofty component, while
food is a material commodity. Seated at the dining table, either the
material can be lifted to the spiritual or the spiritual can be lowered
to the material. As unique and special beings, people prefer doing
the former rather than resembling animals in doing the latter.
Wealth creation is partially how people express their spirituality.
Of course, it is an unnatural act—no animals in nature ever do
it—but overcoming nature, all nature, especially human nature,
is what Judaism sees people as obligated to do. If people are
nothing more than the rational animals that Aristotle considered
them to be, then business may well be exploitative. It is certainly
unnatural because no other creature on earth engages in behavior
even remotely similar to business (Lapin 2002: 46).
This is the advantage in recognizing knowledge workers as
human capital investors, deserving of dignity. Wealth creation is
inherently spiritual, not material, in the sense that it cannot simply
be measured using any scientific device. The desire of a Fred
Smith to launch FedEx cannot be captured by measurement alone.
123
Baker-c09-2
124
HUMAN CAPITALISM
My VeraSage Institute colleague Dan Morris flies his firm’s
flag over his office building (below the American flag, of course)
with its name and logo in three colors. Recall that those who
first called themselves liberals —in the classical definition of the
word—had in mind three liberations (which explains why the
appropriate liberal flag is always tricolor). They intended to (1)
liberate humans from tyranny and torture; (2) liberate humans
from poverty; and (3) liberate humans from censorship and other
oppressions of conscience, intellect, and art. It is time we hoist
a new flag over the knowledge firm of the future and usher in
a new order of the ages, one that respects the dignity, and earns
the rewards, of its human capital investors.
09/05/07
124
Baker-c10-2
09/05/07
10
KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
ARE VOLUNTEERS
An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.
—Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanack
The management of knowledge workers should be based on the
assumption that the corporation needs them more than they need the
corporation. They know they can leave. They have both mobility and
self-confidence. This means they have to be treated and managed as
volunteers, in the same way as volunteers who work for not-for-profit
organizations.
—Peter Drucker, A Functioning Society: Selections from Sixty-Five
Years of Writing on Community, Society, and Polity, 2003
Peruse a corporate annual report, and inevitably you will read
that “people are our greatest asset” (or “resource”). Stalin used
to say it as well. Thinking of workers as resources—from the
Latin resurgere, “to rise again”—is equally demeaning, implying
people are no different from, say timber, to be harvested when
you run out. Even Michael Eisner, former chairman and CEO of
Disney, has been recorded as saying, “Our inventory goes home
at night.” There’s a new twist—people are now inventory to
be turned over. Perhaps one of the reasons for the use of these
demeaning words is that managers do not understand the worth
of their people because they cannot be measured as exactly as
accountants record assets, inventory, and other tangible resources.
125
125
Baker-c10-2
126
KNOWLEDGE WORKERS ARE VOLUNTEERS
One consultant suggested that we should capitalize all salaries
and wages on the balance sheet to reflect the fact that workers
are part of a company’s capital. I remain skeptical; knowing the
average accountant, they would set up a depreciation reserve, and
that view of people is no better. Humans deserve more respect
than a phone system or computer. Assets are passive, bought and
sold in the marketplace at the whim of their owners; conversely,
knowledge workers have ultimate control over their careers. Why
do we insist on perpetuating this belief that people are resources
to be mined rather than human capital to be developed?
A Chinese proverb teaches that the beginning of wisdom is
to call things by their right names. Your people are not assets,
resources, or inventory, but human capital investors seeking a
decent return on their investment. In fact, your people—and
especially those who are knowledge workers—are actually volunteers, since whether they return to work on any given day is
completely based on their volition. Consider for a moment how
people decide which volunteer organizations to contribute some
of their time and talent to. The choice is usually based on a
desire to contribute to something larger than themselves. They
work hard for these organizations—some would say harder than
at their regular jobs—because they are dedicated to the purpose,
and possess the passion, desire, and the dream to make a difference in the lives of others. All for zero monetary pay. Why?
This is not just an economic decision; it is a psychological and
emotional decision.
The nonprofit sector offers many lessons in retaining and
attracting talent. For someone to volunteer his or her precious
time and money, nonprofits have to have an inspiring purpose
and high expectations of their people, and be held accountable
for performance and results. This is not a cottage industry, as is
thought by some in the business world. It is also destined to grow.
There were about 22,000 private charitable foundations in the
early 1980s, whereas today the number is over 65,000. Coupled
with the growth in worldwide billionaires, from 423 in 1996 to
09/05/07
126
Baker-c10-2
KNOWLEDGE WORKERS ARE VOLUNTEERS
09/05/07
127
691 as this book is being written, this sector is destined to play an
increasing role in the world economy. America’s voluntary sector
employs some 7 percent of the population, one that received, in
2004, a record $249 billion in donations, over 2 percent of America’s gross domestic product (GDP). In 2001, nearly 84 million
Americans volunteered approximately four hours per week at an
average hourly wage that equates to $239 billion—more than
was spent on single-family homes in the same year.
People volunteer not for the money, but for the sense of inner
peace and accomplishing meaningful work that impacts the lives
of others. Are workers in the private sector motivated any differently? Noting that volunteerism had grown so much, and that
many more for-profit executives were spending a portion of their
time off doing charity work, Peter Drucker asked them why. “Far
too many give the same answer: ‘Because in my job there isn’t
much challenge, not enough achievement, not enough responsibility; and there is no mission, only expediency” (Watson and
Brown 2001: 45). This is a profoundly sad commentary on the
state of the business world today (no wonder “Dilbert” is so
popular, with his images of cynicism and disdain for everything
corporate). Charitable organizations view themselves as real communities, whereas many companies are nothing more than payroll
ledgers.
Man does not live by bread alone. No matter how well we
pay our people, if we don’t give them that sense of purpose, the
vision of creating a better future, we will not capture their pride
and their hearts. We may get some 2,000 hours out of people
per year, but will we tap into their potential to achieve great
things? One organization that does understand producing results
is the Salvation Army. Peter Drucker said that it is the most
effective organization in the United States. “No one,” he says,
“even comes close to [the Salvation Army] in respect to clarity of mission, ability to innovate, measurable results, dedication,
and putting money to maximum use” (Watson and Brown 2001:
16). The Salvation Army began in the United States on March 10,
127
Baker-c10-2
128
KNOWLEDGE WORKERS ARE VOLUNTEERS
1880, 15 years after being founded in England by William Booth.
Today, it has an annual budget exceeding $2 billion and a workforce (employees and volunteers) of 3.4 million; and that number
understates the value of the extra contribution by Army staffers,
which Forbes magazine estimates, if taken into account, would
rank the Salvation Army among the biggest companies in the
Forbes 500. Not bad, considering that, of the original firms listed
on the 1896 Dow Jones Industrials, only General Electric is still
in existence.
The Salvation Army provides a range of services, seeing needs
as opportunities, and problems as future assets. It operates more
than 1,200 thrift stores, provides more than 75,000 individuals
a place to sleep every night; responds instantly to disasters, and
offers relief; and delivers long-term drug and alcohol rehabilitation (at effectiveness rates that make governmental agencies
blush). In addition, it also provides “state-contracted counseling
for former prisoners on parole or probation; day care for children
and seniors; community sports and recreation programs; medical services; job training and placement; missing person services;
summer and day camps for kids; and visitations to people in institutions” (Watson and Brown 2001: 22). At least 83 cents of every
dollar collected goes to these services, with only 17 cents going
for overhead and administration (a number that would make any
governmental agency a defendant in a fraud case).
How does this organization achieve these spectacular results,
especially when you consider that the workforce’s average pay is
less than $400 per week (not including Army benefits of housing
and transportation, and that is provided only after 10 years), and
they are not micromanaged? As Robert Watson pointed out in
his book on the Salvation Army, they “engage the spirit.” People
work hard, real hard, when they believe they are making a contribution beyond just the bottom line. Here is some of the wisdom
from Watson’s remarkable book The Most Effective Organization
in the U.S.: Leadership Secrets of the Salvation Army:
09/05/07
128
Baker-c10-2
KNOWLEDGE WORKERS ARE VOLUNTEERS
09/05/07
129
Can a charity really teach leaders who have to operate in the “real
world” of business? If we truly believe that we all aspire to achieve
our best selves beyond mere material concerns and that the organizations we build are simply extensions of our aspirations, then the
difference between for-profit organizations and nonprofit ones is
about accounting policies, not about proficiency and effectiveness.
The bottom line is this: An organization is an organization is an
organization (Watson and Brown 2001: 14).
As individuals, Salvationists are as unremarkable as any other
man or woman you pass on the street. Not smarter, not stronger,
not possessed of greater resources. Two things distinguish us, and
both are available to anyone: An openness to God’s grace and a
commitment to demonstrating it through service to others. Hoard
our assets? We exhaust them in the effort to reach more and more
people. Lower our expectations? We are out to save the world.
Trust no one? Our best customers—and future partners—are drug
addicts, prisoners, the enfeebled, and the desperately poor (Watson
and Brown 2001: 33).
If we, as Salvation Army leaders, are confident we’re in harmony with our spiritual mission, we can make just about every
other decision by answering questions such as these: “What does
this have to do with helping hurting people?” and “Is this the best
use of our resources to help people we’re pledged to serve?” If we
can’t define a policy or a proposal or even a long standing program
on those terms, it has to go. Managers in other enterprises can generalize these test questions to this one: How is this decision going
to affect the lives of our customers? That’s it. If you can’t demonstrate that what you propose is going to create value for people,
it’s probably the wrong choice (Watson and Brown 2001: 75–76).
This is sage advice. Samuel Goldwyn is credited with saying:
“The key for an actor is sincerity, because if you can fake that,
you can fake anything.” But you cannot fake sincerity, or pride,
or being loyal to a team, let alone a company. Former Secretary
of Labor Robert B. Reich said he used a simple pronoun test
when visiting a company:
I ask frontline workers a few general questions about the company.
If the answers I get back describe the company in terms like “they”
and “them,” then I know it’s one kind of company. If the answers
129
Baker-c10-2
130
KNOWLEDGE WORKERS ARE VOLUNTEERS
are put in terms like “we” or “us,” then I know it’s a different
kind of company (Prusak and Cohen 2001: 93).
Despite all this evidence of human behavior, many organizations still treat their people as if they will slack off if they are not
held accountable for every six minutes of every day. Organizations spend an inordinate amount of time checking and rechecking
to make sure people do what is expected. Is this any way to inspire
people to be their best? Is this any way to instill a spirit of service
and dedication to serving customers? Or is this nothing but antiquated thinking about the nature of man being lazy and slothful
unless forced to work? Jim Casey, founder of UPS in 1907, said
in 1947: “A man’s worth to an organization can be measured by
the amount of supervision he requires.” By definition, knowledge
workers know more about their areas of responsibility than anyone else; otherwise, they would be useless. This makes them very
difficult to supervise, let alone “manage.” It is also why they are
the most valuable members of any organization.
PEOPLE HAVE VALUE, NOT JOBS
Although economic rewards play an important part in securing
adherence to organizational goals and management authority, they are
limited in their effectiveness. Organizations would be far less
effective systems than they actually are if such rewards were the only
means, or even principal means, of motivation available.
—Herbert Simon, 1978 Nobel Laureate economist
Another salutary effect of thinking in terms of knowledge workers
as volunteers is a rather counterintuitive supposition: It is people
who have value, not jobs. There is not a market for jobs, per se,
but there is a market for people who can create value. Hence, the
issue is one of valuing people, not jobs, correctly. As Bill Gates
said: “If it weren’t for 20 key people, Microsoft wouldn’t be the
company it is today” (Gandossy et al. 2006: 64). Job positions
may appear to be fixed in most companies, but in reality they
09/05/07
130
Baker-c10-2
PEOPLE HAVE VALUE, NOT JOBS
09/05/07
131
are not. Jobs in any dynamic economy are not zero-sum. Jobs are
limited only to the extent of knowledge workers’ imaginations,
not a scarce commodity at all. It is individuals who perform
above—or below—average, not jobs. It is individuals who leave
jobs and decide to invest their intellectual capital (IC) elsewhere;
jobs do not. The notion of a fixed job for a knowledge worker is
becoming outdated.
If you were to study the myriad of surveys that have been conducted over the decades of why people select one company over
another—and indeed, why over time they show loyalty to any
one firm—you would find essentially four factors that are taken
into consideration (subject yourself to these categories, especially
as to why you chose your first job, and perhaps why you left it,
to see if they make sense):
1.
2.
3.
Intrinsic rewards. These are the awards that are inherent
in the work itself, factors such as the challenge of the work;
the level of commitment to the organization’s purpose and
values; an environment that encourages creativity, fun (yes,
fun), and innovation; and the social culture of the firm.
These factors are precisely why people give their hearts,
bodies, and minds to the volunteer organizations they work
for. The satisfaction comes from a job well done and making
a difference in the world.
Opportunity to grow. How is the firm going to help the person develop his IC? Is it going to offer room for growth and
improvement? Will it invest an appropriate level of resources
into educating the person to enhance his IC? How will the relationship with the firm not only enhance the worker’s skills, but
help him become better personally as well?
Recognize accomplishments. How does the firm recognize
outstanding performance, including promotion and involvement in the strategy and direction of the company? How
does it spread the recognition to other team members? Does
the firm have “storytellers,” those individuals who pass on
131
Baker-c10-2
132
4.
KNOWLEDGE WORKERS ARE VOLUNTEERS
the legends and lessons of the past so they can inspire future
workers to greatness? Does the firm have a culture of celebrating success, or does it spend most of its time solving
problems and mitigating crises?
Economic rewards. This is the composition of wages, benefits, and other extrinsic aspects the worker receives. Is there
a strong correlation between the effectiveness of the worker,
his value to the organization, and his compensation?
Think back over your career and try to remember a boss —I
do not like that word, let’s substitute executive —that you truly
respected, one you looked up to and admired; perhaps he was even
a mentor. The relationship with the executive may be the most
important factor in determining whether someone stays or leaves a
firm. As an instructor at the Disney University pointed out, “People
don’t leave companies. They leave leaders in those companies.”
Dale Dauten wrote a splendid little book, The Gifted Boss: How to
Find, Create and Keep Great Employees, with this advice:
The old school is to hire someone you need by offering twenty
percent more money. Well, try offering a hundred percent more
freedom or a hundred percent more excitement . . . gifted bosses
and great employees want the same things from a workplace:
▪
Freedom from . . . management, mediocrity, and morons.
▪
A change.
▪
A chance. (Dauten 1999: Preface, 74).
Perhaps part of the problem, once again, is the words we use to
describe the relationship between employer and employee. Terms
such as boss and manager do not really describe the relationship
knowledge workers have with the organizations that employ them.
Even Peter Drucker became increasingly uncomfortable with the
word manager:
And while we’re on the subject of words, I’m not comfortable with
the word manager any more, because it implies subordinates. I find
myself using executive more, because it implies responsibility for
an area, not necessarily dominion over people (Drucker, 2003: 32).
09/05/07
132
Baker-c10-2
BECOMING A LIGHTNING ROD FOR TALENT
09/05/07
133
Drucker also believed rather than bosses and subordinates,
knowledge firms would be comprised of seniors and juniors. It is
interesting to note the origin of the word manager:
Manager is derived from the old Italian and French words maneggio and manege, meaning the training, handling and riding of a
horse. It is strange to think that the whole spirit of management
is derived from the image of getting on the back of a beast, digging your knees in, and heading it in a certain direction. The word
manager conjures images of domination, command, and ultimate
control, and the taming of a potentially wild energy. It also implies
a basic unwillingness on the part of the people to be managed, a
force to be corralled and reined in. All appropriate things if you
wish to ride a horse, but most people don’t respond very passionately or very creatively to being ridden, and the words giddy up
there only go so far in creating the kind of responsive participation we now look for. Sometime over the next fifty years or so,
the word manager will disappear from our understanding of leadership, and thankfully so. Another word will emerge, more alive
with possibility, more helpful, hopefully not decided upon by a
committee, which will describe the new role of leadership now
emerging. An image of leadership which embraces the attentive,
open-minded, conversationally based, people-minded person who
has not given up on her intellect and can still act and act quickly
when needed (Whyte 2001: 240–241).
Let us start to create an environment worthy of people’s investment. In fact, my favorite one-dimensional test for creating a
culture that is worthy of the respect and dignity of the people
you are trying to attract is simply this: Would you want your son
or daughter to work in your firm?
BECOMING A LIGHTNING ROD FOR TALENT
Getting the right people in the right jobs is a lot more important than
developing a strategy.
—Jack Welch
Why is it easier to get into Harvard or Princeton than to be hired
by Southwest Airlines, which accepts only 4 percent of its 90,000
133
Baker-c10-2
134
KNOWLEDGE WORKERS ARE VOLUNTEERS
applicants each year? Here is how Herb Kelleher explained it to
the American Compensation Association back in 1995 when he
was CEO at Southwest:
Well, first of all, it starts with hiring. We are zealous about hiring.
We are looking for a particular type of person, regardless of which
job category it is. We are looking for attitudes that are positive
and for people who can lend themselves to causes. We want folks
who have a good sense of humor and people who are interested
in performing as a team and take joy in team results instead of
individual accomplishments (Prusak and Cohen 2001: 93).
Southwest does not hire for skills—it will teach people what
they need to know—but for attitude, which is very difficult to
teach, or change. Kelleher got it precisely right when he observed:
“We hire attitude, we teach functionality.”
Attracting good people and hiring are two of the most important jobs to which everyone in the organization can contribute
input and ideas. Executives spend more of their time—or at least
they should—making people decisions than any other. No other
decisions have as many repercussions throughout the firm, or
have lasting significant effects than hiring choices. The Heritage
Foundation, a think tank in Washington, D.C., has this axiom as
it relates to new presidential administrations making personnel
choices: “People are policy.” You would expect to find a high
level of commitment and energy devoted to this task, but in the
average company you do not. Typically, the average firm is batting 0.333 on its hiring decisions; that is, one-third turn out to be
good decisions, one-third are minimally effective, and one-third
are abject failures. This may be an exceptional average for baseball players, but it is rare in any other area that executives would
accept this level of performance.
IC organizations are people companies, and dealing with people is always going to be full of challenges. When you hire
someone, you do not just get his hands and labor; you get his emotions, desires, dreams, aspirations, expectations, and heart—if
you do it right. The issue of attracting human capital investors is
09/05/07
134
Baker-c10-2
BECOMING A LIGHTNING ROD FOR TALENT
09/05/07
135
a marketing issue, which a lot of companies do not seem to
understand. As in all marketing, the marketing function does
not look inward and ask, “What do we want and need?” On
the contrary, it looks outward and asks, “What do you want
and need?” There is an enormous difference between these two
approaches. This latter changes the mind-set from one of allocating resources to attracting investors. Silicon Valley works
on the operating principle of attracting rather than allocating
resources. If an idea has enough merit, it will attract capital and
resources, in the form of venture capital or an entrepreneurial leap
of faith. Think tanks also work on this principle. They gather
ideas from anywhere, not just those they themselves generate,
and put them out in the arena of ideas to do battle. In effect,
firms have to do the same to win over people as they do to gain
a new customer: show them why the company is their best competitive alternative. Google’s founders, Sergey Brin and Larry
Page, lay out a compelling “Top 10 Reasons to Work at Google.”
Compare how it focuses more on intrinsic rather than extrinsic
rewards:
1. Lend a helping hand. With millions of visitors every month,
Google has become an essential part of everyday life—like
a good friend—connecting people with the information they
need to live great lives.
2. Life is beautiful. Being a part of something that matters and
working on products in which you can believe is remarkably
fulfilling.
3. Appreciation is the best motivation, so we’ve created a fun
and inspiring workspace you’ll be glad to be a part of, including on-site doctor and dentist; massage and yoga; professional
development opportunities; on-site day care; shoreline running
trails; and plenty of snacks to get you through the day.
4. Work and play are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to
code and pass the puck at the same time.
5. We love our employees, and we want them to know it. Google
offers a variety of benefits, including a choice of medical
135
Baker-c10-2
136
KNOWLEDGE WORKERS ARE VOLUNTEERS
programs, company-matched 401(k), stock options, maternity
and paternity leave, and much more.
6. Innovation is our bloodline. Even the best technology can be
improved. We see endless opportunity to create even more relevant, more useful, and faster products for our users. Google
is the technology leader in organizing the world’s information.
7. Good company everywhere you look. Googlers range from
former neurosurgeons, CEOs, and U.S. puzzle champions to
alligator wrestlers and former Marines. No matter what their
backgrounds, Googlers make for interesting cube mates.
8. Uniting the world, one user at a time. People in every country and every language use our products. As such we think,
act, and work globally—just our little contribution to making
the world a better place.
9. Boldly go where no one has gone before. There are hundreds
of challenges yet to solve. Your creative ideas matter here and
are worth exploring. You’ll have the opportunity to develop
innovative new products that millions of people will find
useful.
10. There is such a thing as a free lunch, after all. In fact we have
them every day: healthy, yummy, and made with love (www.
google.com/jobs/reasons.html, accessed February 8, 2007).
Because knowledge workers are investing their IC with firms
that will pay a fair return, rather than asking, “How much is this
person worth to the firm?” the real question should be: “How
much is the firm worth to this knowledge worker? How can the
firm add to this person’s IC and develop it even further?” These
are the important questions to answer to create lasting success.
Even with all the talk of a so-called free-agent workforce, and
the boom in self-employment, people still need organizations to
produce the goods and services customers will demand.
Viewing new hires as IC investors is a much better paradigm
for making the best hiring decisions. While a lot of companies
lament the fact that “you can’t find good people,” the simple
fact is that you are not always going to be able to hire the best
09/05/07
136
Baker-c10-2
BECOMING A LIGHTNING ROD FOR TALENT
09/05/07
137
people. Statistically, this is impossible, as the labor pool is not
composed of 100 percent top talent. Chief scientist Bill Joy of Sun
Microsystems has come up with this law: “Most of the smartest
people are never in your own company.” Usually, when people
talk about their companies, they mention how good its people are.
This is a natural, and even healthy, viewpoint. But the important
question that flows from that is, “Good for what?”
In the final analysis, your competitive advantage lies not necessarily in attracting the best talent, but rather in a superior ability
to develop and inspire those you do hire, the subject of the next
chapter.
137
Baker-c10-2
09/05/07
138
Baker-c11-2
09/05/07
11
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING
KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
Increasingly, performance in these new knowledge-based industries
will come to depend on running the institution so as to attract, hold,
and motivate knowledge workers. When this can no longer be done
by satisfying knowledge workers’ greed, as we are now trying to do,
it will have to be done by satisfying their values, and by giving them
social recognition and social power. It will have to be done by
turning them from subordinates into fellow executives, and from
employees, however well paid, into partners.
—Peter Drucker (Florida 2002: 87)
Organizations throughout history have always made attracting
talent a priority. The East India Company, founded in 1600, utilized examinations to recruit brainpower, with impressive results.
Among the company’s employees were James and John Stuart
Mill—two of Britain’s leading intellectuals. Yet attracting talent is only one part of the challenge. Organizations also have to
engage today’s knowledge workers, a daunting task since these
workers have more options than at any other time in the history
of commerce.
There is much talk regarding “retaining” talent. But who wants
to be retained? This is more of the human cattle mind-set. Knowledge workers want to be engaged, challenged, and valued. No
matter how well we pay our people, if we don’t give them that
139
139
Baker-c11-2
140
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
sense of purpose, the vision of achieving a better future, we will
not capture their pride and their hearts. Once again we can learn
from the nonprofit sector the importance of tapping into the soul
of our workers, as explained by Robert Watson of the Salvation
Army:
You have to make the most of the link between pride and performance by continually clearing away the stuff that interferes
with people connecting what they do in the organization with
how it’s received on the outside. That’s why we keep sending
out desk-bound officers and employees to experience programs
and to talk to beneficiaries firsthand. Here’s the important thing
about that kind of pride. You can’t “instill” it in an organization,
as we so often hear. Pride is earned. It grows from performance
in line with expectations everybody agrees on. And you risk losing the bonus pride affords an organization when you let your
practices slip out of alignment with your purpose, no matter how
compellingly you advertise your intentions. The first to notice the
misalignment, even before customers, will be employees (Watson
and Brown 2001: 101).
[Explaining the grueling schedule of the average Salvation Army
couple, Watson says]: For all this labor, which often starts early
and finishes late each day and which provides precious little time
off, this couple may draw less than $400 per week (not including Army benefits of housing and transportation). That’s after 10
years as officers and includes allowances for two young children,
whose concerns also have to be taken into consideration. . . . This
kind of exhausting schedule, with its simultaneous demands for
broad skills and narrow focus, seems made to order for management burnout. There’s always too much to do and too little time
and resources. Yet our officers sign on for life and work happily
and productively well into their retirement. How could you possibly compensate people for this kind of effort if you couldn’t
offer access to soul-deep satisfaction that was intrinsic to the job?
(Watson and Brown 2001: 211).
FedEx’s internal value statement is the ultimate expression of
these concepts: “People-Service-Profit.” Excellent companies have
learned that when they put their people first—yes, even before
09/05/07
140
Baker-c11-2
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
09/05/07
141
customers—they will take care of its customers with excellent
service, which ultimately drives profits. There is a strong correlation between employee relations and customer relations. How
an organization treats its people internally will mirror very closely
how its people treat external customers. Employees who are not
engaged and loyal are not likely to create customers who are.
As James C. Wetherbe explained in his book The World on
Time: The 11 Management Principles that Made FedEx an Overnight Sensation: “The rights and value of a single human life,”
begins the FedEx manager’s training guide, “have become the
central focus of social evolution in the industrialized world. . . .
FedEx, from its inception, has put its people first both because
it is right to do so and because it is good business as well”
(Wetherbe 1996: 15). And FedEx employees have responded in
kind. At the end of one pay period in the difficult early days of the
company, employees received a memo along with their paychecks
(all of which contained this message on the envelope: “A Satisfied
Customer Made This Possible”). The memo, from founder Fred
Smith, stated that they were welcome to cash their checks, but,
he suggested, it sure would be helpful if some of them waited just
a few days. To this day, some of those checks remain uncashed.
Their owners display them proudly, as a badge of honor, in frames
on their FedEx office walls. Do your employees feel a similar
sense of loyalty to your company?
Twenty-two year FedEx veteran Madan Birla, who worked
closely with Fred Smith, explains that FedEx taps its team members’ discretionary effort, which it defines as the difference
between mere compliance with the job requirements and commitment. He notes that everything within FedEx is constantly
challenged to improve the customer experience, except for how
it treats people. This engages its team members to not only do
the job, but to improve how the job is done (Birla 2005: 56–57,
78, 81).
Despite all of the empirical evidence that exists on the importance of treating employees well, too many organizations still do
141
Baker-c11-2
142
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
not trust their people to do the right thing. There is nothing more
demeaning to knowledge workers than to feel that they are not
trusted. Far too many organizations still believe they can “manage” knowledge workers, treating them like machines they can
manipulate and mechanize to achieve maximum efficiency. These
theories of command-and-control management are redolent of the
techniques and attitudes pioneered by the father of the Scientific
Management Revolution.
THE SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT REVOLUTION
The most famous preacher of the efficiency gospel was Frederick
Winslow Taylor (see Exhibit 11.1), who observed endless ways
to make laborers’ work more rational, quantifiable, and scientific, writing about the “science of shoveling” and the “law of
heavy laboring,” topics that today would most likely make for
lackluster book sales, but in Taylor’s time ushered in a new era
of management thinking. Taylor was born on March 20, 1856,
into a prominent Quaker family in an upper-middle-class suburb
of Philadelphia. As a teenager he became obsessed with cricket,
which, like baseball, is a game where the statistics and batting
averages are more exciting than the game itself. Allegedly, he
never smoked or drank alcohol, tea, or coffee. And when he
attended dances, he drew up charts classifying all the girls in
attendance as attractive or ugly and precisely calculated his time
so he spent one-half in conversation with each.
Taylor became an industrial engineer, testing his time-andmotion theories on the factory floor among his coworkers at the
Midvale Steel Company in Philadelphia. He took all the romance
out of work, and instead of a “noble skill” it was subdivided into
a series of simple motions, much as the pin workers Adam Smith
observed. All of the other aspects of human beings—creativity,
initiative, imagination—were to be done somewhere else in the
organization, usually the province of upper-management, who did
the “thinking” while the workers did the “doing.” This did not
09/05/07
142
Baker-c11-2
THE SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT REVOLUTION
09/05/07
143
EXHIBIT 11.1 FREDERICK WINSLOW TAYLOR (1856–1915)
foster an environment of trustworthiness in the factories where
Taylor’s ideas were implemented, but it did yield increased productivity, which also increased the wages of the common worker.
It was Taylor, after all, who replaced the phrase working harder
with working smarter.
Taylor’s ideas were not implemented without friction, however.
He viewed both managers and workers as “dumb oxen,” and
trade union opposition was on the increase. In 1915, Congress
passed legislation, which stayed on the books until 1949, banning
Taylor’s beloved stopwatches from government factories.
Peter Drucker credits Taylor with coining the terms management and consultant, as well as being the world’s very first
knowledge worker. Taylor’s calling card identified him as a “Consultant to Management,” and he charged the princely sum of $35
a day—approximately $720 today—for his standard two-hour
lecture.
Even Russian communist leader Vladimir Ilyich Lenin came
under Taylor’s spell: “We must introduce in Russia the study and
143
Baker-c11-2
144
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
teaching of the new Taylor System and its systematic trial and
adaptation” (in Skousen 2001: 252). On the eve of the Bolshevik
Revolution, Lenin declared that “accounting and control” were
the key factors in running an enterprise and that capitalism had
already “reduced” management to “extraordinarily simple operations” that “any literate person can perform”—that is, “supervising and recording, knowledge of the four rules of arithmetic,
and issuing appropriate receipts.” Such “exceedingly simple operations of registration, filing and checking” could, according to
Lenin, “easily be performed” by people receiving ordinary workmen’s wages (from Lenin’s The State and Revolution, in Sowell
2000: 111).
Taylor wrote all of his theories down throughout the years,
circulating them privately in 1911 in The Principles of Scientific
Management. Taylor’s theories have been credited with tripling
output during World War II and making Mussolini’s trains run
on time in Italy, German precision engineering, Lenin’s Five
Year Plans, consumerism, Hitler’s gas chambers, and the death
of communism—all with a simple stopwatch. No doubt, Taylor
contributed to most of these, some more than others, earning him
the nickname “Speedy Taylor.”
Some of Taylor’s principles set forth in The Principles of Scientific Management are worth noting to compare them to what is
needed to increase the effectiveness of today’s knowledge workers (discussed later):
In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must
be first (Taylor 1967: 7).
. . .[T]he workman who is best suited to actually doing the work
is incapable of fully understanding this science, without the guidance and help of those who are working with him or over him,
either through lack of education or through insufficient mental
capacity (Taylor 1967: 26).
. . .[A]lmost every act of the workman should be preceded by
one or more preparatory acts of the management which enable him
09/05/07
144
Baker-c11-2
THE SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT REVOLUTION
09/05/07
145
to do his work better and quicker than he otherwise could (Taylor
1967: 26).
Perhaps the most prominent single element in modern scientific
management is the task idea. The work of every workman is fully
planned out by the management at least one day in advance, and
each man receives in most cases complete written instructions,
describing in detail the task which he is to accomplish, as well as
the means to be used in doing the work (Taylor 1967: 39).
The first illustration is that of handling pig iron. This work is so
crude and elementary in its nature that the writer firmly believes
that it would be possible to train an intelligent gorilla so as to
become a more efficient pig-iron handler than any man can be
(Taylor 1967: 40).
The average boy would go very slowly if, instead of being
given a task, he were told to do as much as he could. All of us are
grown-up children, and it is equally true that the average workman
will work with the greatest satisfaction, both to himself and to his
employer, when he is given each day a definite task which he is
to perform in a given time, and which constitutes a proper day’s
work for a good workman. This furnishes the workman with a
clear-cut standard, by which he can throughout the day measure
his own progress, and the accomplishment of which affords him
the greatest satisfaction (Taylor 1967: 120–121).
This advice seems crude and unenlightened for today’s knowledge economy, and organized labor viewed Taylorism as nothing
more than a method to extract more sweat from labor, turning
workers into impersonal slaves. One writer described it thusly:
“Scientific management was degrading. . . . In standing over you
with a stopwatch, peering at you, measuring you, rating you, it
treated you like a side of beef. You weren’t supposed to think.
Whatever workmanly pride you might once have possessed must
be sacrificed on the altar of efficiency” (Skousen 2001: 252–253).
Henry Ford wrote in his autobiography My Life and Work :
“Factory organization is not a device to prevent the expansion of
ability, but a device to reduce the waste and losses due to mediocrity. It is not a device to hinder the ambitious, clear-headed
man from doing his best, but a device to prevent the don’t-care
145
Baker-c11-2
146
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
sort of individual from doing his worst” (Ford, 1922: 270). Not
exactly an enlightened view of industrial organization, but it is
also difficult to argue with Ford’s ability to put the automobile
within reach of the common man. There is no doubt that we
owe a large portion of our present standard of living to Taylor and his methods of increasing the productivity of manual
workers.
In defense of Taylor, he certainly did not view his methods as a
way to extract more labor from each worker. One must consider
how truly revolutionary these ideas were in Taylor’s day, and his
motivation for proposing them. His objective was not cost reduction, but rather to increase productivity to benefit the worker,
not the owner, enabling capital and labor to enjoy a harmonious
relationship. In fact, Taylor considered himself to be the “Great
Harmonizer.” He was one of the first to recognize the need to
apply knowledge to work, even though he may have believed
this to be the task primarily of management rather than the workers themselves. He agreed with Adam Smith’s vision of universal opulence, and wrote: “The luxuries of one generation [will
become] the necessities of the next [and] the working people of
our country will live as well and have the same luxuries, the same
opportunities for leisure, for culture, and for education, as are now
possessed by the average business man” (Skousen 2001: 253).
Not only would increases in productivity be good for owners
and workers, it would be a positive boon for customers as well.
Andrew Carnegie ruthlessly focused on output per man-hour and
unit costs, in order to slash prices, arguing that since steel was
essential for a modern economy, reducing its price would lower
the prices of virtually everything, thereby raising living standards.
Carnegie was able to get the price of steel rails, which cost $160
a ton in 1875, down to $17 a ton by 1898, all the while paying
his managers the highest wages in U.S. industry.
In 1907, Taylor met a bricklayer, Frank Gilbreth (see
Exhibit 11.2), who had done his own time-and-motion analysis on laying bricks, which enabled his output to increase from
09/05/07
146
Baker-c11-2
THE SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT REVOLUTION
09/05/07
147
EXHIBIT 11.2 FRANK GILBRETH (1868–1924)
1,000 to 2,700 per day. Apparently, Gilbreth was more obsessed
with his stopwatch than was Taylor, and 2 of his 12 children later
wrote a portrait of him titled Cheaper by the Dozen, later made
into a Hollywood movie with Clifton Webb as Gilbreth.
Frank Gilbreth went on to eventually repudiate the validity of
time-and-motion studies as unethical and “absolutely worthless.”
In the meantime, Taylor pressed on, espousing his theories until
his final day. In the winter of 1914, hospitalized with pneumonia, every morning Taylor arose out of bed to wind his precious
watch. One morning, March 21, 1915, a nurse saw him winding
it uncharacteristically early, 4:30 A.M. When she returned a half
hour later, Taylor was dead; it was one day after his fifty-ninth
birthday. Many of the so-called efficiency experts met an early
death—which makes you wonder what, exactly, were they saving
all that time for?
During the 1920s, when economists began to recognize a large
and growing sector of the labor force known as service workers,
they used metrics similar to Taylor’s and Gilbreth’s to measure
their productivity—from the number of transactions a bank teller
processed and tables a waiter or waitress turned in a shift to the
number of cases closed by an insurance claims adjuster. These
metrics were sufficient, as far as they went, to measure the
147
Baker-c11-2
148
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
productivity of manual and service workers; but when knowledge
workers started to become a significant portion of the labor force—
not to mention a disproportionate share of the value creation in
the economy—Taylor and Gilbreth’s measurements hit the proverbial brick wall. Time-and-motion studies require observation and
precise measurement of physical actions, but knowledge work is
invisible since it takes place in one’s mind. How do we measure,
and increase, the productivity of knowledge workers? To make
progress on this ambition, we need to begin with a lesson from
Plato: “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.”
WHAT, EXACTLY, IS PRODUCTIVITY?
The single greatest challenge facing managers in the developed
countries of the world is to raise the productivity of knowledge and
service workers. This challenge, which will dominate the
management agenda for the next several decades, will ultimately
determine the competitive performance of companies. Even more
important, it will determine the very fabric of society and the quality
of life in every industrialized nation.
—Peter Drucker, Profession of Management, 2003
Productivity is always a ratio, expressed as the amount of output
per unit of input. Mathematically, it seems straightforward, as if
there were one widely agreed-on definition of the components
of the numerator and denominator. In an intellectual capital (IC)
economy, however, it is a conundrum. One of the most common
measurements is output per man-hour, which in the United States
has increased at an annual average rate of 3 percent since 1996.
But this measures only labor productivity. Economists also measure multifactor productivity (or total factor productivity), which
is an attempt to capture inputs beyond labor, such as capital.
Yet, it is much easier to tally up hours worked than the value of
capital, especially human capital.
The government measures most outputs by the cost of the
inputs; hence, it misses the prodigious growth of technology and
09/05/07
148
Baker-c11-2
WHAT, EXACTLY, IS PRODUCTIVITY?
09/05/07
149
other gains in knowledge, especially since the price of technology is constantly declining. This is exactly the quandary that
led Nobel Laureate Robert Solow to utter in 1987, “We see the
computer age everywhere except in the productivity statistics.” It
would appear that “productivity” is not the only measurement in a
knowledge organization, as the following examples will illustrate.
What would you conclude regarding the productivity of a particular laser beam that wasted 60 to 90 percent of the electric
power received at its back end before projecting an intense, blinding beam out the front?
It doesn’t sound very efficient, does it? Yet that is exactly the
productivity of the laser beam used for cataract surgery to restore
eyesight. It is not at all efficient. So what? It is highly effective.
In this case, the waste of energy is clearly a virtue, not a vice. You
would never draw this conclusion studying the ratio of output to
input, however, as the math misses the miracle of restoring the
joy of human sight. If you were the patient, inefficiency is clearly
superior to ineffectiveness.
If we are making wine, we could count the grapes, the bottles,
corks, and so on. But none of those would help us define—let
alone value—the final product. As they say, it is much easier to
count the bottles than describe the wine.
If we were attempting to measure Rembrandt’s productivity,
we could sum up the costs of paint, canvas, brushes, and even
the amount of labor hours spent plying his craft. Would there be
any relationship to the final value of the output? Would counting the number of paintings produced over a given time period
help? Companies have learned that costs are easier to compute
than benefits, so they cut the costs in the denominator to improve
the efficiency. This is the equivalent of Walt Disney’s cutting
out three of the dwarfs in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs to
reduce the inputs, making the resulting ratio look better. Since
Snow White contained over 2 million painstakingly crafted drawings, this reduction would have been quite efficient—but hardly
149
Baker-c11-2
150
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
effective. More companies fail not due to being inefficient but
rather from being ineffective—producing things nobody wants.
Measurable inputs do not correlate with output, since we have
observed differences in factory productivity as high as 50 percent
between, and even within, companies with similar equipment and
equivalent size labor forces that are paid the same. The difference
comes down to those intangibles that are not easily calculable
in input/output tables—leadership, purpose, motivation, commitment, spirit—for both companies and individuals.
This, in a nutshell, is the problem with the way we attempt to
measure the “productivity” of knowledge workers. The metrics
we are using are redolent of the days of Frederick Taylor, no
longer applicable to the product of the intellect. Knowledge work
is not repetitive, it is iterative and reiterative —that is, a process
of the mind, a difficult place for metrics to have any meaning. Not
many people would want a time-and-motion doctor who equated
efficiency with quality medical care.
The task at hand is formidable, since the relationship between
inputs and outputs is not as well defined in the knowledge era as it
was in the Agricultural or Industrial Revolution. Thus, the goal is
not to shun Frederick Taylor, but to learn from him. Specifically,
he applied knowledge to knowledge, increasing the productivity of manual laborers around the world, in the same manner
Adam Smith explained the specialization and division of labor.
However, even some of Smith’s insights are not effective in a
knowledge environment, since, for example, Shakespeare could
not specialize in writing the verbs while a colleague wrote the
nouns of his many works.
The fact of the matter is that we do not know how to measure the productivity of a knowledge worker. And even if we
someday figure it out, we have not won even half the battle.
We would still need to know how to increase it. It does no
good to admonish your team members to work smarter, not
harder. It’s not bad advice, it’s just not very helpful—like telling
people to be healthy, wealthy, and wise. We need to apply the
09/05/07
150
Baker-c11-2
A FRAMEWORK FOR KNOWLEDGE WORKER EFFECTIVENESS
09/05/07
151
same ingenuity and creativity Taylor did to the subject of
manual workers to inspire knowledge workers to contribute their
full potential.
We need new thinking and new models to judge the effectiveness of knowledge workers. Fortunately, Peter Drucker blazed the
trail in this area, a modern-day Taylor for the knowledge worker.
Wise executives will build on his wisdom to usher in the new era
of the knowledge worker.
A FRAMEWORK FOR KNOWLEDGE WORKER
EFFECTIVENESS
Knowledge workers may be a minority of the workforce, but they are
the largest single group and the major creator of wealth. What made
the traditional workforce productive was the system—whether it was
Frederick Winslow Taylor’s “one best way,” Henry Ford’s assembly
line, or Ed Deming’s Total Quality Management. The system
embodies the knowledge. The system is productive because it enables
individual workers to perform without much knowledge or skill. . . .
In a knowledge-based organization, however, it is the individual
worker’s productivity that makes the system productive. In a
traditional workforce the worker serves the system; in a knowledge
workforce the system must serve the worker.
—Peter Drucker, Managing in the Next Society, 2002
Knowledge work is not defined so much by quantity as it is by
quality. It is also not defined by its costs but by its results. Frederick Taylor started with the assumption that there was “one best
way” to achieve productivity and it was not necessarily determined by the physical—or even mental—characteristics of the
job. But in knowledge work, the traditional tools of measurement need to be replaced by judgment, and there is a difference
between a measurement and a judgment: a measurement requires
only a stick; a judgment requires knowledge and discernment.
Frederick Taylor did not attempt to measure the productivity of
knowledge workers because there were not very many in his day.
151
Baker-c11-2
152
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
He did not focus attention on how to prepare the workers to do
the job better next time, because he developed systems and procedures that removed the need for them to use their imaginations.
He substituted rules for thinking.
It took approximately a half century before companies began to
learn that this made their organizations complacent and stupid—
not the traits you want in an auto factory, let alone among knowledge workers. Knowledge work can only be designed by the
knowledge worker, not for the worker. In a factory, the worker
serves the system. The same is true in a service environment;
but in a knowledge environment, the system should serve the
worker.
Productivity measurements on knowledge work may be in their
infancy, but Peter Drucker has left us a good starting place, especially in his book Management Challenges for the 21st Century:
Work on the productivity of the knowledge worker has barely
begun. In terms of actual work on knowledge worker productivity
we are, in the year 2000, roughly where we were in the year 1900,
a century ago, in terms of the productivity of the manual worker.
But we already know infinitely more about the productivity of
the knowledge worker than we did then about that of the manual
worker. We even know a good many of the answers. But we also
know the challenges to which we do not yet know the answers,
and on which we need to go to work. Six major factors determine
knowledge-worker productivity.
1. Knowledge worker productivity demands that we ask the
question: “What is the task?”
2. It demands that we impose the responsibility for their productivity on the individual knowledge workers themselves.
Knowledge workers have to manage themselves. They have
to have autonomy.
3. Continuing innovation has to be part of the work, the task
and the responsibility of knowledge workers.
4. Knowledge work requires continuous learning on the part of
the knowledge worker, but equally continuous teaching on
the part of the knowledge worker.
09/05/07
152
Baker-c11-2
A FRAMEWORK FOR KNOWLEDGE WORKER EFFECTIVENESS
09/05/07
153
5. Productivity of the knowledge worker is not—at least not
primarily—a matter of the quantity of output. Quality is at
least as important [I would argue more important].
6. Finally, knowledge-worker productivity requires that the
knowledge worker is both seen and treated as an “asset”
[I would say volunteer] rather than a “cost.” It requires that
knowledge workers want to work for the organization in preference to all other opportunities (Drucker 1999: 142).
These factors are almost the exact opposite of what is needed
to increase the productivity of manual labor, with the possible
exception of number six. The word manufacturing is derived from
manufactory, meaning “made by hand.” Yet more and more of
today’s economic output is made by mind. Taylor’s systems did
not engage the mind; they actually were designed to disengage
it, similar to flying an airplane on autopilot.
Drucker believed the main focus of the knowledge worker needs
to be on the task to be done—with all other distractions eliminated
as much as possible—and this is defined by the worker him- or herself. Asking knowledge workers the following questions (adapted
from Peter Drucker and other sources) about their jobs is a rich
source of learning a great deal about any organization:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What is your task?
What should it be?
What should you be expected to contribute?
How fair are those expectations?
What hampers you in doing your task and should be eliminated?
How could you make the greatest contribution with your
strengths, your way of performing, your values, to what
needs to be done?
What results have to be achieved to make a difference?
What hinders you in doing your task and should be
eliminated?
What progress are you making in your career?
153
Baker-c11-2
154
•
•
•
•
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
How is the company helping you to achieve your professional goals and aspirations?
What does the company do right and what should it continue
doing?
What are the firm’s weaknesses and what should it stop
doing?
What critical things should the firm start doing?
These are excellent questions for executives to ask the team
members periodically, as it will focus the company’s resources
and attention on external opportunities, rather than on internal
bureaucratic procedures, rules, and systems that probably do not
add much value to the customer experience.
Recall that a business does not exist to be efficient; it exists to
create wealth for its customers. The traditional focus on efficiency
in an IC-based economy is misplaced. This is not to say that
productivity is not important, rather that it should not be the
talisman for guiding the company to its core purpose: the creation
of wealth.
Efficiency can be taken to ludicrous extremes. For instance, I
doubt any efficiency expert would have suggested to the Nordstrom brothers to place pianos and hire piano players in their
department stores. What could this possibly add to efficiency?
Yet, how effective is it in providing a competitive differentiation
that Nordstrom can leverage to create a more enriching experience
for its team members and customers?
Knowledge companies understand this dynamic. Disney and
Apple know there is a vast difference between being efficient
and being persuasive. Even the egalitarian-minded Ben & Jerry’s
understood that a business simply could not operate at—or price
for—100 percent efficiency. The new companies that have created so much wealth in the past decades, from eBay and Intel to
Microsoft and Google, did not get where they are by focusing on
efficiency. They focused on creating wealth for their customers.
09/05/07
154
Baker-c11-2
A FRAMEWORK FOR KNOWLEDGE WORKER EFFECTIVENESS
09/05/07
155
Why, then, do so many companies worship on the altar of
efficiency, confusing being busy with being profitable?
It should be obvious at this juncture that executives who are
responsible for knowledge workers are going to have to become
much more comfortable with intuition, judgment, and discernment
over measurements. You simply cannot manage people by numbers. Professor Henry Mintzberg—who defends the word manager over leader —tells the story of one student who asked him:
“How can you select for intuition when you can’t even measure
it?” (Mintzberg 1989: 83). This is a sad commentary on the state
of current MBA education. We seem to be turning out greyhounds
in counting but ignoramuses in dealing with human beings.
Emotions are essential to good decisions, since “most people reason dramatically, not quantitatively,” as Oliver Wendell
Holmes once wrote. This is why people are inspired more by
stories than spreadsheets and pie charts full of statistics. Martin
Luther King didn’t proclaim, “I have quarterly objectives,” but
spoke of having a dream.
So many leaders are worried that if they get rid of objective
measures they will introduce subjective bias into the decisionmaking process. So what? That’s exactly what needs to happen.
We simply cannot measure the most important things in life. To
get rid of bias we would have to give up judgment, which is too
high a price to pay. Neurologist Antonio Damasio has studied braindamaged patients, demonstrating that without emotion it is impossible to make decisions. Why would we want to disregard our human
emotions? For as accurate or scientific as you can make any measurement, judgment and intuition are more important.
It is time to replace efficiency with effectiveness, and begin to
measure what counts, rather than counting for the sake of counting. Frederick Taylor’s time-and-motion studies have no place
in the knowledge organizations of the future because it is not
an accurate measurement of the results and wealth knowledge
workers create for their customers. We need to create an
environment of responsible autonomy, where workers will decide
155
Baker-c11-2
156
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
for themselves what and how to perform their jobs, while taking
full responsibility and accountability for the outcome. For this
to happen, leaders of the future are going to have to fend off
the ghost of Frederick Taylor, since it is they who are ultimately
responsible for creating conducive organizations that maximize
the contribution of their knowledge workers. A good beginning
is recognizing the implications of this attitude. After all, if the
executives of a company do not treat their people like knowledge
workers, are they, in fact, knowledge workers at all?
FAR FEWER KNOWLEDGE WORKERS THAN WE
THINK?
I can tell a factory worker to show up at seven AM and be
productive. But can I tell an engineer or researcher to have a good
idea at seven?
—Akio Morita, late cofounder of Sony
The famed consultancy firm, McKinsey, divides American jobs
into three categories:
1. Transformational (extracting raw materials or converting
them into finished goods)
2. Transactional (interactions that can easily be scripted or automated)
3. Tacit (complex interactions requiring a high level of judgment) (The Economist, October 7, 2006: 4).
McKinsey further reports “that over the past six years the number of American jobs that emphasize ‘tacit interactions’ has grown
two and a half times as fast as the number of transactional jobs
and three times as fast as employment in general. These jobs now
make up some 40% of the American labor market and account
for 70 percent of the jobs created since 1998” (The Economist,
October 7, 2006: 4). There is also no doubt that the tacit workers
are creating the majority of value in most organizations.
09/05/07
156
Baker-c11-2
FAR FEWER KNOWLEDGE WORKERS THAN WE THINK?
09/05/07
157
How many executives are fully prepared to deal with the
implications of these distinctions? Far too many are still treating their people like waiters and waitresses, including the metrics
they are utilizing to determine their “productivity.” But knowledge workers are chefs, not waiters, and it is time for leaders to
recognize the difference.
My colleagues and I at VeraSage Institute spend the majority
of our time working with, by any common definition, knowledge
workers, at accounting, law, and technology firms; advertising
agencies; consultancies; engineering, architecture, and software
programming firms; and so forth. We educate them on the difference between manual (and service) workers and knowledge
workers. In a way, it is a compliment to be told you are part of a
new vanguard of wealth creation in the economy by being labeled
a knowledge worker. People take pride and immediate ownership
in the term; you can even see a demonstrable increase in their
self-respect. It just feels good to be called a knowledge worker.
But I can always count on at least one of my colleagues to
cause some cognitive dissonance, and Dan Morris has not let me
down. He thinks I’m wrong about most professional firms being
filled with knowledge workers; he believes the majority of them
are more akin to factory workers in the days of Taylor and Ford.
Now I know this is a heretical view, but Dan has assembled a
very powerful argument to support his assertion. He does not deny
that professionals have the potential to be knowledge workers.
His argument is that they are not largely because of the incentives
and structures of the firms in which they operate, which function
more like sweatshops of yore.
This is a powerful argument, and it made me pause to reexamine my core assumptions about automatically asserting that
just because people are credentialed professionals, or work with
their heads more than their hands, they are automatically knowledge workers. There is no doubt they can contribute a certain
amount of creativity and innovation to the jobs they perform and
the customers they serve. But being a knowledge worker also
157
Baker-c11-2
158
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
requires that the leaders of your organization recognize and treat
you like one. This is where Dan’s more constricted definition of
a knowledge worker is compelling.
Stephen Covey writes about exactly this in his book The 8th
Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness:
. . . It’s the leadership beliefs and style of the manager, not the
nature of the job or economic era, that defines whether a person is
a knowledge worker or not. If he is not perceived as a knowledge
worker, that is, if a janitor is not seen as the local expert on
janitorial work, then he is a manual worker and not a knowledge
worker (Covey 2004: 265–266).
I do not agree with this definition in its entirety. The major
determinant of knowledge workers is that they own the means
of production, and they apply knowledge to knowledge to create
value. Covey’s requirement of the leadership beliefs and style
of management may be necessary conditions, but they are not
sufficient, in and of themselves, to define knowledge work.
The same might be said regarding the knowledge worker’s
environment. The process of ethnography involves using multiple
cameras to observe how workers interact in their environments
to optimize spatial conditions. This has a certain ring of feng
shui to it—that is, not at all scientific—but if it helps knowledge
workers to be more comfortable in their environments, then it
could be worthwhile.
Some companies have a “clean desk” requirement, thinking it
helps to improve productivity if things are neat and orderly. This
may be true for clerical workers, whose mission is to help the
company run smoothly. But knowledge workers use information
to change themselves. The paper piles and Post-It Notes strung
all over your office are physical representations of what is going
on inside of your head. If anyone interferes with your desk, they
interfere with your thinking—not a wise intrusion just to obtain
1 percent greater efficiency.
09/05/07
158
Baker-c11-2
FAR FEWER KNOWLEDGE WORKERS THAN WE THINK?
09/05/07
159
I remain skeptical of ethnography and other environmental
factors because, once again, true knowledge work transcends time
and space. J. K. Rowling wrote part of the first Harry Potter novel
in an Edinburgh coffee shop. In the old days, workers took their
coffee to the office. With Starbucks and knowledge workers, we
now take our office to the coffee.
Having said all that regarding leadership beliefs and environmental factors, when you consider the metrics used by most firms
to measure their team members, they all come from the Industrial Revolution’s command-and-control hierarchies. We have to
replace these hierarchical structures for more autonomy —from
the Greek word for “self-governance.”
Dan further supports his argument by stating that leaders of
knowledge workers:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Understand that knowledge workers are paid for ideas, not
hours, like union employees.
Allow at least 15 percent of team member time for innovation and creating better ways to add value to customers.
(This certainly destroys productivity under the old metrics.)
Understand that judgments and discernment are far more
important than measurements in assessing performance.
Are focused on outputs, results, and value, not inputs,
efforts, activities, and costs.
Don’t require time sheets that account for every 10 minutes
of their day.
Trust their workers to do the right thing for the firm and its
customers.
Recognize that individuals, not jobs, have value.
Allow their workers to monetize the value of their output, through stock options or other incentives that share the
wealth created by minds, not machines.
Select workers who are passionate and self-motivated, and
don’t need constant supervision.
159
Baker-c11-2
160
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
If these criteria describe your firm, congratulations, you are
a true knowledge organization. Perhaps nothing illustrates the
value knowledge workers can add to a business better than the
announced purchase of Pixar by Disney on January 24, 2006, for
$7.4 billion in Disney stock (Steve Jobs purchased Pixar in 1986
for $10 million). Disney will have to respect Pixar’s culture and
continue to let it make quality movies at its own pace, in its own
way. Otherwise, if Pixar’s creative talent leaves, “Disney just
purchased the most expensive computers ever sold,” according
to Lawrence Haverty, a fund manager at Gabelli Asset Management. It remains to be seen if Disney can learn from Steve Jobs’s
philosophy: “You cannot mandate productivity, you must provide
the tools to let people become their best.”
Knowledge workers need to be able to monetize at least part
of the wealth they create, which is based on contribution, not
seniority or stultifying union-type job classifications. Throughout
history, trailblazing innovations, from the jet engine to the iPod,
are more likely to come from those team members under the age
of 45. If stock options or other incentives plans are not offered
to value and attract talent, firms will not be able to tap into the
enormous wealth-creating potential of their knowledge workers.
There is an old military saying that instructs the soldier is
entitled to competent command. Unfortunately, most professional
firms that we at VeraSage have come into contact with around
the world do not fit Dan’s criteria, which is why he makes such
a strong case that they function more like manual laborers—or
service workers—than actual knowledge workers. After all, if
one set out to find knowledge workers, you would naturally select
professional service firms as the most likely place to find them.
I cannot count the number of times we have been asked by intelligent firm owners, “How would I know what my team members
were doing if they didn’t complete a time sheet?” This is not a
question demonstrating fear over lack of control; this is the illusion of control. Someone can look great on a time sheet but do
substandard work, have a poor customer service attitude, disrupt
09/05/07
160
Baker-c11-2
SAMPLE KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATIONS
09/05/07
161
colleagues, or possess a myriad of other poor characteristics that
cannot be captured on a time sheet. But because the leaders in these
firms do not trust the judgment of the very people they hire, they
feel they need to micromanage them. This is counterproductive.
Knowledge workers cannot be told how to do their job, since many
understand the job at hand better than their bosses. They cannot be
held accountable for results if their methods are micromanaged.
Fortunately, there are some enlightened companies that recognize
the realities of employing knowledge workers.
SAMPLE KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATIONS
Is a gardener or office janitor a knowledge worker? They are to
ServiceMaster, a company that arguably provides more autonomy
to its people than many professional firms. Steel workers at Chaparral Steel are expected to experiment, innovate new designs,
and propose new product offerings, a prime example of a traditional smokestack company adapting to the actualities of a knowledge economy. Legendary customer service leader Nordstrom has
on its Web site: “Use good judgment. We trust one another’s
integrity and ability. Our only rule: Use good judgment in all situations.” This autonomy is one reason 76 of Nordstrom associates
sold over $1 million in 2005 (www.recruitingsite.com/csbsites
/nordstrom/index.asp, visited March 17, 2007). Richard Branson,
founder of the eponymous Virgin brand, also understands leading knowledge workers: “People who work at Virgin are special.
They aren’t sheep. They think for themselves. They have good
ideas and I listen to them. What is the point of hiring bright
people if you don’t use their talent?” (Branson 2006: 29).
Best Buy treats all of its associates as knowledge workers. A
field executive for the company, who oversees dozens of stores
and thousands of associates, remarked: “We unleash the power
of our people and let them know they can make a difference
by teaching them how to think, not just do what they’re told”
(Gandossy et al. 2006: 228). The advantage of this philosophy
161
Baker-c11-2
162
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
is it engages people’s minds to find better ways to do their job,
recognizing that good ideas are not just the responsibility of management but also those who are closest to the work itself, as this
story illustrates:
. . . [A]n employee in the company’s Corona, California, outlet
observed that his store was incurring monthly losses of $4,000 to
$6,000 in damaged televisions. In all Best Buy stores, employees were told to use shrink-wrap to protect televisions that were
shipped back to distribution centers for repair or return to the
manufacturer. A front-line employee concluded flimsy shrink-wrap
was not able to safeguard the television from bumping around and
breaking while in transit. After researching options, he found a $50
tool that would take the same shrink-wrap and twist it into a sturdy
rope that could hold the televisions securely on their palettes during shipment. Working with his manager, they tested the idea and
after four months had completely eliminated damaged television
charges. On a $50 investment, the self-initiation of this employee
led to nearly 100,000 percent return for the single store in just the
first year (Gandossy et al. 2006: 227).
Walt Disney understood that ideas were not the sole domain of
management: “I use the whole plant for ideas. If the janitor has
a good idea, I’d use it.” To this day, Disney
. . . believes that ideas for successful animated films are everywhere
in the organization; they need only be drawn out and developed.
Three times a year senior managers, including the chairman, vice
chairman, and president of feature animation, attend a Gong Show,
at which any employee, from secretary to senior executive, is permitted to pitch concepts and story lines. Pitches are limited to five
minutes, and managers respond immediately—and bluntly—to all
proposals. If the pitch is accepted, the presenter gets the normal
fee for a first treatment, usually $20,000. The results? An extraordinary esprit de corps, not to mention the central concepts for
Hercules and other animated features (Garvin 2000: 38).
Toyota, one of the world’s 10 most profitable companies, is
another company that understands ROI—that is, return on ideas.
Senior adviser to the University of Toyota, Matthew E. May,
09/05/07
162
Baker-c11-2
SAMPLE KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATIONS
09/05/07
163
explains in his book The Elegant Solution: Toyota’s Formula for
Mastering Innovation how Toyota implements one million ideas a
year, from all levels in the organization. Working on an auto factory line may not be the most creative job, but Toyota’s quest is for
its employees to be creative on a daily basis. In conditions as close
as the business world can get to a scientific laboratory experiment,
Toyota transformed a General Motors factory in Fremont, California, known as New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. (NUMMI).
In 1982, under GM management, this plant had the worst quality and productivity record, double-digit defects in every car,
rampant drug and alcohol abuse, an absenteeism rate of 20 percent, and a backlog of 5,000 union grievances. In February 1982,
in the depths of Ronald Reagan’s first-term recession, GM closed
the factory and laid off the entire workforce.
In 1983, GM formed a joint venture with Toyota and reopened the
Fremont plant, now to produce the Toyota Corolla and Chevrolet
Prizm. Toyota hired back 85 percent of the union employees and
instituted a no-layoff policy. In essence, you had the same workforce and the same plant and equipment, as well as all the other tangible manifestations of the old factory in place. By 1985, NUMMI
“had the highest quality and productivity of any GM plant. Quality defects dropped from 12 to 1 per vehicle. Cars were assembled
in half the time. Absenteeism dropped to 3 percent. Worker satisfaction and engagement soared. Operational innovation was on
the rise, with employee participation over 90 percent and nearly
10,000 ideas implemented” (May 2007: 65). What was the difference? Not what Toyota does, but how Toyota thinks. Paul Guitierrez
(a pseudonym), a career autoworker who works at the GM/Toyota
plant, explains how palpable this change in philosophy was:
Never in a million years would I tell you this work is creative.
Then Toyota took over twenty years ago. They teach us their system then say to us, ‘we want you to tell us how to make it better.’
We went from ‘just do your job’ with GM to ‘no one knows the
job better than you’ with Toyota. They teach us how to solve problems. They turn us loose in here! They say, stop the line anytime
163
Baker-c11-2
164
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
if something’s wrong. I was floored. They think I can make their
systems better? They’re giving me the power to stop production?
That right there changed my life. All of a sudden, I’m looking
for ways to fix problems, make improvements, basically get rid
of anything that was stupid. Get rid of waste, they said. Perfect
the operation, they said. So now all of a sudden I’m using my
head, I’m the expert, I’m creating new procedures. There you go,
creating. I guess there’s an art to it, yeah. It’s not like I carved
a Corolla or anything, but I started getting some real pride back.
Before, we didn’t care, we were ashamed to say where we worked.
We’d laugh when we saw a car that came out of here. Now we feel
like, hey, I built that! The place got cleaned up. We stopped fighting. We all wore the same uniforms, even managers. We started
thinking, hey, people are driving these cars, let’s make them safe.
My mark’s all over this plant, like everyone else’s. One year we
did like eight thousand ideas. The job itself wasn’t creative, never
will be, but our job was to be creative. And I guess if you can be
creative in this line of work, you can be creative anywhere (May
2007: 24).
These companies, among others, all have something else in
common. They position talent based on strengths, not weaknesses.
Even the most talented people have weaknesses along with their
tremendous strengths; and since the firm is hiring to produce
for its customers, it has to capitalize on each person’s strengths
and, in effect, make irrelevant—or downplay—his or her weaknesses. This creates an environment of meritocracy, one that does
not squander resources on trying to solve problems but that pursues opportunities. As Peter Drucker explains in The Effective
Executive in Action:
One should waste as little effort as possible on improving areas
of low competence. It takes far more energy and work to improve
from incompetence to mediocrity than it takes to improve from
first-rate performance to excellence. And yet most people—
especially. . .teachers and. . .organizations—concentrate on making incompetent performers into mediocre ones. Energy, resources,
and time should go instead to making a competent person into a
star performer (Drucker and Maciariello 2006: 132).
09/05/07
164
Baker-c11-2
SAMPLE KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATIONS
09/05/07
165
Like a good sports coach, leaders need to work with people’s
strengths, develop and challenge them further, and put them in
positions that downplay their weaknesses. This is no easy task,
which is why coaches of professional sports teams are such a
rare breed of leaders. They do exactly that, day in and day out.
And if one of their team members fails after several attempts,
they usually take the blame, and rightfully so. That is what being
an effective leader is all about. A leader’s job is not to motivate
his or her knowledge workers—they are already highly motivated to perform their best for the firm, the firm’s customers, and
themselves; rather, it is to not demotivate them.
Executives earn the cynicism of their associates. Who starts a
new job with a negative attitude? Knowledge workers, in particular, tend to be fiercely loyal to their chosen profession and
outside ethical canons, but rather less loyal to any one employer.
Loyalty has to be earned, through providing them a fair return and
helping them develop their intellectual capital in an environment
that is conducive to continuous learning and that grants them the
dignity and respect that knowledge workers deserve.
So many leaders actually seem frightened at the thought of
removing command-and-control hierarchies, as if they would be
relinquishing total control over their team. Worse, they believe
the suggestion is the equivalent of giving the team members total
freedom, and will create anarchy in the organization. But I am
not suggesting freedom for people “to do their own thing”; that
is not freedom, it is license. The flip side of freedom is responsibility. That means holding people accountable for the results
they achieve, hardly a prescription for anarchy and chaos. When
leaders feel they need to tightly control a knowledge worker, they
have made a hiring mistake.
There is no better way to demoralize knowledge workers than
to have them perform duties that interfere with the tasks they are
qualified to do. In all probability, the best way to increase the
effectiveness of most knowledge workers is by removing various
tasks that distract them from their core specializations. We do not
165
Baker-c11-2
166
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
want surgeons piercing ears or nurses spending half of their time
completing paperwork (a common complaint). Most knowledge
workers could stop doing approximately one-fourth of the tasks
with no demonstrable loss of value, according to Peter Drucker.
This is precisely why Jim Collins writes in Good to Great: “‘Stop
doing” lists are more important than ‘to do’ lists. This leads us to
two other rituals companies engage in that may very well be past
their sell dates with respect to dealing with knowledge workers.
PERSONALITY TESTING AND PERFORMANCE
APPRAISALS
I am combining these two tools together since they have the same
antecedents, are widely used by companies around the world, and
each lack empirical evidence endorsing their effectiveness. Once
again, Peter Drucker was among the first to point this out:
Appraisals, as they are now being used in the great majority of
organizations, were designed by the clinical and abnormal psychologists for their own purposes. The clinician is a therapist trained
to heal the sick. He is legitimately concerned with what is wrong,
rather than with what is right with the patient. He assumes as a
matter of course that nobody comes to him unless he is in trouble.
The clinical psychologist or the abnormal psychologist, therefore,
very properly looks upon appraisals as a process of diagnosing the
weaknesses of a man (Drucker 1993: 83–84).
Personality testing possesses the same history. Companies use
these tests for a variety of purposes, such as employment screening, assessing leadership potential, fostering corroboration and
teamwork, and so on. The most widely used is the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI), created by Pennsylvania housewife Isabel
Myers. This particular test is utilized by 89 percent of Fortune
100 companies, given to 2.5 million people each year to identify
strengths and enhance teamwork. She thought the test could bring
about world peace. The Minnesota Multiphase Personality Inventory (MMPI), was developed in 1946 to sort mental patients
09/05/07
166
Baker-c11-2
PERSONALITY TESTING AND PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS
09/05/07
167
into diagnostic categories. It was then expanded in an attempt
to describe normal people. A 2003 survey conducted by Management Recruiters International discovered that 30 percent of
companies administer some sort of personality test, equating to
between 5,000 and 6,000 companies and 5 million people annually. Of course, popularity does not imply scientific validity.
What’s worse, most companies keep these tests confidential so
the data cannot be scientifically tested to determine effectiveness.
These tests are also popular among consultants, who are paid
good money to administer them in a convivial atmosphere. But
the fallacy is that the tests measure what we’re like and who
we are, not what we know, believe, or what we can do. They
confuse labeling personality with understanding it. These tests
are reassuring confirmations of what people already know about
themselves, what psychologists call the permanency tendency.
They also tend to validate the positive characteristics we all
believe we possess, the so-called Pollyanna principle. Companies might as well bring their people together to play with Ouija
boards, which are equally entertaining while having roughly the
same empirical validity. Annie Murphy Paul, former senior editor
at Psychology Today, has written a scathing indictment against
these tests, labeling them modern-day phrenology, in her book
The Cult of Personality Testing: How Personality Tests Are Leading Us to Miseducate Our Children, Mismanage Our Companies,
and Misunderstand Ourselves. Here a few of her more condemning facts:
. . . [A]s many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different
personality type when tested again, and that the sixteen distinctive types described by the Myers-Briggs have no scientific basis
whatsoever (Paul 2004: xiii).
The sly brilliance of using personality test[s] to label employees
is that, by dint of answering the test’s questions, employees appear
to be labeling themselves. . . . Under this banner of respect for individuality, organizations are able to shift responsibility for employee
satisfaction onto that obliging culprit, “fit” (Paul 2004: 129).
167
Baker-c11-2
168
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
And research has found little connection between indicator types
and real-life outcomes. There is scant evidence that MBTI results
are useful in determining managerial effectiveness, helping to build
teams, providing career counseling, enhancing insight into self or
others, or any other of the myriad uses for which it is promoted
(Paul 2004: 134).
In 1968, . . . Personality and Assessment was published. . . . Its
author [Stanford University psychology professor Walter Mischel]
simply pointed out that personality tests don’t do a very good
job of predicting how humans will act. Mischel’s review of the
literature showed that the correlation, or statistical relationship,
between personality tests and people’s actual behavior was only
about .30. This meant that less than 10 percent of the variance in
a person’s behavior was explained by personality as measured by
personality tests (Paul 2004: 184).
Professor Erkko Autio, department of management at HEC
Lausanne in Lausanne, Switzerland, pointed out the same defects
with respect to the current fad of “emotional intelligence” in a
letter to The Economist:
It might interest you to know that not a single serious study
has ever been able to demonstrate a link between “emotional
intelligence” and leadership effectiveness. The most robust and
consistent single predictor of leadership effectiveness is, simply,
intelligence. Emotional intelligence sells well, but scientific evidence supporting it is almost as solid as that supporting the effectiveness of homeopathy (The Economist, August 26, 2006: 14).
Professor Autio is certainly correct in the assertion that intelligent quotient (IQ) is a better predictor of executive effectiveness,
as The Bell Curve has scientifically demonstrated. If you were
confined to learning one number about an individual to predict
their standard of living, you would be hard pressed to find a
better one than their IQ. That being said, companies are not confined to knowing just one thing about their potential or existing
employees. As Rabbi Daniel Lapin, an expert in explaining how
the world really works, teaches us: “You are best understood and
appraised by others on the basis of the things you believe rather
09/05/07
168
Baker-c11-2
PERSONALITY TESTING AND PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS
09/05/07
169
than on the basis of the things you know ” (Lapin 2002: 183). Or,
I might add, rather than on the basis of your personality. Trying
to simplify the spirituality and soul of a human life by labeling
it with a personality type or an IQ is to disregard the uniqueness of individuals, which requires judgment and discernment
far more than measurement. We are better off understanding people’s beliefs if we want to even begin to understand how and why
the Germans of the Third Reich could carry out their murderous
orders in acquiescent servility, or the pilots who flew airplanes
into buildings killing innocent civilians on September 11, 2001.
We will discuss this concept more in Chapter 14.
Companies seem to have the same irrational faith in performance appraisals as they do in personality tests, since more than
90 percent of the academic studies done on this tool contain no
evidence of its effectiveness (Coens and Jenkins 2000: 236). Most
companies and employees are dissatisfied with the performance
appraisal process, so it remains a curiosity why this methodology continues to exist. Consultant and author Peter Block fires
this salvo at the process, in the Foreword to the must-read heretical book, Abolishing Performance Appraisals: Why They Backfire
and What to Do Instead :
Performance appraisal has become more than a management tool.
It has grown into a cultural, almost anthropological symbol of
the parental, boss-subordinate relationship that is characteristic of
patriarchal organizations. Appraisals are undertaken in good faith,
but there is no escape from their basic nature. Their nature is
that the boss takes responsibility for the development of the subordinate and exercises that responsibility through a discussion of
strengths and weaknesses of the subordinate. This is the exercise
of sovereignty, regardless of how lovingly it is done. It makes no
sense to talk of team- and partnership-oriented cultures, which the
marketplace is now demanding, and still hold on to this artifact
called performance appraisal (Coens and Jenkins 2000: xiii).
Appraisals . . . often have money on the table as part of the
discussion, and this brings a weapon into play that gets in the way.
When we combine compensation with a developmental discussion,
169
Baker-c11-2
170
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
we undermine the openness and vulnerability that development
requires, and all our ears can hear is the money (Coens and Jenkins
2000: xv).
Hopefully we can reach the point where we can talk about what
is good for the individual and what is good for the organization
without a coercive dimension to the discussion. We can create
cultures where peers can be accountable to each other and bosses
can be as open in hearing feedback as they are in giving it. This
requires us to choose faith over fear. Faith that most people want
to do well, do care about the institution, and are committed to their
own learning. If some people violate our faith, then deal strongly
with them as an exception, but it is no reason to create low trust
practices for all that are needed for just a few (Coens and Jenkins
2000: xv–xvi).
Tom Coens, one of the co-authors of the book, is a labor lawyer
and does an excellent job in dispelling the myth that appraisals
are necessary for legal protection. The authors also point out these
salient facts regarding the process:
Appraisal is not the system that drives pay, careers, and status;
it is an incidental effect of those dynamic systems. Appraisal is
primarily the paper-shuffling that sanctifies decisions already made
(Coens and Jenkins 2000: 28).
This book is about starting over. Abolishing appraisal is not
the goal—it’s only an obstacle that stands in the way of the goal.
Dropping appraisal gives us new freedom—the freedom to think
in radically different ways about how to unleash the human spirit
in our workplaces. The real goal is building a culture that makes
this possible (Coens and Jenkins 2000: 303).
The appraisal tends to focus on weaknesses and not strengths.
But good leaders—like good coaches—design performance processes and tasks around a person’s strengths, and ignore—or
make irrelevant—their weaknesses. The Peter Principle—which
says that people get promoted to their highest level of
incompetence—may make for funny “Dilbert” cartoons, but in
reality, there is nothing funny about it. We should promote people
based on their strengths, not their weaknesses.
09/05/07
170
Baker-c11-2
PERSONALITY TESTING AND PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS
09/05/07
171
Someone who receives a stellar annual review one year is
subject to the Sports Illustrated jinx; that is, when an athlete
makes the cover of SI one week, he or she usually does poorly
the next. The explanation for this is not a jinx; rather, the athlete
has usually performed at a peak level, which puts him or her
on the cover in the first place. Inevitably, then, the next week’s
performance, even if above average, will fall below the standard
that earned the athlete the original accolade. No doubt we need
to acknowledge superior performance, and even reward it monetarily and in other ways—but we need to take a balanced view
of a knowledge worker’s contribution and development over the
course of his or her tenure with the firm.
Another problem with the process is the “annual” aspect of it;
a year is far too long a time frame to evaluate and give feedback
to any worker, but especially a knowledge worker. In Chapter
12, I propose that organizations should be utilizing After Action
Reviews after every task, which is a process developed by the
U.S. Army and is an excellent tool that facilitates learning, development, and improvement.
Any organization of humans—be it a school, a nonprofit
agency, a governmental unit, or a business—is going to have a
bell curve of high, average, and below-average performers. One
study found wide differences in performance for complex jobs
(e.g., attorneys, physicians, and cartographers), where the top 1
percent of producers generated 2.27 times the output of average producers (Davenport 1999: 66). It is estimated that the best
computer programmers are at least 12 times as productive as the
average. Alan Eustace, a vice president at Google, says that “one
top-notch engineer is worth 300 times or more than the average”
(The Economist, October 7, 2006: 22).
Given human nature, not much can be done about this
distribution, but what we can do is not exacerbate the problem of
below-average workers by designing systems around their weaknesses at the expense of placing a ceiling over the heads of the
superior performers. Public schools do this all the time. They
171
Baker-c11-2
172
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
“dumb down” the standards for the slowest learners, while letting
those with above-average abilities stagnate and get bored. A business organization should not do this to spare the feelings of the
less effective team members; rather, it should design processes
and compensation systems that take into account different levels
of performance. As Thomas Jefferson said, “There is nothing less
equal than treating nonequals equally.” Not adequately rewarding
your high achievers is a prescription for their defection, as it is
precisely the high achievers who are the most desired workers of
your competitors. Over 71 percent of the firms in the Inc. 500
list of young, entrepreneurial, and fast-growing companies were
started by individuals who duplicated or modified innovations at
their former employers (Lev 2001: 13).
If you want high performers, you have to be willing to pay for
them commensurate with the value they create, and this requires
that companies stop viewing jobs as caste systems—as if there
were a union pay scale depending on the job classification—and
start rewarding the value of your team members’ human capital
contributions. Firms should strive to create a meritocratic environment that rewards risk taking and innovation, rather than rigid,
stultifying union-type jobs that reward seniority, mediocrity, and
complacency. It is not uncommon, for example, for salespeople
working the floor of Nordstrom to earn over $100,000 per year;
as they say, “Your performance is your review.” Why do organizations insist on putting artificial ceilings over the heads of their
team members, therefore defining performance standards down?
Remove those barriers and allow your team to reach for new
opportunities and heights.
Promotions are another signaling device to your team members, who watch very closely the behaviors that are rewarded
when someone advances. Be careful who you promote and what
behaviors they display, since what gets rewarded gets done. If it
is based on cleverness, flattery, or politics, then the firm is destined to sink to those traits, since they’ll be perceived as the way
to get ahead. Once again, most likely the best question executives
09/05/07
172
Baker-c11-2
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUING EDUCATION
09/05/07
173
could ask themselves before promoting someone is whether they
would want their son or daughter to work for the person.
Public recognition of high performance is also a cultural trait in
most successful companies, such as Disney, Toyota, and FedEx.
The distribution of rewards must be done publicly, and they must
be considered credible and meaningful. An old military saying has
it that a man wouldn’t sell his life for $1 million, but will gladly
risk it for a ribbon or Medal of Honor. Super Bowl champions
display their rings with pride, long after the money they earned
has been forgotten.
Business is based on performance and results, not personality
traits and rankings on stale performance appraisals. The knowledge organization of the future must rethink these antiquated
systems and replace them with more effective methodologies.
This brings us to another area critical for the development and
inspiration of knowledge workers: continuing education.
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUING EDUCATION
Learning is not something that requires time out from being engaged
in productive activity; learning is the heart of productive activity. To
put it simply, learning is the new form of labor.
—Shoshana Zuboff, professor for leadership, ethics, and corporate
responsibility at Harvard University Graduate School of Business
Nobel Prize–winning economist Gary S. Becker, a leader in developing human capital theory, writes, “I focus on the allocation of
time to three activities:
1. The production of nonmarket commodities (nonmarket time);
2. The production of human capital (investment time);
3. The production of earnings (labor market time)” (Becker
1980: 5).
Knowledge organizations must have a healthy respect for these
three categories, so as not to make their team members feel as
173
Baker-c11-2
174
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
if they are not spending enough time in the production of earnings when they are investing in their human capital. In spite
of this, is there any doubt that most organizations underinvest in
Becker’s second category in ruthless pursuit of his third category?
The American Society for Training and Development figures that
the average number of hours spent in a classroom for the average American worker is 26.3 (Peters 2003: 259). The average
company spends between 1.5 to 3 percent of payroll expense
on education. Of course, organizations don’t learn, people do.
An organization’s capacity for learning is limited by its people’s capacity to learn, or what industrialists call the absorptive
capacity of the firm.
I have the good fortune to speak to thousands of owners of
professional knowledge firms who confirm that they don’t spend
more than the minimum on their people’s continuing professional
education. For certified public accounts (CPAs), this equates to
80 hours every two years. According to the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants, the average CPA firm spends just
.8 percent of its revenue on continuing education, approximately
equal to what is spent for broadband internet service. However,
companies like Accenture, the Big Four accounting firms, and
consulting houses such as McKinsey, Bain & Co. spend approximately 6 percent of their gross revenue on education. How else
do companies expect to increase the human capital and effectiveness of their knowledge workers if they don’t invest in continuous
learning? Sure, they can invest in technology or a better widget
machine, but those are merely tools. They are the equivalent of
having restrooms in your building, not competitive advantages
that enable you to do better than your competitors. What counts
is what knowledge workers know this year that they didn’t know
last year that is more valuable to the company or its customers.
Today, there are over 2,000 corporate universities—from
Merck, 3 M, and Toyota, to Disney, McDonald’s, and GE—
validating the importance of education driving corporate strategy.
As Peter Drucker said,
09/05/07
174
Baker-c11-2
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUING EDUCATION
09/05/07
175
I think the growth industry of the future in this country and the
world will soon be the continuing education of adults. Nothing else
is growing as fast. . . . I think the educated person of the future
is somebody who realizes the need to continue to learn. That is
the new definition and it is going to change the world we live and
work in (Beatty 1998: 147).
One of the objections to investing more in people’s education
is “they will leave—and possibly become an even stronger competitor.” This is no doubt true, although a company faces the risk
of their leaving anyway. In fact, based on the evidence, there is
an increasing probability of people’s leaving if you do not invest
adequately in their education. But let us deal with the objection
directly, since we hear it so often. Let me pose a better question:
What if you do not invest in their education and they stay? The
problem with this cost is it is hidden, since it does not show
up anywhere on the company’s internal measurement systems. I
posit to you that this loss far exceeds both the cost of education and the risks of people leaving. Professor and management
thinker Henry Mintzberg is quite unforgiving on this issue: “Why
invest in people who might leave? I reverse this: If that is the
organization’s attitude, then its people will be inclined to leave!
. . . Any organization that balks at investing less than half a year’s
salary to improve the practice of its managers through education
deserves the turnover of managers it probably gets. My advice
to good managers in such situations is to find an employer who
respects their talent” (Mintzberg 2004: 244–245).
Education highlights yet another problem for those faithful to Taylorism. When we are learning something new, our
productivity—based on outputs relative to inputs—deteriorates,
sometimes quite significantly. I know this from personal experience. When I was employed by a then–Big Eight accounting
firm in the mid-1980s, I had a habit of putting my feet up in my
cubicle and reading books. When partners or managers would
wander by, they incredulously asked me if I was okay, following the advice of Ralph Waldo Emerson: “If a man sits down to
175
Baker-c11-2
176
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
think, he is immediately asked if he has the headache.” I simply
responded I was taking a mental break by reading. There was
never a pleasant conclusion to these conversations, and I usually
ended being assigned more work since I obviously had too much
free time. What might have been a better question in a knowledge organization? What was I reading? How was it relevant to
the firm or its customers? I wasn’t reading a Harlequin romance
novel, but usually some business or economics book that was
quite relevant to our work, yet you’d never know it by the attitude of my superiors. In fact, one of the books was the inspiration
for the one you are holding (The Economy in Mind , by Warren
T. Brookes). I am convinced I never could have written any of my
books while employed at an accounting firm, since it would have
decimated my billable hours and realization rates. What a sad
commentary for a profession that supposedly is full of knowledge workers, lending even more credence to Dan’s argument
that they are really nothing more than modern-day factories that
haven’t given up the ghost of Taylor.
Since knowledge workers tend to be highly competent people
with high self-respect and sense of accomplishment, learning something new requires the admission of incompetence and substandard
performance—not a pleasant state of affairs. It is similar to learning a new software program; there is an inevitable reduction in
performance until the learning curve has been climbed and performance begins to exceed the prior peak. Those companies without
a myopic focus on short-term efficiency and earnings are the ones
most likely to attract and inspire the knowledge worker, such as
Singapore Airlines—that overtook Southwest Airlines in market
capitalization in 2006—which requires 11 days of education annually. By comparison, the average CPA and lawyer in the United
States does approximately five days of education annually. Singapore’s elder statesman Lee Kuan Yew used to say, “Trained talent
is the yeast that transforms a society and makes it rise.” This is also
no doubt true in companies with knowledge workers.
09/05/07
176
Baker-c11-2
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUING EDUCATION
09/05/07
177
The Container Store, a chain of eclectic retail stores enabling
customers to organize their lives, has been named one of Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work For from 2000 to 2007.
According to its Web site:
Customer service is The Container Store’s core competency, so
hiring people who are self-motivated and team-oriented with a
passion for customer service is key. We place so much importance on service that every first-year, full-time salesperson receives
about 241 hours of training—in a retail industry where the
average is about seven hours. And training continues throughout an employee’s career (www.containerstore.com/careers/store
Experience.jhtml, visited March 18, 2007).
Turnover at the Container Store is approximately one-third the
industry average for salespeople and one-sixth the industry average
for managers. According to president Kip Tindell: “A funny thing
happens when you take the time to educate your employees, pay
them well, and treat them as equals. You end up with extremely
motivated and enthusiastic people” (Low and Kalafut 2002: 171).
We return to the topic of education in Chapter 12, where we
explore corporate universities. Before we leave, though, one more
important distinction needs to be made with respect to education, especially in the context of knowledge workers. There is an
enormous difference between training and education. The former
deals with specific skills, while the latter deals with understanding, wisdom, and self-understanding. Dogs can be trained, too,
which is why education is not simply a matter of someone’s
pouring knowledge into another’s head. Educere, the root of
educate, means to “draw out,” not to stuff in, and the ultimate
responsibility rests with the willing student, not the educator. As
my VeraSage colleague Paul O’Byrne is fond of saying: “When
my daughters were 12 years old, I was very happy that they
had sex education, but training would have been a different
thing!”
177
Baker-c11-2
178
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
WHAT ABOUT WORK-LIFE BALANCE?
Work-life balance is politically correct for “slacker.”
—Daniel D. Morris, founder, VeraSage Institute
An enormous amount of ink has been spilled on this topic, usually along with the different characteristics of the Baby Boomers
and Generations X, Y, and Z. One reason for this increased attention is that there are simply more generations interacting in the
workforce today than in the past. One reason is life expectancy.
The average knowledge worker today will outlive his employer,
with an average active work life of approximately 50 years compared to the average organizational life of 30. This translates into
the average worker today having many more jobs—and even
careers—than those of his ancestors a century ago. This is why
management thinker Charles Handy uses the metaphor of a “portfolio life”—putting together a packet of different jobs, clients,
and types of work. He dismisses the very concept of work-life
balance as misleading “because it implies that work and life are
two different things. Portfolio thinking holds that most of life is
work, some of it boring, some lucrative, some worthwhile in its
own right. It is the ‘work balance’ that matters” (Handy 2006: 99).
Having the opportunity of a portfolio life is not determined by
the year one was born, but the economic conditions one inhabits.
We all stand on the shoulders of our ancestors. John Adams,
America’s second president wrote: “I must study politics and
war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and
philosophy and they in turn must study those subjects so that their
children can study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary,
tapestry, and porcelain.” In an intellectual capital economy there
is a far greater range of talents that can be rewarded. America’s
best-paid chef, Wolfgang Puck, earned $16 million in 2005 while
Takeru “Tsunami” Kobayashi earned more than $200,000 a year
for holding the title of the world’s hot-dog eating champion (in
The Economist, October 7, 2006: 23–24).
09/05/07
178
Baker-c11-2
WHAT ABOUT WORK-LIFE BALANCE?
09/05/07
179
It may be an interesting academic exercise to create lists of the
differences between the Baby Boomers and Generations X, Y,
and Z, but knowing the personality traits between the generations
does not necessarily assist a company in attracting or inspiring its
knowledge workers. The real difference between the generations
is that today’s knowledge workers own more of the means of
production in their heads than ever before, which gives them
enormous market power in the economy. They also understand
this fundamental fact better than their predecessors.
Organizations can lament the fact that Generations X, Y, and Z
are not as loyal as their parents, but the fact of the matter is loyalty
is a two-way street; it must be earned. No business deserves any
loyalty, either from its customers or its associates, until it does
something to earn it. Loyalty is not dead in the business world,
but a reason to be loyal may be. The real question is, does the
organization deserve the loyalty of its workers?
Dr. John Sullivan, who runs the human resources (HR) management program at San Francisco State University, whose Web
site (www.drjohnsullivan.com) lists him as an “Author, Speaker,
Corporate Advisor, Educator,” is a refreshing voice in the field of
“human resources.” As an outspoken critic of socialism and egalitarianism, his views fly in the face of the conventional wisdom
that festers deep in the souls of HR departments, with articles
titled “Is Your HR Department Unwittingly A ‘Socialist’ Institution.” He explains his philosophy:
I’m a capitalist, not a social worker. Too many companies spend
too much time trying to ‘fix’ their mediocre performers. They
should spend more time recruiting and retaining great performers.
It’s like in sports. If your basketball team has Shaquille O’Neal,
you’ve got a good shot at the title every year. But two six-foot-tall
guards will never equal one seven-foot Shaq. It’s HR’s job to go
out and find lots of Shaqs—and then to create a system that allows
them to shine. Of course you need a ‘system.’ But a system without
stars is not going to win” (Taylor and LaBarre 2006: 200).
179
Baker-c11-2
180
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
You can see from whence Sullivan gets his best line: “Stars
don’t work for idiots.” This is corroborated by the Gallup Organization’s long-term study that finds an employee’s relationship
with his or her immediate supervisor is more important than pay
or perks in determining turnover (Low and Kalafut 2002: 161).
As I learned from the course at Disney Institute: “People don’t
leave companies, they leave bosses within those companies.”
In a spasm of inspiration, my VeraSage colleague Dan Morris
penned this shot across the bow of the ship of work-life balance
on the VeraSage Institute’s community blog:
The thought just hit me. Merging a CBS News report I watched this
morning about how slackers cost American businesses over $500
billion in lost efficiencies per year (I won’t quibble with the
estimate—even if it is a hyperbole of statistical abuse, the amount is
clearly significant) and the book I was reading (Juicing the Orange
by Pat Fallon and Fred Senn 2006) where these advertising executives were writing about connecting, in a global climate, a common
business theme—they were writing about United Airlines and their
ad campaigns and as an aside, I can’t stop playing that damned
Gershwin song in my mind as I write this so I guess something
must be working—and how Americans are business and productivity focused while Europeans are more work-life balanced.
And it struck me. Maybe that is the problem with this incessant
discussion about how people desire a work-life balance; in as much
as column inch after column inch of professional literature has
been dedicated to this topic along with hour upon pabulum (and
mundane) hour of seminars—led by the modern day charlatan the
“executive coach”—has pummeled this mantra of this generation
or that generation requiring greater work-life balance or they will
leave firms for better pastures. Work-life balance is for slackers.
This concept of stressing work-life balance is pure poppycock.
It is just a concept that says people want an excuse to be slackers.
What people really need is not more balance but more extremes.
The human capital issue isn’t one of balancing but one of creating
extreme opportunities. People simply require a passionate reason
to bust their butt on or for something and then to go play just
as hard. The X-Games have street luge and it is not for the faint
of heart or thin of skin. In this context of leveraging our human
09/05/07
180
Baker-c11-2
WHAT ABOUT WORK-LIFE BALANCE?
capital, the extremeness of the sport is an example of a generation’s
demand from themselves to achieve success. Street luge is not for
slackers. Work-life balance is for slackers.
It is not balance one seeks. It is opportunity. The opportunity to
strut, to stretch, to leap, to fail, and to succeed. All at supersonic
speed and with the bounding energy of a leopard in pursuit of her
dinner. This drive is transferred into their pleasures. Rave parties.
Extreme sports. Exotic vacations. All-night gaming. These up and
comers—they work hard and they play hard. Work-life balance is
not in their vocabulary. Work-life balance is for slackers.
And if balance is not what they are seeking, working to bring
more of it only leads to certain failure. Unless the definition of
balance is merely the mathematical concept of average or the economic concept of equilibrium, balance is clearly the incorrect word
and if words matter at all, the wrong word communicates the
wrong concept. Words matter. Work-life balance is for slackers.
So what are we (leaders) to do? First, recognize that work-life
balance simply means the socialization of work. I do not want to
work with socialists. I want to work with stars . . . and superstars at
that. I enjoy associating with people that push the envelope—theirs
and mine. I do not learn from slackers and success requires a
learning culture. So lets hang out the “No Slackers Here” sign.
Work-life balance is for slackers.
Leaders should determine how to push their human capital to
achieve greatness. That means leaders have to understand their
human capital and learn where they want to go and to grow. Then
develop work and projects that catapults them further along their
careers than they have any right to anticipate. Stop worrying about
balance—balance is for tires. Think about extremes. Stop pandering to slackers. Great minds and great workers don’t want to hang
with slackers. Slackers are dead-weight anchors and need to be
released to the competition. Work-life balance is for slackers.
That means it is just fine to set impossible deadlines. It is critical
that their acumen, creativity, stamina, and quest for excellence are
tested. Tested to the brink of failure. Then after they deliver, their
leader sends them packing into some X-Game style adventure or
pleasure opportunity with the only charge to “recharge” and get
ready for the next “shock wave of working adventure.” Slackers
need not apply.
09/05/07
181
181
Baker-c11-2
182
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
Every summer the news and trade press discuss the vacation
and work policies of Europe versus the United States. This comparison includes days off, holidays, breaks, benefits, and the like.
And the media promulgates that something must be wrong with
the American way. Yet each and every year, the leading indicators
surrounding productivity, patents, innovation, income, and overall opportunity are not pointed towards the slacker socialists, but
instead to those damned unbalanced capitalists. Slackers don’t create; they waste resources, are inefficient, and interfere with success.
Work-life balance is for slackers.
Here is to all of those overworked and under-balanced stratospheric human capital investors out there. Do not look for balance—
that leads to mediocrity. Search instead for opportunities to excel
in both business and in life. For truly then will you find blue skies
over that personal rainbow. And leave the slackers behind (www.
verasage.com/index.php/community/comments/work life balance
is pc for slacker/, visited March 24, 2007).
Dan has a point here. The opposite of work is not leisure, it
is idleness. In a knowledge organization we should not confuse
being busy with being profitable. The commitment level of a
knowledge worker exists in their hearts and minds, which cannot
be measured. As Homer Simpson explains to his daughter Lisa:
“If adults don’t like their jobs, they don’t go on strike. They
just go in every day and do it really half-assed.” This attitude
is significantly more possible than it was during the Industrial
Era where a worker’s output was determined by the rhythm of
an assembly line. Organizations are still struggling with this new
reality, given that the ghost of Taylorism is embedded in the
theories of many leaders, a form of negative human capital.
NEGATIVE HUMAN CAPITAL
The first book in the Intellectual Capitalism Series, Pricing on
Purpose, discussed Baker’s Law in terms of customer selection:
Bad customers drive out good customers. Two corollaries to that
law are: bad team members drive out good ones, and bad leaders drive out good team members. Bad team members have a
09/05/07
182
Baker-c11-2
NEGATIVE HUMAN CAPITAL
09/05/07
183
toxic and demoralizing influence on the performance of an organization. It is never easy to admit a hiring mistake, but when
it is necessary to fire a knowledge worker, in a lot of cases, it
is because the hiring decision was wrong in the first place. The
onus is on the company’s leaders to decide who sits on the bus,
to use Jim Collins’s analogy; and if they are on the wrong seat
on the bus—because they are displaying weaknesses rather than
fully utilizing their strengths—then the leaders must move them
to a different seat. All firms need good people, which means they
must understand precisely what it is they are good for. In today’s
competitive market for talent, we must try to inspire human capital investors by finding responsibilities where their strength can
be put to the highest use. That onus is also on the firm’s leaders,
and they should take it seriously.
If the virtuous circle that FedEx’s slogan—People-ServiceProfits—embodies is true, and I believe it is, then we simply
have to put the good of the firm’s people first, even at the expense
of customers. When it comes time to let substandard performers
go, it is a task that must be carried out with dignity, respect, and
precision (sometimes a surgeon must cut in order to cure). We do
people no favors when we let them languish in a job they are not
capable of performing well or for which they have no heart. How
do you know when it is time to let someone go? Ask yourself if
you would hire this person again. Think how you would feel if
this person came to you and said he or she was leaving to pursue
another opportunity.
It is simply unacceptable to other team members to keep people in the firm who are not meeting expectations. The negative
morale effects are significant, and will ripple throughout the company. Poor performers are not good role models, do not make
good mentors, and may even be damaging customer relations.
If the leaders don’t make these tough decisions regarding the
most important form of intellectual capital in their firms, who
will? To keep poor performers in place is to risk the future of
the firm. Comedian Steven Wright once sardonically noted, “The
183
Baker-c11-2
184
DEVELOPING AND INSPIRING KNOWLEDGE WORKERS
problem with the gene pool is, there’s no lifeguard.” In a knowledge organization, the leaders and executives are the lifeguards,
and it is incumbent upon them to make sure the firm’s genes
are healthy. This is also why many companies involve the entire
team in making hiring decisions (and even hold them accountable for new team member performance, as well as it being a
promotion criteria). Better to have many lifeguards surrounding
the pool than just a few.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to
do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.
—Steve Jobs, founder, Apple Computer
We have covered a lot of ground in this chapter, and rightfully
so, since human capital is the most important component of the
business of the future’s intellectual capital. It is time for leaders
to stop viewing employees as simply problems, procedures, and
costs. People are not assets, inventory, or resources; they are
individuals entitled to a sense of mission and purpose in their
lives, who congregate in organizations to make a difference in
the lives of others. The universal need of every worker is to
perform meaningful work, in a community with others of like
mind to make a difference in the world. This is the lesson of the
not-for-profits, to which all firm leaders need to pay heed. The
real aspiration of a firm is to make people better, not just make
them better off .
Characteristics like passion, desire, obsession, motivation, innovation, creativity, and knowledge may not show up anywhere on
financial statements, but they are the traits that will ultimately
determine the fate of the firm. Knowledge work is nonlinear and
not subject to the cadences and rhythms of an assembly line,
nor the time-and-motion studies of a Frederick Taylor. Rather, it
moves by iteration and reiteration. We simply cannot treat people
09/05/07
184
Baker-c11-2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
09/05/07
185
as if they are machines that supposedly check their minds and
emotions at the door when they enter work. We must stop thinking in terms of management and operational efficiency metrics.
Knowledge workers deserve better than these outdated modes of
thinking.
Once again, Charles Handy has offered a splendid metaphor
that I believe is applicable to knowledge workers and every topic
covered in this chapter. It is worth letting him express it in his
own eloquent words:
Go to the theatre, I say to my readers and listeners. Look first
at the programme as you wait for the curtain to rise. Everyone
connected with the performance is listed, no matter how small their
contribution. People like to be recognized as individuals. Theatre
companies don’t talk of their actors as human resources—none of
them would work for them if they did. Look more closely at that
programme. The word ‘manager’ is reserved for those in charge
of things, not people, the stage manager, the lighting manager.
Nor are the names of these managerial people in large type; that
distinction goes to the people who are in direct communication
with the customer, the actors, and they are directed, not managed,
by someone who actually leaves the scene once the project is under
way. He or she trusts the cast to go it alone and, as often as not,
they improve on the production once the director departs. Trust
inspires. One more thing—at the end of each performance they
receive an expression of appreciation from their audience, direct
feedback from the people who matter. No waiting for the annual
performance appraisal (Handy 2006: 188–189).
Knowledge workers want to take pride in their work; they want
to do a good job for their firm, its customers, and for themselves;
and they want to grow and reach new possibilities in the process.
It is the firm leaders that will determine the fate of human capital
investors. Attracting, developing, rewarding, and inspiring human
capital volunteers is the single most important role of leadership.
185
Baker-c11-2
09/05/07
186
Baker-c12-2
09/05/07
12
STRUCTURAL CAPITAL: IF ONLY WE
KNEW WHAT WE KNOW
The only irreplaceable capital an organization possesses is the
knowledge and ability of its people. The productivity of that capital
depends on how effectively people share their competence with those
who can use it.
—Andrew Carnegie
Between 1644 and 1737, in the small northern Italian town of
Cremona, lived Antonio Stradivari, who made over 1,000 violins, violas, and cellos; a harp; and a couple of lutes that bear
his famous name. These instruments are the most sought-after,
and expensive, in the world, regularly selling in the millions of
dollars.
Today, even with all the advances in modern technology—with
our precision equipment, lasers, computer-aided design, and analytical machinery—and notwithstanding gallant attempts by
researchers for over a century, we still cannot replicate the musical quality of an instrument handcrafted over 300 years ago.
The knowledge—known as “the Stradivarius secret”—has been
lost.
According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), it has lost the knowledge of how it got to the
moon. As one NASA manager admitted, “If we want to go to
the moon again, we’ll be starting from scratch because all of that
187
187
Baker-c12-2
188
STRUCTURAL CAPITAL: IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT WE KNOW
knowledge has disappeared. It would take at least as long and
cost at least as much to go back” (DeLong 2004: 11–12).
This process of creating and losing knowledge is nothing new,
with the lost Library of Alexandria by 300 AD perhaps being
the greatest example of lost intellectual and cultural capital in
history. With the so-called Graybe Boom, the average age of
the workforce in the rich world is increasing at the same time
many of the Boomers are anticipating retirement, making them
the first wave of knowledge workers to do so. Here are some of
the pertinent statistics:
Within the European Union the number of workers between 50 and
64 years of age will increase by 25% over the next two decades,
while those between 20–29 will decrease by 20%.
Nearly 20% of Japan’s population is already over age 65, the
highest percentage in the world.
In the United States, workers between 55–64 will have increased
more than half this decade, while 35-44-year olds decline by 10%
(The Economist, February 18, 2006: 65).
Between 1998 and 2008 in the United States, the 25–44 cohort
will decrease from 51% to 44%, a 3 million decline (DeLong
2004: 11).
Ben Wattenberg, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has written a book challenging the conventional wisdom of
the so-called “population bomb.” The real demographic story is
the declining birth rate around the industrialized world. Ted Baxter, the pompous anchorman on The Mary Tyler Moore Show ,
said he wanted to have six children so one of them could grow
up and solve the population problem. There is a certain logic
to this reasoning, but not in the way Baxter thought. In his
book Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will
Shape Our Future, Wattenberg makes the following observations,
keeping in mind the caveat of the demographers’ axiom that projections are not predictions:
World population is now 6 billion, which will grow to 8–9 billion,
then decrease, perhaps by many billions (Wattenberg 2004: 8).
09/05/07
188
Baker-c12-2
STRUCTURAL CAPITAL: IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT WE KNOW
09/05/07
189
The United Nations projects a world population of 2.3 billion in
the year 2300, in its “Low” scenario, where its “Medium” scenario
projects 9.2 billion. Economist Julian Simon would ask if we might
lose a Mozart or Einstein (Wattenberg 2004: 149, citing the UN’s
biennial World Population Prospects, www.unpopulation.org).
I figure global population will not go much over 8 billion and
then contract, way below the 15–20 billion forecasts a few decades
ago. Demographic momentum works on the downside just as it
does on the upside (Wattenberg 2004: 112).
The big demographic shifts come from fewer babies, not older
adults (Wattenberg 2004: 118).
In 2000 there were 17 million people in the modern nations
aged 85–99. The projection for 2050 is 62 million (Wattenberg
2004: 121).
Economist Hu Angang of Quinghua University says that getting
old before getting rich is China’s big twenty-first century problem:
“We will have the social burden of a rich country and the income
of a poor country. No country has faced the same circumstances
before” (Wattenberg 2004: 123).
The fact is we don’t really know what happens to an economy
in a sharply shrinking demographic situation. Since the advent of
modern economics, going back at least to the beginnings of the
Industrial Revolution, there is no model for it (Wattenberg 2004:
135–136).
Economist Gary Becker has written that the number of children is an inferior good —that is, the demand for it decreases
as one’s income rises, and economist Julian Simon used to say
that capitalism is the best contraceptive. What do all of these
projections mean for economic wealth creation? As Wattenberg
says, we do not have a model for precipitous population decline
since for at least 650 years, since the Black Plague, the world’s
population has been increasing. One implication may be less disruptive innovations, since throughout history most innovations
in the sciences, math, medicine, and industry were carried out
by individuals with a mean age of 40 years (this is documented
extensively in Charles Murray’s scholarly book, Human Accomplishment, reviewed in Suggested Reading). Demographers call
189
Baker-c12-2
190
STRUCTURAL CAPITAL: IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT WE KNOW
this decrease and aging of the population diminishment —what
French demographer Alfred Sauvy said in the 1930s means “old
people, in old houses, with old ideas.”
Companies lose knowledge from people leaving, forgetting,
retiring, and so on. Knowledge also becomes obsolete and must
be constantly replenished. Given the coming demographic trends,
how can knowledge organizations capture some of that valuable
knowledge before it is lost, like the lost Library of Alexandria?
No one knows what the cost of this lost knowledge might be.
Furthermore, how can companies leverage the knowledge they
do have? According to Betty Zucker of the Gottlieb School of
Management in Zurich, as little as 20 percent of the knowledge
in a company is actually ever used (Brooking 1999: 5).
THE ECONOMICS OF STRUCTURAL CAPITAL
One of the most important distinctions between the three types of
intellectual capital—human, structural, and social—is that structural capital is the only one that is wholly owned by the company.
Thus, it becomes critically important to capture and leverage as
much tacit knowledge as possible from the human and social
sources of intellectual capital (IC). Think of structural capital as
the infrastructure within the company responsible for converting
human capital into wealth for the organization. Economist Sidney Winter describes businesses as “organizations that know how
to do things,” while Karl Weick called institutions “compressed
expertise” (Davenport and Prusak 1998: xiii, 11). Structural capital is what remains with the company after the human capital
goes home at night:
• Organization structure
• Recruitment and remuneration policies
• Management information systems
• Intellectual property (patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc.)
• Documented systems, processes, performance management
systems
09/05/07
190
Baker-c12-2
THE ECONOMICS OF STRUCTURAL CAPITAL
•
•
•
•
•
09/05/07
191
Management contracts
Employee development and education
Proprietary systems
Customer lists and contracts
Supplier contracts
The traditional accounting model also cannot put a cost on the
coming lost knowledge, since it will not show up on the balance
sheets of businesses. Merely retaining employees also does not
help since it only delays the inevitable knowledge drain. No doubt
some of this lost knowledge may very well have some advantages,
as some of it is surely negative IC; after all, we wouldn’t necessarily travel back to the moon with the same technology we used
in the 1960s. Knowledge, like physical and human capital itself,
is subject to obsolescence—people change industries, leave companies, forget, and so on. Alvin Toffler has coined the creative,
if awkward, term obsoledge to describe this phenomenon, pointing out that no one can calculate the costs of degraded decision
making as a result.
Companies can deal with obsoledge fairly easily by replacing
older knowledge with superior knowledge, with, of course, the
concomitant cost increase this implies since education is never
free. Many knowledge organizations have already implemented
so-called “boomerang” policies to hire back former employees.
The Big Four accounting firm of Ernst & Young has approximately 30,000 alumni in its database, and roughly 25 percent of
its new recruits are former employees (The Economist, February
18, 2006: 66). IBM attempts to do the same thing, while in 2003
Procter & Gamble became a founding member of YourEncore, a
company that recruits highly specialized and experienced retirees
from various research and development (R&D) disciplines for
work on a short-term basis for various companies.
But boomerangs and statistical personnel head counts are not
going to be enough. Employee retention and knowledge retention are not the same things. The company must capture the
191
Baker-c12-2
192
STRUCTURAL CAPITAL: IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT WE KNOW
knowledge before it leaves. David DeLong, in Lost Knowledge:
Confronting the Threat of an Aging Workforce, summarizes four
practices companies can use to transfer the tacit knowledge of its
workers so it is not lost for good:
1. Storytelling
2. Mentoring, Coaching, and Shadowing
3. Communities of practice
4. After Action Reviews (DeLong 2004: 102, 110)
Let us now review the first three of these methods and along the
way introduce some other important concepts relating to structural
capital. After Actions Reviews will be discussed later in this
chapter.
Storytelling
Humans are hardwired to tell and listen to stories from our days
of childhood. Plato said, “Those who tell the stories rule society.” Alan Kay, an executive with Hewlett Packard and cofounder
of Xerox PARC says: “Scratch the surface in a typical boardroom and we’re all just cavemen with briefcases, hungry for
a wise person to tell us stories” (Pink 2006: 109). Suburban
Chicago–based StoryQuest was founded to do just that, producing CDs and videos of company personnel to share its purpose,
strategy, and culture. Even the federal government tells stories, or
at least captures them. In the spirit of a Works Progress Administration project from the Great Depression era, the government
has funded StoryCorps, where people can submit their family’s
personal histories, which will be archived at the U.S. Library of
Congress’s American Folklife Center (www.storycorps.net).
Is there a return on investment (ROI) to such a soft concept?
Xerox reports that its repair personnel began to swap stories rather
than creating and reading technical manuals, the stories being collected in a database it calls Eureka. Fortune magazine estimates
that Eureka is worth $100 million (Pink 2006: 107–108).
09/05/07
192
Baker-c12-2
THE ECONOMICS OF STRUCTURAL CAPITAL
09/05/07
193
Mentoring, Coaching, and Shadowing
Like the master/apprentice relationships in the guilds of
yesteryear, mentoring, coaching, and shadowing is probably the
most effective way to transfer deep tacit knowledge. Many companies have some form of mentoring program, but they are
usually not designed with the specific intent of transferring tacit
knowledge, though that might very well be happening at some
level. I have always been skeptical of the effectiveness of these
mentor and coaching programs since the company usually assigns
the mentor. But this is not how mentors are selected, being thrust
upon someone. It is a volitional relationship, one that is difficult to
structure and plan with precision. Perhaps it is time to change the
name of these programs to make their strategy more pronounced
and specific: that of transferring knowledge. Shadowing—the
process whereby a junior worker “shadows” the more experienced
worker throughout the day—conveys a more precise objective.
Communities of Practice
Effective knowledge transfer requires communities of practice
(CoPs) to leverage a firm’s IC. These communities can be created
through intranet sites, blogs (web logs), internal notes, discussion
boards, databases, or Web portals. Each enhances the ability of
knowledge workers to access the knowledge they need, when they
need it. The systems can even have a ranking of the usefulness
of the various knowledge, much the same way amazon.com lets
its customers review, rate, and tag the value of the books it sells.
The blogosphere is an interesting case in point of how knowledge management has evolved from the early days. As of the end
of 2006, The Economist estimated there were 57 million blogs
in existence, while according to Technorati a new blog is created every second of every day. According to Pew, an American
research organization, only 7 percent of bloggers say their main
motivation in launching a blog is to make money. There are,
no doubt, many other intrinsic rewards to blogging: ego, peer
193
Baker-c12-2
194
STRUCTURAL CAPITAL: IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT WE KNOW
recognition, acknowledgment as an expert, communicating with
like-minded people worldwide—the list goes on. There is also
no doubt that a lot of blogs are worth what you pay for them.
That said, viewed through the prism of a method to manage an
individual’s own IC, blogging is quite effective, as it is a place to
store important bits of information and knowledge, while making
connections to the knowledge of others. Some firm executives
I’ve spoken to worry about the effect on productivity from their
workers’ blogging; but this is the ghost of Frederick Taylor. For
starters, knowledge workers are going to blog with or without the
permission of their “superiors,” so firms better get used to the
unexpurgated world of the blogosphere where standards of truth
and honesty are an expected characteristic, and the slick, spun
pronouncements of the public relations department are spotted,
and chastised, instantly. As mentioned earlier, Web sites such as
www.vault.com have sprung up, allowing prospective employees
to read personal accounts of what it is really like to work for the
companies they are considering joining.
CoPs require conversations, collaboration, commitment, connectivity, and capabilities, all of which can be handled effectively
by blogs. Sharing specified knowledge across disperse geographical locations is another function of CoPs, especially in a world
where telecommuting has become more popular. One of the reasons the human capital market is not as effective as the capital
market is that human capital is hard to document and record, like
accounting transactions. Blogs and other types of CoPs allows for
a record to be maintained of the accomplishments and expertise
of individuals. A blog can profile such individual attributes as
education, hobbies, project experience, core competencies, who
the person mentors and is mentored by, papers and books published, and so on. No doubt, in the future there will be software
programs allowing knowledge workers to peer into this type of
information and collaborate with anyone, anywhere in the world,
who has the exact knowledge they need just in time. Too many
09/05/07
194
Baker-c12-2
THE ECONOMICS OF STRUCTURAL CAPITAL
09/05/07
195
companies today reward people for having knowledge, not sharing it, but in a knowledge economy it is the latter that will take
on increasing importance to reap the full potential of knowledge
workers. It must become part of every firm’s culture, an expected
part of their jobs.
For some, this is threatening, since hoarding knowledge has so
often been rewarded by career advancement—the old rule that
knowledge is power. This may have been true in the Industrial
Era, but it no longer comports to the covenants of a knowledge
economy, where sharing knowledge is power. Rather than hoarding knowledge as a way to advance, knowledge workers will more
and more give away their knowledge and watch it expand and
grow, enriching their own knowledge in the process. Paul Arden,
a former advertising agency executive creative director, has some
wonderful counterintuitive advice with respect to this philosophy:
. . . [P]eople are secretive with ideas. ‘Don’t tell them that, they’ll
take the credit for it.’ The problem with hoarding is you end up
living off your reserves. Eventually you’ll become stale. If you
give away everything you have, you are left with nothing. This
forces you to look, to be aware, to replenish (Arden 2003: 30).
Though I am not enamored with the term knowledge management, I will continue to use the term since it is in the mainstream of business lexicon and will make it easier for those of
you who want to further your understanding—by doing more
research—of this important field. Knowledge management (KM)
is, of course, nothing new. Standard operating procedures documented in a manual accomplished the same thing, long before
computers were available. Knowledge exchange exists in every
firm, but the problem is these tend to be ad hoc, imperfect, mismanaged, and underutilized. Codifying knowledge is intrinsically
a human function, since no computer can summarize what is
inputted into it. Thomas Davenport and Laurence Prusak, in their
book Working Knowledge, distinguish between the velocity of
knowledge—the speed at which knowledge moves through an
195
Baker-c12-2
196
STRUCTURAL CAPITAL: IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT WE KNOW
organization—and the viscosity of knowledge—the richness of
the knowledge itself. They also point out that what improves the
velocity may very well dilute the viscosity (Davenport and Prusak
1998: 102).
Firms need to define their key technical know-how in each
department, decide on a place where it should reside, and determine how to articulate it. In their book Unlocking Knowledge
Assets: Knowledge Management Solutions from Microsoft, Susan
Conway and Char Sligar outline the following useful key elements of an effective KM system:
Storage. The system should include a repository to put Knowledge
Assets (KAs). It might also have document tracking and version
control, security, search, and rating capabilities.
Publishing. The system should allow several people to view and
access information while restricting who can create and publish the
information. It might include tracking and search features.
Subscription. The system should allow users to set rules regarding the information that will be automatically “pushed” to them. It
might also be able to differentiate formats for certain participants,
have an updating feature, and so on.
Reuse. The system should provide a many-to-many publishing environment. It might include rating, restricting, and tracking
features.
Collaboration. The system should allow several contributors to
work together to create a single piece of content and manage revision tracking. It might identify experts and their online availability,
discussions, and so on.
Communication. The system should capture and manage all
forms of information exchange, including e-mail, phone, instant
messaging, and face-to-face dialogue, and allow for spontaneous
communication (Conway and Sligar 2002: 17).
It is an axiom of knowledge management thinkers that the best
venue for exchanging tacit knowledge is around the coffeepot
or the watercooler. Informal conversations among employees are
rich with knowledge sharing. The old Industrial Revolution admonition, “Stop talking and get to work,” changes to “Start talking
09/05/07
196
Baker-c12-2
THE ECONOMICS OF STRUCTURAL CAPITAL
09/05/07
197
and get to work” in an organization of knowledge workers. KM
systems do nothing more than take some of this tacit knowledge
and make it explicit by putting it in a location where people can
find it when they need it. In a true KM system, each team member
is a knowledge consumer and a knowledge producer.
Make no mistake, KM is not simply a new technological tool
that can simply be installed into an organization; it is a cultural change in the way IC is perceived, created, shared, and
sold. Adding a sophisticated KM software program to any organization, in and of itself, is not going to create any long-term
sustainable advantage unless the firm also conveys the importance
and expectation of sharing and reusing knowledge. Yet many KM
initiatives are controlled by the information technology (IT) function in many companies and are measured by inputs rather than
outputs. This is probably due to the fact that IT spending can
be measured easier than knowledge codification, and the ROI is
therefore more apparent. Another barrier to an effective KM culture is the ghost of Frederick Taylor. Codifying knowledge takes
time, and on a day-to-day basis businesspeople lead frenetic lives,
making it easier to overlook the importance of documenting what
we know, since each instance is merely a grain of sand on the
scale, a seemingly insignificant contribution to future wealth creation. But knowledge is cumulative, and over time that scale will
tip in favor of accumulating valuable intellectual capital that can
be reused.
My VeraSage Institute colleague Paul O’Byrne is a partner in
O’Byrne & Kennedy, a 12-person chartered accounting firm in
Goffs Oak, Hertfordshire, just to the north of London. Along with
his partner Paul Kennedy, he has taken to heart the message of
leveraging IC, creating a “knowledge bank” within their firm,
wherein everyone is expected to make deposits and withdrawals.
Paul calls this “building our invisible balance sheet,” making the
firm more valuable. Here is what he has to say on the subject of
converting tacit to explicit knowledge:
197
Baker-c12-2
198
STRUCTURAL CAPITAL: IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT WE KNOW
A knowledge worker carries the means of production around in
his own neck-top computer. Many professional firms have a black
hole in their income statement where the IT department spends
money on knowledge management. Now whether knowledge can
indeed be managed is a matter of debate. We are presently on our
sixth iteration of a software solution to capturing, categorizing, and
accessing knowledge, which we call KnowledgeBank. One thing
we have definitely learned over the years of trying to develop our
own system of knowledge management is that it is a cultural, not
an IT, issue.
A variation we have found effective is to make recordings of
ideas and store those in the KnowledgeBank. For example, we may
be with a customer and discussing pricing. It’s all very well for
any of our accountants to assert to customers they should put their
prices up, but what to say? What analogies to bring? What insights
to share? We have over the past four years been video recording
our seminars, stories, and interviews that encapsulate some point
in a memorable (if only a voyeuristic) way.
The greatest challenge in knowledge management seems to us
to be tacit knowledge. Everyone understands the need for procedures, checklists, and precedents and these should indeed be
formalized and shared. But what competitive advantage is there
in that? Indeed, many of us buy these from the same sources, so
there can be no competitive advantage. As many of the public
think: many accountants are all the same.
A firm of knowledge workers worthy of the name is inevitably
differentiated in the application of knowledge and the delivery of
personalized service. This is a challenge for firms: can you only be
good by recruiting brilliant people? Or can you recruit able people
and leverage their skills by recognizing the tacit knowledge of the
most effective practitioners and transferring it to them? But we
don’t know how to do this, or at least we never have. It’s generally
not wise to do so, since the normal insecurity of professionals
means you guard your knowledge in the hope you will be thought
indispensable.
Even if you can overcome the self-interest aspect and get buy-in
to the idea of sharing knowledge, you have to form new habits of
recognizing when we are applying things we “just know,” synthesizing different experiences, insights from our wider reading
09/05/07
198
Baker-c12-2
LEVERAGING IC AND CREATING THE WORLD’S SECOND LARGEST CURRENCY
09/05/07
199
or conversations, and thinking skills that are all examples of tacit
knowledge we need to share, but don’t know how to.
“Red polo syndrome” is the name I gave to the phenomenon that
struck me when my wife bought a Volkswagen Polo. Suddenly,
from nothing, the number of cars of that type on the road—painted
the exact same shade of red—exploded. My wife can be something
of a trend setter, but I had to know that those red cars had been
there all the time, but I never noticed. I wasn’t attuned to seeing
them. I wasn’t sensitized to seeing red Polos until I had an interest
in them.
So it is with knowledge. It’s there, floating around all the time,
but until we had an interest and were desirous of seeing it, we
didn’t notice it, and it passed us by. Now, varying by individual
and how we feel that day, we see knowledge all the time. Sometimes it’s too routine to mention, sometimes not exciting in itself,
but perhaps valuable nevertheless.
Like Paul says, valuable knowledge can exist all around us that
has the potential to create great wealth, propelled by an idea, as
the next section demonstrates.
LEVERAGING IC AND CREATING THE WORLD’S
SECOND LARGEST CURRENCY
“Humorist Art Buchwald gave this advice to Judith Martin (“Miss
Manners”) when she was starting her career at the Washington
Post: ‘Never sell anything only once,’ he told her, explaining that
the material he used in his newspaper columns he repackaged and
resold in hardcover books, then in paperback, then told and sold
again on talk shows and in paid speeches. That’s what distilled
knowledge is all about” (Stewart 2001: 145).
The airlines certainly learned this lesson. Twenty-six years
ago, in May 1981, American Airlines launched the AAdvantage
frequent-flyer program, which has become its own currency as of
late and almost instantaneously duplicated by all airlines. At the
end of January 2006, collectively, almost 10 trillion miles were
unredeemed worldwide by 180 million members, 120 million of
199
Baker-c12-2
200
STRUCTURAL CAPITAL: IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT WE KNOW
which are U.S. residents. Valued at the midpoint market value of
between 2 and 10 cents apiece, the global currency is worth $700
billion, more than all the U.S. dollar notes and coins in circulation (according to www.webflyer.com, accessed March 29, 2007).
These miles are fought over in divorce battles, and two-thirds of
passengers polled said they see their miles as the next best thing
to actual cash. More than one in three Americans now collect
them, and a little more than one-half of all miles are earned on
the ground (through affinity programs with credit cards, hotels,
rental car companies, telephone calls, etc.), generating approximately $10 billion for the airlines in 2001. All this value created
from leveraging a reservation system, plastic cards embossed with
a customer’s name, a frequent-flyer number, and empty plane
seats. This spectacular wealth generation was not created by an
industry that believes it sells commodity passenger seat miles.
More proof that ideas create wealth.
The contrast with “physical” capital could not be more revealing when examining the real leverage embedded in knowledge
organizations. If an airline assigns a Boeing 777 to the San
Francisco–London route, it cannot be used at the same time for
the San Francisco–Tokyo route. However, the airline’s reservation system, which is based on its structural capital and its social
capital (customer and supplier capital, to be discussed in Chapter
13), can conceivably handle an unlimited number of customers.
This is precisely why IC is a nonrival asset, as opposed to physical
or financial capital.
In some instances, structural capital is latent and is not being
used to its full potential. This example from DuPont illustrates
how mature structural capital can be converted to a valuable
product:
[T]he DuPont Company, originally a manufacturer of gunpowder,
was also an early champion of safety programs and safety education. Several years ago DuPont’s CEO asked whether it would be
possible to develop a revenue-producing activity using the Company’s storehouse of safety knowledge. The result is what is now
09/05/07
200
Baker-c12-2
LEVERAGING IC AND CREATING THE WORLD’S SECOND LARGEST CURRENCY
09/05/07
201
called DuPont Safety Resources, which provides safety consulting
services and training courses and sells a range of safety products
(Harrison and Sullivan 2006: 61).
Both Pepsi and Coca-Cola leveraged their manufacturing processes, distribution channels, water use, manufacturing, and marketing to create the bottled water brands Aquafina and Dasani,
respectively. Basic economics teaches that it is very difficult to
sell something someone else is giving away for free, making bottled water an interesting anomaly, especially since water covers
nearly three-fourths of the earth’s surface. This $35 billion worldwide industry continues to grow as water quality concerns and
fitness and health awareness increases.
One of the best examples of leveraging IC to create wealth
was given by a straight man for a very funny woman—Desi
Arnaz, Lucille Ball’s husband. I Love Lucy was certainly one of
television’s first great sitcoms. Arnaz was born in Cuba in 1917,
but it was not until the 1950s that Arnaz took a risk that was
to have an enormous payoff. In return for a salary cut of $1,000
per each of 39 episodes, CBS gave the pair sole ownership rights
over the show, since in 1951 most television shows were shot live
and preserved only on kinescopes. Hence, television executives
back then thought that yesterday’s shows had as much value as
yesterday’s newspapers. I Love Lucy was the first show that was
filmed, not shot live, so there was something worth selling after
the original broadcast was over. Today, half a century later, a
single episode goes for $100,000. Jerry Seinfeld learned from
success, and has banked $225 million from the sale of his show’s
syndication rights. More recently, A&E purchased the rights to
The Sopranos for a reported $162.5 million for 65 episodes, or
$2.5 million per episode.
Considering the wealth inherent to stories and songs, supposedly the most ephemeral of products, it’s not surprising that
Scarlett O’Hara and Rhett Butler are worth far more than cars
made in the same year as the movie Gone With the Wind , 1939.
201
Baker-c12-2
202
STRUCTURAL CAPITAL: IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT WE KNOW
Let us now turn our attention to another method of capturing
tacit knowledge from humans and making it part of a firm’s structural capital, utilizing lessons from the U.S. Army.
KNOWLEDGE LESSONS FROM THE U.S. ARMY
Let your future be lit with the knowledge of the past.
—Sakichi Toyoda, founder, Toyoda Automatic Loom Works,
predecessor to Toyota Motor Company
You always learn by doing, but you also learn by learning, if you
know what I mean.
—Yogi Berra, When You Come to a Fork in the Road, Take It!, 2001
During the month of June 2002, I had two long conversations
with U.S. Army personnel, one an active sergeant in the Army
Reserve, and the second a retired 20-year major, who happened
to be reading the same book I was—Hope Is Not a Method —on
a flight we were on together. We talked mostly about the Army’s
policy of doing After Action Reviews (AARs), which take place
after every training event or mission. Both officers assured me
that the Army’s goal is never to reinvent the wheel—“The Army
never wants to build the same bridge twice” is how one expressed
it. In fact, the retired major expressed his incessant frustration
with his company’s inability to adopt the AAR so as to spread
its knowledge internally (the main objection seemed to be “Why
would we want to waste time doing that?”). Since that discussion
in 2002, I have talked with many other military personnel from
all branches of the service. They are all familiar with AARs,
acknowledging the lasting learning that comes from using this
innovative tool.
The Army’s use of AARs began in 1973, not as a knowledge management tool but as a method to restore the values,
integrity, and accountability that had diminished during the Vietnam War. Thinking back on my own career in public accounting,
I became convinced that the AAR is a practice that would have
09/05/07
202
Baker-c12-2
KNOWLEDGE LESSONS FROM THE U.S. ARMY
09/05/07
203
many salutary effects in a knowledge organization. I began to
think about how well my firm learned from past mistakes, or how
often we would reflect on what we did, rather than just moving on
to the next project. Being generous, I can say there was plenty of
room for improvement. We were not taught how the evaluation is
ultimately more important than the experience. But doing AARs
only decreases the Taylorite productivity statistics with which
executives are so enamored. The average worker is so busy doing
they do not have the time to reflect on what they have done, let
alone discover major breakthroughs. But action without reflection
is meaningless, as the T. S. Eliot poem expresses well: “We had
the experience but missed the meaning.” In Latin, reflect comes
from the verb meaning “refold,” implying the action of turning
things inward to see them in a different way. Reflection without
action is passivity, but action without reflection is thoughtlessness. Combine experience with reflection, and learning that lasts
is the result.
Perhaps we ignore innovations in the military because its
mission—to break things and kill people—is so divergent from
that of a civilian organization. But this is far too parochial an attitude; and once again we discover a useful practice from another
sector. In fact, because the AAR is such a useful method for turning tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, not to mention to
foster learning and sharing of knowledge throughout the organization, I will quote at length from Gordon R. Sullivan and Michael
V. Harper’s book Hope Is Not a Method: What Business Leaders
Can Learn From America’s Army:
An AAR takes place after every training event. Its purposes are
simple: learning, improving, doing better the next time. The participants sit down with a facilitator called an “observer-controller”
who has been with them throughout the event, and they discuss
what happened. To do this effectively requires several things. First,
there must be a fairly good basis for understanding what actually
happened. . . . Soldiers call this “ground truth.” Combined with
ground truth, there must be a fairly unambiguous understanding of
203
Baker-c12-2
204
STRUCTURAL CAPITAL: IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT WE KNOW
what should have happened, and that comes from having standards
derived from doctrine.
Given those elements, it is possible to talk about an event in a
way that focuses on improving team performance without getting
caught up in individual performance, rank, position, or personality.
By asking questions such as “What did you think I wanted you to
do?” (as opposed to questions such as “How did you screw that
up?”), one can get to the roots of both success and failure. This is
not an easy process, and it generally takes a lot of time, maybe two
to three hours to “AAR” a major event. The cost in time alone is
heavy, but the outcome is a much more in-depth understanding of
what happened. The return on investment, measured by improved
performance, is very high.
The most difficult challenge is developing a culture that values
this kind of learning. A colleague in industry once described an
attempt to initiate a similar program in his company. He told me of
a dialogue with a loading dock foreman who, in great frustration,
finally said to him, “Look, I can either ship product or talk about
it. Which do you want me to do?” The answer can only be “Both,”
but it is hard to make that answer a reality. It took a decade for
the AAR process to become respected in the Army, for us to learn
that you can do both—ship product and talk—and that carefully
structured talking leads to more effective shipping or whatever. It
is an investment that no one can afford not to make.
Today AARs take place in garrisons, on staffs, and in
headquarters—everywhere soldiers gather to perform some task.
My personal staff would hold AARs for me after a major event in
which I had participated. I did not especially enjoy discussing the
gaps in my own performance—especially when I felt pretty good
about what I had done—but these AARs helped me improve, and
they helped my staff learn to support me better.
For America’s Army, the AAR was the key to turning the corner and institutionalizing organizational learning. You probably
never become a learning organization in any absolute sense; it can
only be something you aspire to, always “becoming,” never truly
“being.” But, in the Army, the AAR has ingrained a respect for
organizational learning, fostering an expectation that decisions and
consequent actions will be reviewed in a way that will benefit both
the participants and the organization, no matter how painful it may
09/05/07
204
Baker-c12-2
KNOWLEDGE LESSONS FROM THE U.S. ARMY
09/05/07
205
be at the time. The only real failure is the failure to learn (Sullivan
and Harper 1996: 191–193).
Imagine the benefits of having a library of AARs for almost any
type of project, process, or method the company may encounter.
Imagine further creating a culture that rewards knowledge workers for taking the time to contribute to this stock of knowledge,
and perhaps even determines its utility by tracking how many
times particular AARs are accessed by others. Imagine further a
culture that understands AARs are real work, where time is spent
on not just doing the work, but also improving the way work is
done. Perfectionist cultures, however, resist this type of candid
reflection, as they tend to be intolerant of errors, and mistakes are
associated with career risk, not continuous learning. The medical world has an appropriate axiom for mistakes made: forgive
and remember. Jim Collins calls this “autopsies without blame”
(Collins 2001: 88). Fear is another reason for learning not taking
place, as this study demonstrates:
A recent study of errors in administering drugs in hospitals, in fact,
found higher reported error rates in units with greater openness
and more sympathetic management. When environments were less
supportive and errors were associated with blame or discipline—a
search for the guilty, rather than a search for solutions—errors
were much more likely to be hidden or suppressed. Fear does
little to encourage learning (Garvin 2000: 41).
AARs mitigate fear, if they are used not as a method to place
blame but to learn from mistakes so they do not happen again,
and identify best practices so they can be spread throughout the
organization. AARs should not be used for promotions, salary
increases, or performance appraisals. This is an enormous advantage of AARs compared to the annual performance appraisal.
AARs provide instant feedback, where in their absence a supervisor may delay feedback—and hence learning—to a once a year
ritual.
205
Baker-c12-2
206
STRUCTURAL CAPITAL: IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT WE KNOW
Once an organization is comfortable dissecting the performance
after each engagement, it will be better equipped to make plans
and preparations before the next one. As a result, innovation, creativity, and risk taking will flourish as the firm constantly strives
for improvement in an iterative process that respects and rewards
learning. Here are the questions you need to ask in each AAR:
▪
What was supposed to happen?
▪
What actually happened (the “ground truth”)?
▪
What were the positive and negative factors here?
▪
What have we learned and how can we do better next time?
(from the Centre for Army Lessons Learned: http://call.army.
mil, accessed March 30, 2007).
Each team member who worked on the engagement would participate in this process. The AAR is not a tool to fix blame or
point fingers; it is a learning tool, designed to increase the effectiveness of the firm. Its role is to be analytical , not critical . It also
fosters a true team environment and makes everyone responsible
for the success of the engagement; moreover, it is a development
tool that helps leaders to become more engaged in the success of
their teams. If there are shortcomings, the AAR fixes the problem,
not assesses the blame. Even if only one individual completes an
AAR because there was no team on the engagement, it is still an
effective way to spread learning and knowledge to other members
of the firm.
The Army suggests that you divide your time in answering
the AAR’s questions into 25–25-50: That is, 25 percent reviewing what happened, 25 percent reviewing why it happened, and
the remaining 50 percent on what to do about it and how can
you learn from it to improve. The objective is not just to correct
things, but rather to correct thinking, as the Army has learned that
flawed assumptions are the largest factor in flawed execution. An
AAR is more of a verb than a noun. It does not have to be a
formal written report, it can be a conversation held among the
09/05/07
206
Baker-c12-2
KNOWLEDGE LESSONS FROM THE U.S. ARMY
09/05/07
207
team. If the project is large and important enough, a facilitator
is recommended to get the most from the process. The AAR
could be videotaped, audio recorded, or summarized later in a
formal report, any of which could be deposited into the organization’s knowledge bank. The Army also recommends answering
the following summary questions to wrap up the AAR:
What should the organization learn from this experience of what
worked and did not work?
What should be done differently in the future?
Who needs to know these lessons and conclusions?
Who will enter these lessons in the knowledge management
system, or write the case up for future use?
Who will bring these lessons into the leadership process for
decision-making and planning? (from the Centre for Army Lessons
Learned, http://call.army.mil).
Microsoft uses a modified version of the AAR process to do
postmortems on new software releases. Boeing also uses this
method:
Boeing used this approach immediately after experiencing difficulties with its 737 and 747 plane programs. Both planes were
introduced with much fanfare—as well as serious problems. To
ensure that the problems were not repeated, senior managers commissioned a high-level employee group, called Project Homework,
to compare the development processes of the 737 and 747 with
those of the 707 and 727, two of the company’s most profitable
planes. The group was asked to develop a set of “lessons learned”
that could be used on future projects. After working for three years,
they produced hundreds of recommendations and an inch-thick
booklet. Several members of the team were then transferred to the
757 and 767 start-ups. Guided by experience, they produced the
most successful, error-free launches in Boeing’s history (Garvin
2000: 101).
One wonders if Airbus could have benefited from this approach
in the development of its Airbus 380 super jumbo jet?
207
Baker-c12-2
208
STRUCTURAL CAPITAL: IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT WE KNOW
In their Harvard Business Review article, “Learning in the
Thick of It,” Marilyn Darling, Charles Parry, and Joseph Moore
discussed the After Action Review process, and added this interesting tool to it: The Before Action Review (BAR), which they
say “requires teams to answer four questions before embarking
on an important action:
1. What are our intended results and measures?
2. What challenges can we anticipate?
3. What have we or others learned from similar situations?
4. What will make us successful this time?” (Darling et al.
2005: 92).
Toyota’s famous Toyota Production System uses both AARs
and BARs. The former is embodied by the Japanese word hansei
(hahn-say), which means reflection. As Matthew May explains in
his fascinating book on Toyota, The Elegant Solution, the process
is quite solemn:
Hansei is not about confirmation. It’s not about celebration of
success. It’s a sobering reality check, regardless of a project’s outcomes. Were you to attend a hansei meeting following a resounding
success at Toyota, you would be shocked at the tone of the meeting.
It’s stern and serious. Fine, the team greatly exceeded expectations.
Guess what, that means they didn’t understand their process. Their
objectives should have been met (May 2007: 81).
Once again, let us hear from Paul O’Byrne and how his
accounting firm, O’Byrne & Kennedy, utilize AARs:
We were introduced to the concept of After Action Reviews
(AARs) by Ron when he wrote about them in his book, The Firm
of the Future. The concept of reviewing what has taken place with
a view to learning from it makes total sense. Funny that it is so
little practiced. From the moment we read about it, we decided
to embrace this and set about designing a process to capture our
AARs. The idea is to note what happened, consider what clues
there were to its happening (things rarely come out of a clear
blue sky), what we could have done about it, what implications
09/05/07
208
Baker-c12-2
KNOWLEDGE LESSONS FROM THE U.S. ARMY
there are for product or service design or learning, and—often
most valuable—what other things might be like this where we
can apply the lessons learned.
Admittedly, the early days after introducing this were like a
contest for “foul-up of the week.” This was probably inevitable,
as we all tend to focus on things that go wrong, but we wanted to
learn from success, too, and introduced a system whereby for each
“failure” AAR a team member would have to bring in a “success”
AAR as well.
The significance of the AAR process for a firm of knowledge
workers is blindingly obvious. In many organizations it is not
healthy to confess your sins in public, better to hope they are not
spotted. Fortunate for us, the partners in our firm made—and willingly reported—more fouls ups than everyone else put together.
This leadership showed it was okay to admit fault, with the overriding objective one of learning so we can perform better next
time. The sharing of knowledge, whether by means of AARs or
in some other way, is a cultural process. If you believe in your
knowledge workers, why wouldn’t you want them to share their
knowledge? As economists say, knowledge is a nonrival asset: If
I give you my pen, you have it but I don’t; but if I give you
knowledge, you have it and I still have it. Interestingly, we have
discovered that when we exchange knowledge, not only do we
still have it, we often gain a new perspective that enhances it and
makes it more valuable.
One innovative idea that came out of our AAR process was
the concept of “badges.” You remember, from Brownies or Boy
Scouts? Visible recognition of knowledge and skills learned and
tested, lovingly sewn onto your uniform. Part of the context of
knowledge is the ability of the user to use it. Our newest trainee
has needs that are significantly different from our most senior tax
planner. They have different prior knowledge, different technological abilities, different people skills, and they’ll be doing different
work. Our junior recruit cannot possibly do complex tax planning,
and our senior tax planner should not be doing basic tax returns.
But they do (the latter case, I mean). As the team thought about
it, there were lots of instances where this applied, so we set about
mapping work to the knowledge and skills required to perform it.
The point being, until you’ve got your personal tax return badge,
09/05/07
209
209
Baker-c12-2
210
STRUCTURAL CAPITAL: IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT WE KNOW
you couldn’t do all of a tax return unsupervised. Perhaps more
significantly, if you’ve got your advanced tax planner badge, you
have to turn in your personal tax return badge—your human capital is too valuable to be doing work that could be done by someone
else. We see this concept of badges linking back in to our methods for categorizing our knowledge and to our work and resource
planning.
In our role as educators, conducting courses and seminars
around the world, my colleagues and I have always utilized
AARs, usually right after the event (or even during breaks and
lunchtime, to make corrections and improve). By engaging in this
process, we often discover a clearer way to express a thought, give
a better example, or discover a better way of structuring our material. These conversations are constant, effectively transferring an
enormous amount of tacit knowledge between us. Much of this
knowledge finds its way into our books, our blog posts, published
articles, videos, and other forms of our structural capital.
There is enormous value in immediacy here. By the time you
read the attendee evaluations from a seminar, it is too late, you are
reading history, a lagging indicator; and while it can shed some
helpful light on how to improve, it is never as useful as an AAR
would be right after the event. What we want are leading indicators that can help us stay away from obstacles and problems or
deal with them effectively when they do arise. To this day, within
VeraSage Institute, everyone who performs a seminar, speech,
or course, completes an AAR with a team member, which has
resulted in enormous improvements in the way we present ideas
to knowledge workers around the world. Without question, it is
sometimes very uncomfortable to face your performance errors
and mishaps; but how else are knowledge workers supposed to
learn? By getting an annual review? Practical learning demands
hands-on, experiential knowledge that only those closest to the
engagement can capture and share. It’s helpful to remember that
McDonald’s Big Mac, fried apple pie, large fries, McDLT, and
09/05/07
210
Baker-c12-2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
09/05/07
211
Egg McMuffin were all invented by local franchisees, not as part
of a corporate headquarters strategy.
No doubt AARs and BARs take time, and will impair traditional Taylorite efficiency, at least in the short run. Once again,
we can hear the objections from some executives on this note,
who are myopically focused on efficiency rather than effectiveness and learning. Your firm’s IC is the most important source
of its long-term wealth-creating capacity. It must be constantly
replenished and created to build the firm’s invisible balance sheet.
Constantly focusing on doing rather than learning, creativity,
innovation, and knowledge sharing is the equivalent of eating
the company’s seed corn. As Socrates said: “The unexamined
life is not worth living.”
Capturing the tacit knowledge that exists in the heads of your
human capital and making it part of your organization’s structural capital will insure that your firm knows what it knows,
and can deploy it quicker and at a lower marginal cost than
the competition. It is IC that is the ultimate lever in the firm
of the future, and firms have to begin to understand this fundamental economic truth of wealth creation. Sullivan and Harper
summarize the importance and value of converting tacit to explicit
knowledge succinctly:
Earlier we argued that, as we face our external environment, “We
don’t know what we don’t know.” As we face our internal environment, it seems that the opposite is too often true: “We don’t
know what we do know.” As an important organizational asset,
knowledge is usable only if it can be identified and disseminated
so as to contribute value. The challenge is to discover what is
known in any part of the organization and, if it is valuable, make
it known to all (Sullivan and Harper 1996: 206).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
We have explored the necessity of capturing your firm’s tacit human
capital and creating structural capital as a result, which will stay
211
Baker-c12-2
212
STRUCTURAL CAPITAL: IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT WE KNOW
with your firm even if your human capital should depart. We also
discussed why it is so important to leverage your structural capital
to create wealth both for the company’s customers and itself. Pepsi
and Coca-Cola’s bottled water, along with the airline frequent-flyer
programs, are both excellent examples of this process.
Is it not tragic that there are more knowledge workers today in
the labor force than ever before, yet they are not really rewarded
for thinking and reflecting because they are too busy doing and
billing? It shouldn’t be a crime to read a business at work or
write on a blog—let alone conducting an AAR or BAR—but
these tasks require us to shift our focus from efficiency to effectiveness, learning, and adding to our IC. The present unclear focus
sends a mixed message to the firm’s team members: executives
say they understand the importance of IC, innovation, and creativity, but they aren’t really willing to make the investments
necessary to create more of it and to leverage it effectively. Part
of the problem is that our traditional metrics focus on precisely
the wrong things (since the old theory of the firm is itself flawed,
as we saw in Chapter 4), and many companies haven’t taken the
necessary time to study the success of other IC organizations.
In fact, I posit the following argument: most firms’ legacy systems of measurements and reward systems—from productivity,
efficiency, and other production-oriented metrics to our legacy
accounting systems—have actually become negative structural
capital in the context of becoming a firm of the future. As with
negative human capital, these types of antiquated capital must be
extricated from the organization to achieve its latent potential.
Now that we have covered the human and structural capital components of an organization’s IC, let us now turn our attention to
what is perhaps the least leveraged—and perhaps least understood
and underutilized—form of a company’s IC—its social capital.
09/05/07
212
Baker-c13-2
09/05/07
13
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the
continent, a part of the main.. . . Any man’s death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know
for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
—John Donne, English poet
Most people are familiar with Archimedes’s saying, “Give me a
lever long enough, and I shall move the earth.” What is often forgotten is that he also said he needed not just a lever but “a single
place to stand.” Without a solid ground—a family, neighborhood,
a common corporate culture, rules of just conduct, private property statutes, social norms, and customs—we move nothing, we
do nothing, we become nothing. Yet, until recently, social capital
was an area that was largely ignored by businesspeople. We are
just beginning to understand the importance of societal influences
on human behavior and its impact on creating wealth.
Maybe one of the reasons social capital has been unobserved by
businesspeople is the persistent myth that capitalism depends on
rugged individualists, entrepreneurs who constantly challenge the
status quo with new ideas, services, and products that bring forth a
“perennial gale of creative destruction,” driven by an impersonal
“invisible hand.”
But just as no man is an island, neither is any corporation. Buying and selling are activities as ancient as the human race, and do
not have much to do with capitalism. What does make capitalism
213
213
Baker-c13-2
214
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
unique is the fact that it is an organizing ethos, a corporate enterprise, a collective effort. It is far more dependent on social order,
and is more social in nature, than its enemies—or its friends, for
that matter—have yet to understand. The essence of capitalism
is an organizing structure to house the division of labor, division
of purposes, and a division of talents. That organizing structure
is a voluntary association, registered in law as a corporation.
The corporation transcends the life of any single individual, and
it binds people cooperatively across time and space, voluntarily.
Even in biblical times “private property” existed; otherwise,
“Thou shalt not steal” would have been meaningless. Corporate law
was based on the law of the monasteries. The Benedictines were the
first multinational corporations, selling wine, cheese, and honey all
over Europe and the world. As Michael Novak explains:
They also did it, interestingly enough, by being the first to be so
efficient at it that they could live above subsistence. They lived
on their own profits. They were such good farmers that they could
give seven hours to prayer a day. They could work seven hours
and pray seven hours because they were efficient businessman
and they sold across many nations. Corporate law developed out
of monastic law because it was the only model for something that
lived longer than any individual and it was given to something
more than subsistence living (Younkins 2001: 62).
No one raises their children to be rugged individualists. Rather,
we raise them to work, play, and get along well with others of
all different backgrounds. The sociologist James Coleman defines
social capital as
“[T]he ability of people to work together for common purposes in
groups and organizations; the ability to associate with each other,
that is critical not only to economic life but to virtually every other
aspect of social existence as well” (Fukuyama 1995: 10).
A free market economy depends on the voluntary cooperation
of many competing interests, not on the fable of the lone cowboy.
Even Adam Smith understood the importance of social capital
09/05/07
214
Baker-c13-2
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
09/05/07
215
in creating the wealth of nations. In his first book, The Theory
of Moral Sentiments (first published in 1759), Smith’s opening
paragraph begins:
How selfish whatsoever man may be supposed, there are evidently
some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of
others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he
derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it (Smith
2000: 3).
Smith explicitly understood that impersonal market forces don’t
force people to become impersonal. Economic life cannot be
divorced from the customs, morals, traditions, and habits of the
culture in which it exists. Smith poses a thought experiment in his
book that is quite intriguing: Suppose you could save 100 million
people at the expense of losing your little finger. Would you do
it? Most people answer yes, and Smith suggests this proves that
people don’t always act in their selfish and sordid interests, arguing that it is your conscience that made you do the right thing. It
is not love of the strangers, per se, that made you give up your
finger, but the love for the dignity and superiority of your character. We desire the external praise of others, and we desire to
attain the internal respect and praise of ourselves. We ultimately
want to be worthy of our praise—in other words, we desire to
be praiseworthy.
In Oliver Stone’s 1987 movie Wall Street, the Nietzschean antihero Gordon Gekko proclaims, “greed, for lack of a better word,
is good,” as if greed is the pinnacle of virtue for businesspeople.
This view is commonly attributed to Smith. He never said, or
wrote, any such thing. In fact, the term is properly credited to
Bernard Mandeville (1670–1733), a Dutch psychiatrist and pamphleteer. In his work, The Fable of the Bees (1714), Mandeville
claims “private vices are public benefits.” Smith disagreed with
this, calling it “wholly pernicious” and the thesis “erroneous.”
Even more absurd are those who claim that Smith’s theories
are based on impersonal—or psychological—and ethical egoism.
215
Baker-c13-2
216
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
Psychological egoism is the idea that everyone is always motivated to act in their own perceived self-interest, while ethical
egoism is a normative theory about what people ought to do; and
what they ought to do is always act in their self-interest, not concern themselves with the welfare of others. Yet, who subscribes
to these views? Taken to the extreme, this view would prevent
anyone from starting a family—indeed, it would be a dagger in
the heart of family life, marriage, friendship, and brotherhood.
Helplessness may be the only truly universal human experience,
since all of us pass through infancy. The human race would not
have survived one generation if every person acted as if he were
unconnected to any other person. Most parents would die for
their children, and this is not even considered heroic behavior
but, rather, quite ordinary. Couples are subject to what actuaries
call the broken-heart factor: the correlation of the death of one
spouse with that of the other in a relatively short period of time.
These characteristics are hardly those of a greedy, self-interested
population.
The development of human capital (HC) is obviously not an
individual process but a social process. Human skills grow and
develop only if one generation teaches the next, as Alvin Toffler’s
potty training question illustrated. In a knowledge economy, at
some point, your fellow worker’s HC becomes as important to
your earning potential as your own. If he or she is uneducated, a
ceiling will be placed on your potential. Nowhere is the concept
of how social capital affects—negatively in this instance—the
wealth of nations better epitomized than in the cost of the communist experiment. As measured in the loss of HC creation, including
the work ethic, entrepreneurship, habits, customs, risk taking, creativity, and trust, the communist dream is dead. Consider the HC
that has fled Cuba’s negative social capital structure, as told by
British historian Paul Johnson:
In fact, the Cuban community in the United States grew and flourished. By the second half of the 1990s, it had founded 750,000
new businesses, become the richest and most influential political
09/05/07
216
Baker-c13-2
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
09/05/07
217
lobby after the Jewish Lobby, and its 2 million members generated a Gross Domestic Product eleven times larger than that of
Cuba itself, with 11 million inhabitants. Moreover, Miami, center
of the new Cuban settlement, forming links with the entire Latin
American society of the hemisphere, became in many ways its
financial, economic, communications, and cultural center, hugely
boosting American exports in goods and, still more, in services
throughout the western half of the globe. In the long run, then,
the grand beneficiary of the Cuban missile crisis was indeed the
United States (Johnson 1997: 867).
This is precisely why it is often wryly noted that Fidel Castro
did more to develop the southern United States than did air conditioning. It also helps explain why the Spanish philosopher Pedro
Saenz Rodriguez said from exile in Lisbon a dozen years ago, “But
if I wanted the American Constitution to prevail in Spain, I would
import not the Constitution, but Americans” (Buckley 2000: 241).
It is also why, when asked what one book he would put into the
hands of a Russian Communist, then-president Franklin Delano
Roosevelt replied: “The Sears, Roebuck catalog.”
Culture matters. Cultures are not merely customs to be displayed in museums, but rather they are a particular way of accomplishing the things that make life possible. Social influences play
a significant role in shaping human behavior. Economist Milton
Friedman was fond of pointing out “there is no such thing as a
free lunch.” Yet he was the first to concede that capitalism was
the ultimate free lunch, since all of us derive enormous benefits
from the relatively few innovators, entrepreneurs, scientists, and
other giants whose shoulders we all stand upon for our present
standard of living. The value of the many innovations throughout
history accrues far more to their users than their creators. We are
just beginning to comprehend and study the importance of social
capital, and how it affects the development of people’s individual
HC, and indeed their behavior, tastes, and preferences, as we will
explore next.
217
Baker-c13-2
218
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
IS THERE ANY ACCOUNTING FOR TASTES?
Man is a social animal.
—Seneca, De beneficiis
You like bowling; I enjoy golf. You prefer white wine; I savor
red. You always purchase Fords; I purchase General Motors. The
standard explanation for all of these human differences can be
found in the English translation of the Latin proverb: “There’s
no accounting for tastes.” But is that true? How do we acquire
our various tastes? Is it custom, tradition, habit, or something else
that explains individual preferences and why people behave the
way they do? Economist Gary S. Becker has an explanation for
individual preferences that explains a great deal of human behavior. In his book Accounting for Tastes, he argues that, in modern
industrialized countries—where basic biological needs for food,
drink, and shelter have been adequately provided for—the necessities of life have little to do with the consumption habits of the
average person. “Rather,” according to Becker, “these choices
depend on childhood and other experiences, social interactions,
and cultural influences” (Becker 1996: 3).
In addition to the pioneering work Becker has done in the area
of HC, where he has argued that spending on such items as education, training, medical care, and so forth should be classified
as investments, not merely consumption—as governments and
corporations are wont to do—in this book, Becker expanded on
his definition of human capital to embody two additional components:
My approach incorporates experiences and social forces into preferences or tastes through two basic capital stocks. Personal capital , P , includes the relevant past consumption and other personal
experiences that affect current and future utilities. Social capital ,
S , incorporates the influences of past actions by peers and others
in an individual’s social network and control system. A person’s
personal and social capital form part of his total stock of human
capital (Becker 1996: 4).
09/05/07
218
Baker-c13-2
IS THERE ANY ACCOUNTING FOR TASTES?
09/05/07
219
In other words, the fact that you have, for example, smoked
in the past will, more or less, determine your future smoking
consumption—that is now part of your personal capital. But what
made you smoke in the first place? Perhaps it was peer pressure,
which is also part of your social capital, as Becker defines it. We
all understand that word-of-mouth—and, with today’s ubiquitous
World Wide Web, word-of-mouse—advertising is the most effective. National surveys reveal that, three times out of four, most
consumers rely on the advice of friends and family before making
a purchase. Becker’s theory of social capital explains why it is
so powerful:
Men and women want respect, recognition, prestige, acceptance,
and power from their family, peers, and others. Consumption and
other activities have a major social component partly because they
take place in public. As a result, people often choose restaurants,
neighborhoods, schools, books to read, political opinions, food, or
leisure activities with an eye to pleasing peers and others in their
social network (Becker 1996: 12).
Psychologists refer to the principle of social proof , which states
that one means we use to determine what is correct is to find out
what other people think is correct. Social proof is a major motivator of individual behavior, and this explains why organizations
such as weight-reduction clinics rely on public commitment and
peer pressure to change behavior. People who reveal their New
Year’s resolutions to their social peers are more likely to keep
them. It also explains why television executives insist on using
laugh tracks for sitcoms, even though most people say they don’t
like them. Experiments have found laugh tracks cause an audience
to laugh longer and more often than they would in their absence.
Bartenders will often “salt” their tip jars with a few dollars at the
start of each evening to give the impression that tipping is proper
behavior. Advertisers will often tout their product as the “fastest
growing” or “largest selling,” not to convince us the product or
service is good, but only to imply many others think so, which
seems proof enough.
219
Baker-c13-2
220
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
It has been estimated that Tupperware Home Parties Corporation
generates sales in excess of $2.5 million a day from an independent
worldwide sales force of approximately 1.9 million. This success
is easier to understand when you consider that Tupperware parties
are usually thrown by friends rather than unknown salespersons.
With this method, the hostess is relying on the attraction, affinity, warmth, security, and the obligation of friendship to make the
sale. Mary Kay Ash used essentially the same strategy when she
founded her cosmetics company, Mary Kay Cosmetics, in 1963
with her life savings of $5,000. She passed away on Thanksgiving
Day in November 2001, at the age of 83, leaving a legacy with
her corporation, which generated sales of more than $2.25 billion
in 2006, and has generated double-digit growth every year since
its founding. Her company has made more women millionaires
than any other organization in history; after the fall of communism,
it even made headway in Russia. In 1995, Mary Kay’s top Russian sales director earned more money than then-President Boris
Yeltsin. Today, more than 1.7 million independent beauty consultants in more than 30 markets leverage the principle of social proof
to create wealth for their customers, and in turn, for themselves
(http://www.marykay.com/company/company companyinfor
mation.aspx?tab=home, accessed April 1, 2007).
Another important qualification of social proof, as pointed out
by Robert B. Cialdini in his fascinating book, Influence: The
New Psychology of Modern Persuasion, is that, “We will use the
actions of others to decide on the proper behavior for ourselves,
especially when we view those others as similar to ourselves”
(Cialdini 1993: 142). Witness teenagers whom adults tend to think
of as rebellious and independent-minded. However, when you see
them in a group, you realize how much they behave, talk, dress,
and act the same as their friends and associates. They conform
massively to their own peer pressures.
This background on the effects of social influence will help
us explore how today’s knowledge organization can leverage its
social capital to create wealth outside of itself.
09/05/07
220
Baker-c13-2
LEVERAGING SOCIAL CAPITAL
09/05/07
221
LEVERAGING SOCIAL CAPITAL
Noscitur a sociis (“He is known by his company”)
—Latin proverb
Similar to HC—and the opposite of structural capital—a company does not own its social capital; at most, it can influence
and monetize it. A company’s social capital is comprised of the
following elements:
• Customers
• Reputation and brands
• Referral sources and networks
• Suppliers and vendors
• Shareholders and other external stakeholders
• Joint venture partners and alliances
• Industry associations and formal affiliations
• Alumni
• Unions
• Corporate universities
• Open source—mass collaboration
• Cultural, moral, and ethical capital
One of the advantages of looking at a company’s social capital in this manner is that it expands the boundaries of what a firm
can leverage. The factors just listed give the company “a place to
stand,” to use Archimedes’s phrase. In a knowledge-based economy, the old lines of distinction between a customer, supplier, vendor, and so on become blurred. It does not really matter whether a
person or an organization is both a customer and supplier or member of a joint venture, as long as he adds value in the economic
chain. For instance, as a writer, I am a customer, reviewer, and
supplier to Amazon.com, and—hopefully—creating value in each
role. Enabling me to participate in these multiple roles, Amazon
is able to leverage its wealth-creating potential utilizing its social
capital. Let us briefly tour each component of a company’s social
capital.
221
Baker-c13-2
222
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
CUSTOMERS
There is only one boss: the customer. And he can fire everybody in
the company, from the chairman on down, simply by spending his
money somewhere else.
—Sam Walton
We discussed the marketing concept in Chapter 5, which Peter
Drucker used to indefatigably point out that “there is only one
valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer” (Flaherty 1999: 131). A business exists to create wealth for its customers, since the only things that exist inside of a business are
costs, activities, efforts, problems, mediocrity, friction, politics,
and crises. Drucker used to say, “There is no such thing as a
profit center in a business, only effort and cost centers. The only
profit center is a customer’s check that doesn’t bounce.”
In a knowledge economy, a customer brings far more than just
revenue to the relationship. They also contribute intellectual capital (IC), such as ideas for innovation, competitive intelligence,
feedback, referrals, challenges, inspiration, and a host of other
intangibles. Because these contributions can be positive as well
as negative, customer selection is becoming increasingly important in IC-based companies. The goal should be to maximize total
IC from customers, not just dollar volume or profitability. For
example, Karl Sveiby, a pioneer in IC development, writes that
the Danish management consulting firm PLS-Consult divides its
customers as follows, rated on a scale as very much/average/not
much:
▪
Those who contribute to image, references and/or new assignments;
▪
Those with challenging and widely educational projects that
contribute to the firm’s internal structure;
▪
Those who improve individual competence (Sveiby 1997:
178).
09/05/07
222
Baker-c13-2
CUSTOMERS
09/05/07
223
In this context, Sveiby also states: “The issue is not about efficiency but about effectiveness. Knowledge strategies focus on
the potential of professionals to increase revenue rather than on
the ability of managers to reduce costs, and they define revenue
broadly—to include all the good things that come from their customers, including methodology, experience, and image, as well
as money” (Sveiby 1997: 138).
I have coined a law, affectionately known as Baker’s Law
(which was explained in greater detail in the two previous books
in the Intellectual Capitalism series, Pricing on Purpose and Measure What Matters to Customers): Bad customers drive out good
customers. Since customers are the most important component
of social capital, diligent customer selection is vital. The market
share myth, discussed in Chapter 4, is still far too endemic in
most executives’ thinking. Bad customers are a form of negative
social capital, and waste a company’s precious capacity while
subtracting from its value-creating capacity.
Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, understands how to leverage the value of each customer. In 1999, Amazon launched its
“Marketplace” program, which at the end of 2004 had more
than 100,000 Marketplace sellers, generating nearly 40 percent
of the company’s sales volume (Anderson 2006: 93). Rather than
attempting to leverage the social capital of big retailers, such as
Toys “R” Us or Target, Bezos moved down to smaller retailers.
Amazon is not just a bookseller or a marketplace, but a platform
for each customer, and Bezos here explains what is required to
become the most customer-centric online retailer:
Three things: listen, invent, and personalize. Listen to what customers want, and figure out how to give it to them. The second
thing we do is invent for customers, because it’s not the customer’s
job to invent for themselves. The third thing is to personalize. This
is the newest part of customer at the center. And we’re talking
about putting each customer at the center of his/her universe. If
we have 17 million customers, we should have 17 million stores
(Sanford and Taylor 2006: 138).
223
Baker-c13-2
224
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
It goes without saying that no company “owns” its customers,
yet they have the ability to greatly influence how those customers
perceive its value. That said, all value is still subjective—like
beauty, in the eyes of the beholder—and companies must continually create value for its customers or the market will ruthlessly
put it out of business for wasting society’s resources. And just as
no company owns it customers, it also does not, ultimately, own
its brand and reputation.
REPUTATION AND BRANDS
What people say behind your back is your standing in the community.
—Edgar Watson Howe, 1853–1937
An interesting marketing question is who really “owns” a brand?
Can you really control what external parties think of you and your
company? Should a business be allowed to sue a disgruntled customer who creates a companynamesucks.com Web site? No matter how much businesses would like to control the World Wide
Web, the fact of the matter is the Internet was not created by businesses and it cannot be controlled by business, any more than it is
controlled by the Department of Defense that originally created it.
The Internet is a true conversation, connecting people with similar
interests across all geographic boundaries. Companies no longer
have a monopoly on what customers see and hear; customers now
can get the true story—good, bad, and ugly—about any product
or service from any other customer around the world, unfiltered by
the corporate marketing and public relations departments.
According to Interbrand, a U.K. consultancy (www.interbrand.
com), brand value may account for up to 25 percent of the world’s
financial wealth. One of the best illustrations of who really owns
a brand is Coca-Cola’s decision to remove Old Coke and begin
offering New Coke. There was literally a customer revolt, proving
beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is customers who ultimately
decide the value of a brand. When Robert Goizueta, then CEO of
09/05/07
224
Baker-c13-2
REPUTATION AND BRANDS
09/05/07
225
Coca-Cola, was asked what the lesson was from the New Coke
debacle, he replied that he learned that Coca-Cola did not own
its brand—the consumer did (Tedlow 2001: 105).
It is easy to confuse legal ownership with subjective value. No
doubt, Coca-Cola legally owns full rights in its brand, which it can
monetize to its benefit, yet it has no control—only influence—
over the subjective value millions of customers place upon it. In
1999, there were allegations of “tainted Coke” in Belgium, which
cost the company $34 billion in market value (Low and Kalafut
2002: 8). The Sears, Roebuck catalog was at one point in history
a well-recognized brand; it is now extinct. Once an organization’s brand and reputation begin to be perceived as adding no
value, it is destined to become history. Your firm’s reputation, and
your individual reputation, exists solely in the hearts and minds
of the customers you are privileged to serve. Their impressions
become your reputation, as Rabbi Daniel Lapin points out with
this thought-provoking example of how all value is subjective:
Another reminder that money is really quite intangible, a mere
symbol for something else, is the $9 billion that then-head of Ford
Motor Company, Jacques Nasser, paid for two utter intangibles,
the names “Jaguar” and “Volvo.” Two brand names are worth $9
billion? That is correct. No factories were moved from England or
Sweden to Detroit. No accumulated inventory of cars was shipped
across the Atlantic. The owners of those two brands, Jaguar and
Volvo, simply said the magic words, “The brand is now yours; send
the check to my office.” If three-quarters of the world’s population were afflicted with amnesia on the day before the transaction
closed, would the transaction have gone through? No, because the
value of the brand name lies in the reputation built up over the
years. If most customers have forgotten that Jaguar means “performance” and Volvo means “safety,” then the names have lost their
value (Lapin 2002: 271).
As these examples exemplify, real wealth does not lie in tangible things, but in the minds of people—the purest manifestation
of mind over matter.
225
Baker-c13-2
226
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
REFERRAL SOURCES AND NETWORKS
As with Tupperware and Mary Kay Cosmetics discussed earlier, most businesses are built on word-of-mouth referrals. These
referral sources have to be constantly cultivated and rewarded
for sending you business. As author Harvey Mackay pointed out:
“If everyone in your network is the same as you, it isn’t a network, it’s an anthill.” Developing a referral network takes time
and resources, which usually comes at the expense of traditional
measurements of efficiency. Investing in and cultivating a vibrant
social network entails more risk and uncertainty since traditional
return on investment calculations are difficult to conduct.
According to Frog Design, a strategic-creative consultancy:
We are leaving the Information Age and entering the Recommendation Age. Today information is ridiculously easy to get; you
practically trip over it on the street. Information gathering is no
longer the issue—making smart decisions based on the information is now the trick. . . . Recommendations serve as shortcuts
through the thicket of information, just as my wine shop owner
shortcuts me to obscure French wines to enjoy with pastas (Anderson 2006: 107).
From recommended reading lists on Amazon and Barnes &
Noble, playlists for iPods, blogrolls to movie reviews, customer
recommendations are the “post-filters” of the digital age. In the
past, editors, music and studio executives, department store buyers, and advertisers largely determined what people read, listened to, watched, bought, and learned about. According to Chris
Anderson’s theory of the Long Tail, with the infinite shelf space
of the digital world, people can have their first choice without the
interference of these gatekeepers. Rather than gatekeepers predicting our tastes, post-filters, such as product tags on Amazon
or Google will be able to measure it (Anderson 2006: 123). The
book you are now reading would not be encoded by a librarian
using the Dewey Decimal System but, rather, tagged for various points of interests by the readers themselves. This is a far
09/05/07
226
Baker-c13-2
REFERRAL SOURCES AND NETWORKS
09/05/07
227
more useful system, since different readers will find different
parts of the book useful, or useless. Rather than the traditional
top-down “taxonomies” of history’s gatekeepers, the digital world
has ushered in the era of the new collaborative process of “folksonomies,” representing the users themselves filtering what is
relevant or not. As Anderson says: “In a world of infinite choice,
context—not content—is king” (Anderson 2006: 109).
An example of a company that has taken full advantage of
leveraging its social capital network, by creating a virtual marketplace where you can become both a buyer and seller, is eBay, the
Web’s premier auction site. Founded by Pierre Omidyar, whose
fianc´ee was a committed collector of Pez candy dispensers, he
thought of a creative way to help her trade with similar collectors. Today, eBay claims a confirmed registered user base of 222
million, conducting more than 610 million auctions per quarter,
as of the fourth quarter of 2006, giving new meaning to “garage
sale” (www.ebay.com, accessed April 2, 2007). eBay estimates
that 700,000 people earn a primary or secondary income selling items. None of these sellers owns eBay, yet consider how
valuable it is to them—the essence of social capital.
Craigslist is another case in point of the power of networks,
with over 450 sites in all 50 states and over 50 countries, and
15 million visitors each month. eBay now owns a 25 percent
interest in the company. It is estimated that Craigslist, with 23
employees, located in a Victorian house in San Francisco’s Sunset
district, could fetch more than $100 million if it were put up
for sale—a valuation of approximately $5 million per employee.
When asked, “Why doesn’t Craigslist focus more on generating
revenue?” the answer given is: “We rely on local communities to
suggest ways to make money without compromising Craigslist.”
This is a company with a clear understanding that growth for the
sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell, which leads to
the market share myth discussed in Chapter 4.
Al Lerner worked as a kid in his parents’ candy store in Queens,
New York. In 1982, he founded MBNA, the success of which is
227
Baker-c13-2
228
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
a testament to the power of social networks. Signing up affinity
organizations—such as professional affiliations, associations, and
other institutions people have more than merely a passing interest
in supporting—and paying a small percentage of each credit card
transaction to it, it has become one of the most successful credit
card companies in history.
Similar to FedEx selling its innovative tracking system to other
companies, General Motors’ OnStar was made available to other
automobile manufacturers, leveraging its structural and social
capital across a wider platform. Seattle-based Jones Soda leverages its customer’s social capital by putting their pictures on
its soda bottles, along with their favorite sayings, quotes, and
messages underneath the twist-off caps.
The possibilities for leveraging your referral sources and network are as limitless as the Internet itself. Bringing customers of
like mind together, providing them with a community to express
themselves and add value to one another is one of the awesome
manifestations of the age of the Internet. And this thinking applies
to not only your customers and referral sources, but also your
suppliers and vendors.
SUPPLIERS AND VENDORS
We often do not view those to whom we cut checks as being
able to add value beyond what we purchase from them; yet,
the organizations with which a company does business sometimes have enormous wealth-creating potential when they are
viewed as part of the firm’s social capital. Suppliers such as
consultants, attorneys, accountants, financial planners, real estate
agents, funeral directors, scientists, doctors, stockbrokers, insurance agents, veterinarians, charities, and so forth, all offer opportunities for a firm to create innovative and dynamic marketing
programs. Perhaps a joint seminar could be run with any of the
preceding specialists, or a joint article written in their respective
trade publications.
09/05/07
228
Baker-c13-2
SHAREHOLDERS AND OTHER EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
09/05/07
229
For instance, most firms distribute newsletters, an untapped
resource for your suppliers and vendors. Some professional firms
charge for their newsletters, under the theory that things people
get for free are not valued. If a firm charges for its newsletters, maybe it would contain something of actual value, rather
than canned recitations of recently passed legislation that no one
wants to read in the first place. If a firm’s newsletter is truly
valuable, then suppliers and vendors would gladly pay for advertising space to offer their products and services. Most view this
as unprofessional. However, the true test is what customers are
willing and able to pay for, and in the firms that offer this type
of newsletter, the customers appreciate it. Further, your business
customers will appreciate the opportunity to advertise their products and services to your excellent customer base, just as you
appreciate the referrals they send you.
Rather than pay airports for landing slots, European low-cost
airline Ryanair actually receives payments from them by guaranteeing a minimum number of passenger traffic for airport shops
and services, converting a vendor into a revenue source. Hewlett
Packard relies on UPS to repair its printers. Minnesota-based
Fender guitars are tuned in Holland by UPS, saving up to eight
days of shipping delay while cutting costs.
SHAREHOLDERS AND OTHER EXTERNAL
STAKEHOLDERS
Obviously, a company owes a fiduciary responsibility to its owners and other stakeholders who have an interest in its longevity,
such as bankers, landlords, and other parties to whom it has made
commitments. The communities in which the company is located
also have a stake in its success. I am not arguing that these
external stakeholders should have a say in the leadership of the
business, only that they have an ancillary interest in a thriving
business community. Because a company directly impacts the
229
Baker-c13-2
230
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
success of multiple businesses in the community, its sphere of
influence is quite large.
That said, this is not an argument for so-called corporate social
responsibility (CSR). Businesses are too often praised for what
they do worst—social work, fighting inflation, reducing welfare roles, or making charitable contributions—and denounced
for what they do best—creating jobs and wealth, and producing
goods and services people desire. Milton Friedman’s famous 1970
article, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its
Profits,” essentially argues that businesses should pursue profits
justly and within the bounds of the law and norms of society.
Friedman makes this argument because management personnel
are acting as agents for the principals—that is, the shareholders
of the company. For the agents to spend money and resources
for “social” purposes denies the profits to the shareholders, who
would then be free to donate and spend the proceeds as they see
fit. Another argument, often ignored by Friedman’s critics, is that
a business does not have particular expertise—or a comparative
advantage—in performing social work, but does have expertise
and knowledge about producing, say, automobiles or copiers.
JOINT VENTURE PARTNERS AND ALLIANCES
No one company can do it all. Thus, joint ventures and alliances
with other companies—some even competitors—are more and
more common. Observe the airlines’ use of alliances, such as
United Airline’s Star Alliance program, whereby it shares flights,
gates, pricing, frequent-flyer miles, and other infrastructure with
specific partners. From a historical perspective, accounting firms
were the leaders of the alliance movement, since professional
regulations in most countries required partnerships to be national
(i.e., owned by a citizen of that country). As a result, the major
accounting firms, in response to the needs of their global customers who required quality and consistency in the level of service, globalized through forming alliances.
09/05/07
230
Baker-c13-2
JOINT VENTURE PARTNERS AND ALLIANCES
09/05/07
231
Cyrus Freidheim, a consultant with Booz-Allen and author of
The Trillion-Dollar Enterprise: How the Alliance Revolution Will
Transform Global Business, succinctly states why alliances have
the potential to leverage intellectual capital successfully:
Alliances can be a profitable way to expand a business. In an
acquisition or merger, the partners take all—the good and the
bad, the pretty and the ugly, businesses that fit and the baggage,
the profitable and the unprofitable, the core capability, and the
unwanted branch in Somalia. Any problems, liabilities, warts, and
unfinished business of the acquired company are yours, for better
or for worse, from this day forward.
In an alliance, you can carve out the piece you like. You can
take the prime cuts of meat and leave the liver and the hooves
behind. Alliances are about combining capabilities of two or more
partners. We take advantage of your strength in the market and
my technology, or your cost position and my distribution. We do
as Pepsi and Lipton did with iced tea—Pepsi’s distribution and
Lipton’s product (Freidheim 1998: 42).
Wal-Mart uses this strategy by renting out space in its stores to
McDonald’s. Not only does this reduce its internal cost of running snack counters, it obtains a continuous cash flow; and the
higher McDonald’s sales rise, the higher revenue per square foot
is achieved in each store. It also increases store traffic and no
doubt brought in some customers who would not have otherwise
entered. Not only is this an effective leverage of Wal-Mart’s tangible capital (its physical buildings), it also promoted an alliance
that enhanced its social capital.
Charles Schwab also leveraged its social capital by creating an
alliance with more than 5,000 independent financial advisers in
a network it calls Schwab Institutional. Schwab was originally
built around a do-it-yourself investment strategy until it learned
in the 1980s, through market research, that a large percentage
of investors wanted advice in managing their financial affairs.
Leveraging its structural capital enabled it to increase its social
231
Baker-c13-2
232
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
capital by providing a full-service, turnkey system to independent
advisers.
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS AND FORMAL
AFFILIATIONS
Capitalism might be based on ferocious competition, but that
does not mean there are not many ways in which competitors
can cooperate with one another. Obviously, there are thousands
of industry associations, alliances, and affiliations all promoting
and lobbying for their industry’s special interests. This is the
“art of association” that French observer of America Alexis de
Tocqueville observed during his journey through America during
the 1830s. By finding common points of interest, competitors can
work together to advance their industry’s wealth-creating ability.
No better example of this exists than from my own backyard, the
wine country in Napa County, also annulling the absurd analogy
that business is about war. Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton, both
professors at Stanford University, explain:
Following the business as war analogy can be similarly misleading. The analogy implies that you would always aim to hobble
and destroy competitors and avoid cooperating with other firms in
your industry. If such logic had been followed, however, the Napa
Valley might never have become such a prestigious winegrowing region. When Robert Mondavi started his winery in 1966, he
worked to enhance the reputation and quality of every Napa winery, not just his own. Such cooperation set the stage for the famous
“Judgment in Paris” in 1976, where prestigious French wine critics
consistently mistook the California wines for French and ranked
the California wines higher. Although no Mondavi wines were
tasted, California winemakers from Chateau Montelena (the top
white) and Stag’s Leap (the top red) were quick to thank Mondavi
for helping them succeed. Indeed, both winners—Mike Grgich
and Warren Winiarski—had worked for Mondavi before leaving
with his blessing to start their own wineries. Mondavi’s generosity paid off: he and his company profited when the prices of all
Napa wines skyrocketed after the 1976 “judgment.” Yet if you
09/05/07
232
Baker-c13-2
ALUMNI
09/05/07
233
read a Harvard case by strategy researcher Michael Porter about
Robert Mondavi Winery, it only considers how Mondavi competes
with other California winemakers like Kendall-Jackson and Gallo.
Apparently, Porter’s narrow focus on the useful but incomplete
“competitive strategy” analogy led him to avoid noticing (or mentioning) the cooperation that benefited Mondavi’s company as he
enjoyed the reputational spillover from the Napa Valley’s growing
prestige (Pfeffer and Sutton 2006: 35–36).
ALUMNI
In a knowledge economy, where the human capital investors
own the means of a firm’s production, it is simply not possible to retain them for life. But even when a knowledge worker
no longer works for you, she can certainly still work with you.
Professional knowledge firms have actually long understood that
an ex–team member is a valuable future customer. “The goal is
not to retain employees,” says Cindy Lewiton Jackson, director
of global career development and alumni relations for Bain &
Company, a pioneer of the concept of Alumni networks, “the
goal is to build lifelong affiliation.” Katie Weiser, global director
of alumni relations at Deloitte Consulting, adds, “Our people will
be movers and shakers wherever they land next. We’re planting
seeds for the future” (Canabou 2002: 28).
Former team members can offer benefits to companies in many
ways, as pointed out by Cem Sertoglu and Anne Berkowitch in
Harvard Business Review :
Rehires and Referral Sources. Companies used to go out of their
way to avoid recruiting ex-employees. But that was always shortsighted. The facts are, it costs half as much to rehire an ex-employee
as it does to hire a brand new person; rehires are 40 percent more
productive in their first quarter at work; and they tend to stay in
the job longer. . . . Perhaps even more important, alumni are known
quantities; the risk of a costly mishire is almost completely eliminated. Alumni are also a growing source of referrals. Some companies even offer alumni compensation for referrals who are hired.
233
Baker-c13-2
234
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
Suppliers of Intellectual Capital . Former employees can be great
sources of ideas and intelligence, helping their old companies to stay
abreast of new trends, technologies, and even investment opportunities. . . . One major financial services company hires alumni as temporary workers during periods of high demand, and another company taps into the expertise of former employees as market research
sources.
Ambassadors, Marketers, and Lobbyists. Former employees are
just as likely to influence outside opinions about an organization
as current employees—especially if they haven’t been gone from
the organization for very long. So building and maintaining goodwill with alumni can fortify the company’s reputation, brand, and
influence. . . . [Some] companies are starting to use their alumni
networks as low-cost test beds for new products and marketing
campaigns (Sertoglu and Berkowitch 2002: 20–21).
Establishing and maintaining an alumni network is more than
just sending out an occasional directory and setting up a Web
site with potential job postings. It should contain its own value
proposition and give alumni a reason to stay in it, such as sharing
of intellectual capital, educational programs, invitations to firm
events, and special gatherings.
UNIONS
As the economy began to shift to a knowledge economy, labor
unions began a long systemic decline in relevance and membership. Today, only 12.5 percent of the total workforce belongs to
a union, while a meager 7.8 percent of the private sector, down
from one-third in the 1960s. Even as of 1900, only 3 percent
of workers were members of unions. The only area where union
membership is growing is in government employment, since the
employer is technically not spending its own money—but rather
the taxpayers’—providing little incentive to resist the demands
of the public sector unions.
Despite their positive perception, labor unions have always suffered from inherent flaws, which the knowledge economy has
09/05/07
234
Baker-c13-2
UNIONS
09/05/07
235
brought to the forefront. One of the flaws is that they treat jobs
as ends, meant to provide a “living wage” rather than as means to
add value to the lives of others. An economy, or a company, does
not exist to provide jobs, or lifetime employment, but to create
wealth outside of itself. The old Soviet Union used to boast that it
did not have unemployment, which was true in one sense. It had
a lot of make-work jobs, underutilizing the talents and creativity
of its human capital—except, perhaps, in the defense sector. But
as we have seen, this is not the path to wealth creation.
Another inherent contradiction is the notion that the union is
somehow in conflict with the employer, which is economically
absurd. Unions are sellers of labor, while employers are buyers.
Sellers and buyers do not compete with one another. Sellers compete with other sellers. Hence, the real tension in the labor market
is not between the union and the employer—their economic interests are aligned—but between union workers and other workers,
their real competition. In contrast to the popular perception, labor
unions do not raise the wages of workers. Only increasing wealth
can achieve that objective, a topic unions rarely speak to, let
alone concern themselves with. Instead, unions raise the wages
of unionized workers, at the expense of nonunionized workers.
The biggest weakness, though, of labor unions is their uninspiring purpose. As the developing nations have become wealthier,
unions seem to be drifting into the future, clinging to an Industrial Revolution model that is dying while ignoring the realities
of an IC economy. An uninspiring purpose can dissipate any
organization, from a profit-seeking company to a not-for-profit
organization. A company that exists solely to turn a profit is not
the type of organization that inspires a high level of dedication
and creativity, especially from knowledge workers. Likewise, a
union whose only mission is to increase its wages will suffer the
same apathy over time. C. Northcote Parkinson—author of the
famous Parkinson’s Law —diagnosed this feckless condition of
labor unions 40 years ago, when he wrote Left Luggage: A Caustic
History of British Socialism from Marx to Wilson, observing:
235
Baker-c13-2
236
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
The weakness in Trade Union policy lay from the outset in its lack
of idealism. The union leaders did not point the way to any ideal
form of society. They merely wanted to see wage levels raised to
the highest point which the employers could afford. This sort of
demand was natural enough but it had no moral basis. It gave the
worker no right to point the finger of scorn at the capitalist, whose
motives were no more material and whose methods were broadly
the same. To sell what you have to offer, whether goods or services,
at the highest possible price is no crime against humanity—that
being, within limits, what we all do. But our efforts to this end
cannot be made to look particularly progressive or noble. There
are sound reasons for selling anything at the maximum price, any
other policy being foolish and often corrupt, but this practice can
scarcely be raised to the ethical level of the Lord’s Prayer. It is not
even a principle for which many of us would be prepared to die
in battle. Morally considered, it stands on a par with the buyer’s
urge to buy at the lowest possible price (Parkinson 1967: 20).
Labor unions spend far too much time attempting to solve
problems rather than pursue opportunities, a mind-set that also
afflicts many businesses, as we discuss in Chapter 14. It is not
a prescription for success, as can be witnessed with the entitlement mentality of the European Union workforce, who believe
wholeheartedly that the world owes them lifelong employment
at a decent wage. Unions should focus more on keeping their
members employable, rather than simply employed. One way to
achieve this would be for them to invest in lifelong learning,
another to reorganize themselves into a just-in-time labor force
that constantly searches for ways to add value. In a knowledge
economy, unions will become more and more insignificant and
marginalized. They are an idea from the day before yesterday.
CORPORATE UNIVERSITIES
. . . [T]hat is what learning is. You suddenly understand something
you’ve understood all your life, but in a new way.
—Doris Lessing, English writer
09/05/07
236
Baker-c13-2
CORPORATE UNIVERSITIES
09/05/07
237
In 1955, after the opening of Disneyland, Walt Disney established
Disney University, the purpose of which was to train Disneyland’s
then-600 cast members (Disney parlance for employees) “to be
aware that they’re there mainly to help the guest” (Disney parlance for customer). This education continues to this day, with all
new Disney cast members required to attend a one-and-a-half day
Traditions course. The wording is very precise They are not “orienting” their cast members, but rather passing down traditions.
Many companies have recognized they possess an enormous
amount of intellectual capital used internally to educate their
team members, so why not leverage this IC to the outside world
and create a university? From universities at Motorola and Nordstrom to the Ritz Carlton Leadership Center and General Electric’s Leadership Development Training, all these companies have
found that offering educational opportunities to firm customers,
referral sources, alliance partners, and so forth, is an excellent
way to further broaden its sphere of influence. Other firms have
established research institutes to provide leading edge thinking in
a variety of areas. Further, as Peter Drucker pointed out, continuing education will be one of the largest growth industries in this
century, as it is increasingly difficult for any knowledge worker
to stay abreast of current developments in his field of specialty.
The growth of corporate universities, in fact, has been quite
dramatic. In the mid-1980s, approximately 400 corporate universities were in existence, growing to 800 in 1995, 1,200 in 1997,
1,600 in 1999 to over 2,000 as of 2001, an increase of roughly
400 every two years (Allen 2002: 251).
Many of these universities exist to provide more than merely
technical skills and training. Recognizing the importance of education in the traditional sense, they are challenging conventional
wisdom, theories, and assumptions to search for more innovative
ways to add wealth to the world. Mark Allen, PhD, and author
of The Corporate University Handbook , provides this definition
of the corporate university:
237
Baker-c13-2
238
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
A corporate university is an educational entity that is a strategic
tool designed to assist its parent organization in achieving its
mission by conducting activities that cultivate individual and organizational learning, knowledge, and wisdom (Allen 2002: 9).
There is an enormous difference between training and education, as discussed in Chapters 6 and 11. Especially in a knowledge
organization, the goal should be to link learning to the firm’s
strategy. The goal is not necessarily just to transfer know-how,
but how to think, and ultimately, to change the culture of the
parent organization. Matthew May was involved with the founding of the University of Toyota, the purpose of which was “to
continuously improve associate and dealer performance through
lifelong learning” (Allen 2002: 15). He explains the assignment,
along with the concept of learnership, in his book on Toyota, The
Elegant Solution:
It started with a ridiculous assignment: We need to translate the
Toyota Production System for the knowledge worker. We really
want to figure out how to bring the levels of employee productivity, engagement, continuous improvement and constant creativity
found in our Toyota factories and warehouses to the corporate
environment (May 2007: xii).
Toyota is the ultimate learning organization. . ..Sure, they have
the explicit mechanisms like a corporate university, technical training centers, and knowledge management systems. Most big firms do.
But that’s not it. There’s something much more subtle, much
more tacit. Mastery—perpetual learning —is so ingrained in the
organization that it’s been declared by many to be part of the
Toyota DNA. And what makes learning at Toyota so different is
that the concept revolves around pursuing the right questions rather
than securing the right answers. What drives learning at Toyota
isn’t a need to know. It’s a need to inquire. To understand . That’s
a fundamental departure from how most define learning. Toyota
doesn’t confuse training with learning. And the most fascinating
thing is that humility is at the base of it all. Toyota most respects
wisdom and insight. They’re in awe of it.
09/05/07
238
Baker-c13-2
CORPORATE UNIVERSITIES
09/05/07
239
What they teach isn’t a hard skill. It’s the softest skill known:
thinking. . . . because learnership truly represents the keys to the
kingdom (May 2007: 72).
Universities that follow this philosophy usually report to the
CEO, not the human resources (HR) department, since the ultimate goal is to shape the culture and strategy of the company.
Corporate universities will play an increasing role in the knowledge economy, where the line of demarcation between learning, thinking, and doing is continuously intertwined. Inspired by
the founding of Disney University, Pixar (now owned by Disney) established Pixar University, headed by dean Randy Nelson.
Here’s how he explains the university’s purpose:
We’ve made the leap from an idea-centered business to a peoplecentered business. Instead of developing ideas, we develop people.
Instead of investing in ideas, we invest in people. We’re trying to
create a culture of learning, filled with lifelong learners. It’s no
trick for talented people to be interesting, but it’s a gift to be
interested. We want an organization filled with interested people
(Taylor and LaBarre 2006: 230).
Pixar encourages every team member to devote up to four hours
per week to their education. Nelson says, “Why teach drawing to
accountants? Because drawing class doesn’t just teach people to
draw. It teaches them to be more observant. There’s no company
on earth that wouldn’t benefit from having people become more
observant” (Taylor and LaBarre 2006: 233). Nelson also understands the difference between knowledge workers and manual
workers, where the Taylorite notions of “productivity” are irrelevant. As reported in Mavericks at Work , Nelson expresses a
sentiment found throughout this book, which could be said about
many professional knowledge firms that continue to confuse being
busy with adding value:
Randy Nelson is a fierce critic of Pixar’s neighbors in the video
game business, who, he says, “are eating their young by working
nonstop. They finish one project and immediately start on another.
239
Baker-c13-2
240
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
It’s no surprise their products all look the same.” Pixar’s technical
employees, in contrast, get paid for a 50-hour week with the expectation that they will work between 40 and 50 hours. What’s more,
workers planning to spend more than 50 hours a week on the
job must get permission from their manager. Needless to say, at
plenty of points along the four-year life of a movie, plenty of people ask for and receive permission to work beyond the weekly
limit (Taylor and LaBarre 2006: 234).
Paul O’Byrne, whom we met in Chapter 12 where he discussed his KnowledgeBank and use of AARs to leverage his
firm’s structural capital, has also launched a university to expand
this intellectual capital to a wider audience. Paul explains how
this has helped enhance the value his firm is able to generate
within a wider business community:
For many years in our firm we had a concept that our customers
wanted to learn more about business in general, not just their
business in particular. The name of the town we are in is Goffs Oak
(Hertfordshire, just to the north of London). We came up with the
name of Goffs Oak Business School because we liked the acronym
GOBS. As is so often the case with our innovations, it starts a
little tongue-in-cheek. Partly this makes it seem non-threatening,
an amusing diversion; looking sideways at things and the humor in
things also inspires a lot of creativity, which also makes us pursue
it more often.
We recognized that many of our customers were running highly
successful businesses but they did not have any formal business
qualifications—indeed, some of our most successful customers
had no formal credentials at all. Over the years, some customers
had asked us to investigate courses they could take to enhance their
skills. We examined these programs, many of which were distance
or evening learning programs specifically designed for executives.
However, as we looked at the typical MBA syllabus, we realized
there was a vast amount of content that would just not be relevant to many of our customers. Increasingly, it dawned on us that
because of the type of work we had done with our customers over
the years, we knew significant amounts of knowledge we could
happily teach them. As we listed these topics, and then thought of
09/05/07
240
Baker-c13-2
CORPORATE UNIVERSITIES
others that perhaps a well-rounded owner-manager should know,
we developed the syllabus for the GOBS MBA.
As with any other product, this needed to be packaged, marketed, and sold, and we set about talking to some of our more
ambitious customers and worked with them as to what they would
need to know before they committed to come to such a program,
and what they would like to see in it. In November 2002 we got
seven brave souls to sign up to a series of 10 monthly sessions, two
hours each. Admittedly, we did not have all the sessions mapped
out or even half of them, but we knew we had to teach them about
finance (not just accounting), marketing, law, intellectual capital,
and probably some other things.
And off we went, preparing furiously how to explain what we
understand with our knowledge of accounting and finance, what
we thought business owner-managers should know about law and
marketing, strategy, communication and thinking skills. To break
things up, we went on “field trips” where we all traveled to see
another company and how it functioned in a given area. We ran
it through the calendar year so the last session was in December
and we had a graduation ceremony at lunch and a very happy and
memorable ending, encapsulated by many photos.
The advantages flowing from meeting with your better customers monthly and having them meet each other were not all
serendipitous. We expected they would enjoy meeting like-minded
entrepreneurs in a non-work environment, and we expected they
would like learning. However, the reinforcement of us as experts
and the inevitable “. . . while I’m here could I have a quick word
with you?” led to a deepening of the relationship, and more work
of the type we sought. And of course there was pride and morale
throughout the team of creating and having a tangible emblem of
being both a teaching and learning organization.
Before we ended the first one, we started marketing for the
class of 2004, asking one of the more lively attendees from the
class of 2003 to address some prospects and persuade them of the
value of the program. Now, the class of 2007 is well underway,
only this time none of them are customers of the firm; they were
simply attracted to the content. Of course we are meeting with
these very open-minded, willing-to-invest, owner-managers every
month and giving them knowledge that their existing accountants
09/05/07
241
241
Baker-c13-2
242
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
and business advisors have never even considered. Who knows
where that may lead?
Maybe the best example of this philosophy is encapsulated
by Infosys Technologies, “founded in July 1981 by seven people who shared the dream of building India’s first company of
the professional, by the professional, and for the professional .”
Infosys was the first “Indian company to establish a formalized
leadership institute,. . .” based on the belief that “the company is
the campus, the business is the curriculum, and the leaders shall
teach” (Gandossy et al. 2006: 164, 168).
An example of a research institute is the McKinsey Global
Institute (MGI), which exists to cogitate over questions that reach
far beyond whether any company will buy into a McKinsey proposal for consulting services. McKinsey associates—usually its
best thinkers—serve one-year fellowships at the Institute, and
are measuring world economics from the broadest perspective
they can create. Here is how James O’Shea and Charles Madigan
describe MGI, in their book Dangerous Company: Management
Consultants and the Businesses They Save and Ruin:
If one thinks of McKinsey as its own kind of nation, then this
is its intelligence agency, a well-funded think tank that studies
world economics in depth, then issues reports available to anyone
who wants them. They are free of charge, but worth their weight
in whatever currency you want to spend. They buy goodwill and
page after page of publicity for McKinsey and help create the
consulting relationships that will carry The Firm well into the
twenty-first century.
All the big consulting companies have think tanks that grind
out reports. [Led by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the
move towards free markets and privatization] what we realized
as a firm is that we were either going to have to invest to get
better informed and to understand better what was happening in
the world’s economy and the global economy and really help our
CEOs, or we were going to have to get out.
09/05/07
242
Baker-c13-2
CORPORATE UNIVERSITIES
09/05/07
243
The Firm had two options: It had to buy into the study of
economics in a big way, or it had to leave the field to the collection
of academics and macroeconomists who were already talking to
the business leaders of Europe. Ultimately what that meant is that it
would have to abandon the potentially profitable path of consulting
on economics and just stick to business.
Some of the partners were confused. Why should McKinsey
spend to create something new when it was already doing very
well? The answer rests partly in The Firm’s inherent sense of
curiosity about how the world operates, since it now operates on
the same level. The unspoken answer, speculation invites, is that
The Firm did not at all like the feel of being bested by a collection
of economists and academics.
Why do anything different? That is always a challenge for successful organizations. Of course, what we tell our clients is that
that is just the time when you invest and do something different
to maintain that success. In a narrow sense, we were taking some
of our own medicine.
And so the MGI was born and now runs on one tenth of 1 percent of McKinsey’s revenues. It is deeper than the CIA in the sense
that it can call on McKinsey partners everywhere in the world for
their special expertise. It is aimed at making certain McKinsey never
again faces questions about the global economy from savvy CEOs
for which it has no answers. On the surface, it might seem like
an academic exercise. But if it follows the course of [The Firm],
undoubtedly it will become a magnet, not only for clients eager to
take advantage of McKinsey’s special expertise, but also for the
consultants of the twenty-first century who will want to make their
start, and perhaps their careers, at a company that presents truly
global opportunities (O’Shea and Madigan 1997: 288–289).
Recognizing no matter how exceptional all of the previous
elements of social capital discussed above are, even the best organization does not have a monopoly on IC within its walls. By connecting with others, companies can expand enormously the amount
of IC they have access to that can be leveraged to create wealth.
The open source movement embodies this concept like no other.
243
Baker-c13-2
244
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
OPEN SOURCE—MASS COLLABORATION
None of us are as smart as all of us.
—Japanese proverb
Recall from Chapter 10 Sun Microsystems’ chief scientist Bill
Joy’s law: “Most of the smartest people are never in your own
company.” Nowhere is that more true than in the music industry.
During 1999, an 18-year-old Northeastern University student was
bored with his classes and listening to his roommate complaining
about how difficult it was to download music from the Internet. Seeking an opportunity, Shawn Fanning founded Napster.
In the first three months of 2001, 2.5 billion files a month were
being downloaded, validating the economist’s theory of demand,
which states that the lower the price, the larger the quantity
demanded, especially a zero price. Naturally, the music industry
litigated Napster out of business, claiming everyone who downloaded music from it was no different than a common criminal.
Of course, viewed from another angle, when you have millions
of potential customers breaking the law, you do not have a crime
wave, you have a marketing problem.
The point is not to argue the highly contentious legal issues
of copyright and private property law, particularly as it relates
to digitally downloaded music files. The more precise point is
the lack of understanding of value by the music company executives. By keeping their focus on the inside of their companies,
they completely ignored the external value potential of easily
obtaining music files. It took Steve Jobs of Apple to capitalize on this opportunity with iTunes—which at the time of this
writing has a 70 percent market share on the legal downloadable music market—in an eerily analogous manner in which
he capitalized on the personal computer opportunity invented
at Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center, validating Mark Twain’s
line, “History doesn’t repeat itself—but it does rhyme.” Had
the music company executives been focused on the outside of
their companies—studying, analyzing, and innovating what their
09/05/07
244
Baker-c13-2
OPEN SOURCE—MASS COLLABORATION
09/05/07
245
customers found valuable—they could have invested many
millions into productive research and development rather than
throwing away that sum down the judicial sinkhole. Yet the Napster saga is just one in a long history of revolutions taking place
outside the confines of an existing industry, in what the Austrian
economist Joseph Schumpeter labeled “creative destruction.” The
reason entire industries can be brought down is because competitors offer more value to the customer than the status quo.
Linus Torvalds, the Finnish graduate student who invented
the Linux operating system, did not utilize a formal corporate
structure, or third-party financial capital, to coordinate the most
collaborative project in history. Much has been written about
how the open source movement is a dagger in the heart of intellectual property rights, will squelch innovation, lead to anarchy,
among much other hyperbolic pronouncements. Richard Stallman, the leader of the Free Software Foundation, innovated the
idea of a general public license (GPL), which places a program into the public domain. He calls it “copyleft” because it
does the opposite of copyright. Anyone can use the program,
but if they make any modifications or improvements, they must
share them with the rest of the users. Saying open source does
not imply that it is “free.” Many companies have created vast
amounts of wealth selling and customizing the Linux operating
system, so it should not be confused with being “free.” Torvalds believes whether or not an innovation should be subject
to a “copyleft” or the traditional copyright is the “abortion issue
of technology. It should be up to the individual innovator to
decide for herself or himself whether to GPL the project or to
use a more conventional approach to copyright” (Torvalds and
Diamond 2001: 195). As a firm believer in the “spontaneous
order” of the free market, I agree with this position. Google,
Amazon, and salesforce.com are all built upon the foundation of
Linux, but each is proprietary, since the GPL applies only to software distribution, not Web-based applications. The marketplace
is certainly big enough for different types of operating systems,
245
Baker-c13-2
246
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
and unfettered competition is the best way to produce the most
innovations, despite Bill Gates’s and Microsoft’s pronouncements
to the contrary.
Torvalds logically understood that with a million eyeballs on
his project, all software bugs would disappear. He posted his
project on a listserve because he wanted feedback and praise,
not to mention the chance to work with the best programmers
in the world. Following Bill Joy’s Law cited above, Torvalds
instinctively knows that the best programmers do not work in
any one company. The Not Invented Here syndrome is alive and
well, Torvalds writes, because “open source . . . is unforgiving.
It shows who can get the job done, who is better. You can’t
hide behind managers. Open source is the best way of leveraging outside talent” (Torvalds and Diamond 2001: 232). So why
would people contribute to a project such as Linux or Firefox,
the latter another open source Web browser developed by some
800 volunteers from Google and Sun Microsystems, which has
gained approximately 10 percent of the browser market? There
are many other motivations beyond money: recognition, respect,
reciprocity, ego, esteem of others, and jobs (since employers do
spot talent by searching the programming code).
The success of Linux not only demonstrates that no man is
an island, it also shows that no man works alone. Peter Drucker
summarized concisely how this type of mass collaboration will
change the shape of organizations in the future: “The corporation will survive—but not as we know it. Organizations are
critically important as organizers, not as employers” (Edersheim
2007: 155). Procter & Gamble (P&G) has taken this very principle into what it calls “Connect + Develop” to describe how it
will innovate new products in the future, as contrasted with the
historical research and development. This is not merely an experiment, it is embedded in the company’s strategy. P&G’s CEO,
A. G. Lafley, explained it this way:
09/05/07
246
Baker-c13-2
OPEN SOURCE—MASS COLLABORATION
09/05/07
247
Historically, over 90 percent of our innovations have come from
inside our own organization. I want to see 50 percent or more coming from external partnerships. I honestly believe we can increase
our innovative capacity fivefold by collaborating more effectively
with external partners. I want to create an environment in which
there is an open market for ideas, for capital, and for talent. More
specifically, an environment in which big ideas can attract the capital and talent they need on the strength of the idea itself no matter
where it comes from (Harrison and Sullivan, 2006: 123).
New products such as Mr. Clean Magic Eraser, the Crest SpinBrush, and Swiffer Dusters have been built on ideas outside of
P&G labs. Lafley is well on his way to achieving his 50 percent
goal, now that P&G gets approximately 35 percent of new innovations from this strategy. Jeff Weedman, vice president of external
business development for P&G, says: “At P&G we have moved
from Not Invented Here to Proudly Found Elsewhere” (Harrison
and Sullivan, 2006: 48). Consider some other examples of how
mass collaboration is changing the nature of work, innovation,
and wealth creation:
Innocentive (www.innocentive.com). Created by Eli Lilly, Innocentive is an online scientific forum of some 90,000 registered scientists located in 175 countries. If a scientist solves
a particular problem, he or she is paid up to $100,000. Eli
Lilly posts up to 100 problems a week and has attained a
4 percent solution rate, which is relatively high for R&D
problem solving. P&G, Dow Chemical, DuPont, NestlePurina, and Boeing, among others, have all used Innocentive
as a way to expand the brains of their internal R&D departments and leverage the social capital that exists outside of
their walls.
NineSigma (www.ninesigma.net). According to its Web site,
“NineSigma was founded in 2000 by Dr. Mehran Mehregany,
Goodrich Professor of Engineering Innovation, Case Western
Reserve University. The company’s core mission is to work
247
Baker-c13-2
248
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
on behalf of our clients to source innovative ideas, technologies, products and services from outside their organization
quickly and effectively by connecting them with the best
innovators from around the world” (http://www.ninesigma.
net/about-us, accessed April 4, 2007). Where Innocentive
acts as a spot market for ideas and solutions, since the scientists never know the identity of the company that has posed
the challenge, NineSigma, acts as a broker between the scientist and the company, taking a percentage of the contract
that is entered into between the two parties.
Myelin Repair Foundation (www.myelinrepair.org). Scott Johnson was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) in 1976,
and after 30 years scientists are no closer to finding a possible cure. Johnson believes it is because the academic model
is serving the wrong customer, progress being measured by
papers published and grants received rather than bettering the
quality of life for the patient—a classic example of measuring inputs and ignoring results. Here is how the company
describes its Accelerated Research Collaboration model:
The Myelin Repair Foundation (MRF) is a non-profit medical
research foundation dedicated to accelerating basic medical research into myelin repair treatments that will dramatically improve
the lives of people suffering from multiple sclerosis (MS).
To achieve this goal, MRF has developed a unique business/
science hybrid model for medical research that is speeding the time
to drug discovery by as much as 200%. This new research model,
called the Accelerated Research Collaboration (ARC) model, is
based on three key elements:
Collaboration: Bringing the best researchers together MRF has
brought together five of the world’s leading neuroscientists approaching the study of myelin from five different perspectives—
immunology, genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology
and proteomics—in an outcome-driven research plan.
Acceleration: Speeding up the research process. Since beginning its research program in 2004, the MRF scientific team has
identified more than a dozen new myelin repair drug targets and 10
09/05/07
248
Baker-c13-2
OPEN SOURCE—MASS COLLABORATION
09/05/07
249
new research tools/assays that may be applied to all neurological
disease research. MRF has filed for eight patents on these discoveries. When compared to the world’s greatest research universities,
the MRF scientific team has had five times as many invention disclosures and more than three times as many patent applications
per million dollars in research expenditures.
Results: Driving discoveries into the drug pipeline. MRF has
an aggressive intellectual property (IP) protection program that
enables the organization to more effectively engage with pharmaceutical companies and to license discoveries for further drug
development and clinical trials. Licensing revenues will be invested
in ongoing research programs.
Revolutionizing All Medical Research
MRF’s ARC model has the potential to speed all medical research,
bringing treatments to those who suffer from other chronic or
debilitating diseases for which there are no effective treatments
or cures (http://www.myelinrepair.org/about/, accessed April 4,
2007).
Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org). Founded in 2001, the online
encyclopedia now has over 1.7 million articles in English, roughly
12 times the size of the print version of the Encyclopedia Britannica. There are over 75,000 active contributors in more than 100
languages. The word wiki is Hawaiian for “quick,” but Wikipedia
contributors view it as meaning “what I know is. . .” Sure, there
are bound to be errors in some of the entries, but with so many
eyes checking them, the chances of them not being corrected is
slim.
The Goldcorp Challenge. Inspired by Linux and the open source
software movement, former chairman and CEO of Goldcorp, Inc.,
Rob McEwen, decided to try something radical. He made available
on the Internet full data on one of his mines in the Red Lake district
of northwest Ontario, Canada. He invited geologists and engineers
from all over the world to analyze the data and submit innovative drilling plans to extract the precious metal, offering a prize
249
Baker-c13-2
250
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
of $500,000, divided by 25 semifinalists and 3 finalists selected
by a panel of judges. The rest of the industry thought he had lost
his mind, but McEwen understood that smart people did not have
to work for his company to work with it. Here is a leader who
understands how to leverage social capital, in his own words:
Gold mining is an old industry, a tired industry. The pace of change
is glacial. Traditionally, mining companies have worried about how
strong your back is, not how big your brain is. We wanted to do
something that no one in the industry had done, to tap into the intellectual capital of the whole world (Taylor and LaBarre 2006: 63).
Over 1,400 participated in the challenge, whereas 140 submitted detailed drilling plans, with over half the targets being new
discoveries for Goldcorp.
Scientists are far more effective when they collaborate with
other scientists rather than working in isolation, even as they pursue their own individual projects. Since real science progresses by
dissent, not consensus, this collaboration is essential to advancing knowledge. Michael Polanyi, the scientific philosopher who
delineated tacit from explicit knowledge, who we met in Chapter
9, described this coordination and collaboration by mutual adjustment of independent initiatives as a “Republic of Science.” He
offers this metaphor of solving a puzzle:
Imagine that we are given the pieces of a very large jigsaw puzzle, and suppose that for some reason it is important that our giant
puzzle be put together in the shortest possible time. We would
naturally try to speed this up by engaging a number of helpers;
the question is in what manner these could be best employed. The
only way the assistants can effectively co-operate, and surpass by
far what any single one of them could do, is to let them work
on putting the puzzle together in sight of the others so that every
time a piece of it is fitted in by one helper, all the others will
immediately watch out for the next step that becomes possible in
consequence. Under this system, each helper will act on his own
initiative, by responding to the latest achievements of the others,
and the completion of their joint task will be greatly accelerated.
09/05/07
250
Baker-c13-2
CULTURAL, MORAL, AND ETHICAL CAPITAL
09/05/07
251
We have here in a nutshell the way in which a series of independent
initiatives are organized to a joint achievement by mutually adjusting themselves at every successive stage to the situation created
by all the others who are acting likewise (Polanyi 1974: 50–51).
As all of the examples in this section reveal, we are just beginning to tap into the power of leveraging social capital. While
politicians and pundits can ponder the effects of outsourcing,
leaders should focus on the limitless opportunities represented by
insourcing ideas from outside their company’s walls. To forego
these opportunities because of the Not Invented Here syndrome
is to abdicate the fundamental responsibility of an enterprise to
create wealth for society while allocating intellectual capital and
resources to their highest valued use. Of course, all of this social
capital rests on the cultural, moral, and ethical capital of a society,
which we explore next.
CULTURAL, MORAL, AND ETHICAL CAPITAL
I have spent my whole life under a Communist regime, and I will tell
you that a society without any objective scale is a terrible one indeed.
But a society with no other scale than the legal one is not quite
worthy of man, either.
—Alexander Solzhenitsyn, commencement address, Harvard
University, 1978
A people’s manners and morals are more important than the law,
and beyond doubt these are what constitute the culture of a society, or an organization. The University of Pennsylvania’s motto
is: Leges sine moribus vanae, “Laws apart from moral habits
are empty.” Certainly, no one would deliver a eulogy praising a
person for avoiding criminal misconduct and honoring contracts.
Greek statesman Plenides said “to live a moral life, you must do
more than required, and less than allowed.” Simply because a
particular law is voted for does not make it moral, as Apartheid,
the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and the election of Hitler prove.
251
Baker-c13-2
252
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
It is common today to speak of “medical ethics,” “bioethics,”
“accounting ethics,” and so forth. Yet many philosophers deny
there are different ethical consequences for these various disciplines. In his 1981 article in The Public Interest, “What Is
Business Ethics?” Peter Drucker challenges the concept of a separate ethics for business:
If “business ethics” continues to be “casuistry” its speedy demise
in a cloud of illegitimacy can be confidently predicted. Clearly this
is the approach “business ethics” today is taking. Its very origin is
politics rather than in ethics. It expresses a belief that the responsibility which business and the business executive have, precisely
because they have social impact, must determine ethics—and this
is a political rather than an ethical imperative.
What difference does it make if a certain act or behavior takes
place in a “business,” in a “non-profit organization,” or outside
any organization at all? The answer is clear: None at all.
Clearly, one major element of the peculiar stew that goes by the
name of “business ethics” is plain old-fashioned hostility to business and to economic activity altogether—one of the oldest of
American traditions and perhaps the only still-potent ingredient in
the Puritan heritage. There is no warrant in any ethics to consider
one major sphere of activity as having its own ethical problems,
let alone its own “ethics.” “Business” or “economic activity” may
have special political or legal dimensions as in “business and
government”. . ., or as in the antitrust laws. And “business ethics”
may be good for politics and good electioneering. But that is all.
For ethics deals with the right actions of individuals. And then
it surely makes no difference whether the setting is a community
hospital, with the actors a nursing supervisor and the “consumer” a
patient, or whether the setting is National Universal General Corporation, the actors a quality control manager, and the consumer
the buyer of a bicycle.
Altogether, “business ethics” might well be called “ethical chic”
rather than ethics—and indeed might be considered more a media
event than philosophy or morals (Drucker 1981: 22–23, 31, 33–35).
The Josephson Institute of Ethics provides a useful definition
of ethics:
09/05/07
252
Baker-c13-2
CULTURAL, MORAL, AND ETHICAL CAPITAL
09/05/07
253
Ethics is about how we meet the challenge of doing the right
thing when that will cost more than we want to pay. There are
two aspects to ethics: The first involves the ability to discern right
from wrong, good from evil, and propriety from impropriety. The
second involves the commitment to do what is right, good and
proper. Ethics entails action; it is not just a topic to mull or debate
(Maxwell 2003: 23–24).
Honesty and ethical standards do not always pay off, at least
in the short run. The costs can be high to do the right thing,
but these costs are worth paying. For a company, reputation is a
priceless asset, and the loss of that reputation is the single biggest
risk a company faces. Consider the Johnson and Johnson Credo,
which the company turned to during the two Tylenol poisonings
in 1982 and 1986, which had a cumulative effect of $140 million
in write-offs (http://www.jnj.com/our company/our credo/index.
htm;jsessionid=RQUXI1QGKCCKQCQPCCGSU0A). Founder
R.W. Johnson wrote this Credo in 1943 and it has often been
cited as a precedent for ethical decisions made since then. The
Ten Commandments are not the The Ten Suggestions, and J&J’s
Credo is carved in stone at the company’s New Brunswick, New
Jersey, headquarters, reminding everyone that ethical principles
are timeless.
Dr. Samuel Johnson wrote, “There are few ways in which man
can be more innocently employed than in getting money,” and
John Maynard Keynes agreed, stating, “It is better that a man
should tyrannize over his bank balance than over his fellow citizens.” No doubt businesses act in a social context, as do all
individuals, and should be held accountable for doing the right
thing for the right reasons. None of this is inconsistent with the
pursuit of profit and meeting human needs and wants. Parents do
not raise their children to become rugged individualists, and no
company was built by the efforts of a single human being. Ethical
conduct, integrity, trust, and honesty are not just moral principles,
they are also major economic factors, a vital component in any
organization’s social capital, and one all businesses should be
253
Baker-c13-2
254
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
judged against and held accountable for. We would have no need
to study ethics if we were like Robinson Crusoe, living on a
deserted island, since there would be no one to be just or unjust
to. It is because we have to live among others that ethical conduct
is necessary. This takes us back to where we started—no man is
an island—and now we have come full circle in our exploration
of social capital. Let us put it all together in one last innovative
model, to see how one organization has implemented these ideas
to create wealth for its customers.
PUTTING ALL YOUR SOCIAL CAPITAL TOGETHER:
THE CONCIERGE SERVICE MODEL
My VeraSage Institute colleague, Dan Morris, has long believed
social capital is the least leveraged of all of the intellectual capital in most businesses. He has borrowed a very old concept
from the hotel industry to change this situation in his accounting firm—what he calls the Concierge Service Model. In effect,
Dan wants his best customers to call him for anything they need,
anytime, anywhere. The logic is not to offer a “one-stop shop,”
but rather a “first-stop shop” experience for your customers. We
have already seen the suggestion the only true scarce resource in
today’s information-rich and knowledge-intense economy is people’s attention. The Concierge Service Model was devised for
your best customers to think of your firm first for any need or
want they might have.
Dan’s firm has helped people get Super Bowl tickets, five-star
restaurant dinner reservations, theater tickets, a plumber, a new
roof, an automobile, a doctor or dentist for newcomers to town,
and so forth. The theory is that you already know someone in
your network who can satisfy the customer’s need or want. Is
it not better to recommend them to someone in your network,
effectively leveraging your firm’s social capital? If you trust
the people within your network, this will be a win-win situation all around—your firm will be offering higher value, your
09/05/07
254
Baker-c13-2
PUTTING ALL YOUR SOCIAL CAPITAL TOGETHER: THE CONCIERGE SERVICE MODEL
09/05/07
255
customers will appreciate the additional business you send their
way, and the customers will be satisfied and, most likely, have
their expectations exceeded. If no one in your network can satisfy the customers’ need, chances are they know someone who
can. And even if it turns out no one can satisfy the customer,
isn’t it nice to know your customer is thinking of your firm first
for anything that he or she may desire? You are putting “velvet
ropes” around the customers, helping to ensure that they do not
let a potential competitor penetrate the sphere of your influence,
while increasing their switching costs.
This service mentality has the salutary effect of raising your
firm’s collective consciousness with respect to its best customers,
while offering a better experience to them. You move through the
following levels in order to provide a full-service concierge:
• Awareness
• Familiarity
• Knowledge
• Understanding
Once you move to a level of understanding of your customers’
wants, desires, hopes, aspirations, future goals, and so on, the
Concierge Service Model becomes easier to facilitate. It does
entail some risk; you have to refer businesses you know are
excellent value providers, but your customers are an excellent
source for this talent. You also have to reserve capacity for
these first-class customers, so the firm is not able to handle
as many customers as a firm of equivalent size. Yet Dan does
not let the risks overshadow the opportunities of offering this
dynamic service model. He knows that it increases customer loyalty, he can charge a premium price for offering this service,
it deepens the relationships throughout the firm’s social capital
base, and instills the mindset among his team members that they
are not just a technical professional firm, but a total-solutions
firm, providing an enormous competitive differentiation in the
marketplace.
255
Baker-c13-2
256
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
CONCIERGE SERVICE MODEL
by Daniel D. Morris, CPA, Partner, Morris + D’Angelo; Founder,
VeraSage Institute
The Concierge Service Model (CSM) reflects my analysis of the ultimate
value proposition for leading customers. This model is not designed
for a company’s rank-and-file customers. Rather, it is specifically
designed to provide a complete service solution for any unfulfilled
need or want to those customers who desire a higher level of service
from our firm.
The CSM has been established to leverage a company’s depth of intellectual capital and related social capital to enable its team members
to deliver solutions within and outside of their core areas of expertise.
Leading customers, those customers who provide either current or
future significant profits, are both extremely valuable and extremely
valued. I determined our firm’s best customers were the envy of all of
my competitors, and my competitors were certainly willing to impact
my customers’ purchasing decisions.
In order to provide additional control over the relationship between our
firm and our customers, I started to leverage knowledge, relationships,
and information that was outside of our normal and daily routines.
It started out by solving simple issues like suggestions for anniversary
gifts, preferred restaurant ideas, and travel destinations. Although we
are not retailers, restaurateurs, or travel agents, our combined 35 years
of business experiences along with our 80 years of life experiences allowed my founding CPA firm partner and I enough knowledge to share
with our better customers those special items, locations, and events we
had found that made dramatic impact and improved our lives.
As word spread among and between our leading customers, referral sources, and professional colleagues, we were more and more
frequently approached by our customers for our advice and opinions on areas outside of our core competencies (accounting, tax, and
09/05/07
256
Baker-c13-2
PUTTING ALL YOUR SOCIAL CAPITAL TOGETHER: THE CONCIERGE SERVICE MODEL
09/05/07
257
general business advisory services) and we were enjoying this
increased respect and confirmation of our abilities to match a customer
want with a desired outcome.
We started to experiment with our service offerings and our pricing by
segmenting our customers into differing groups and requiring a price
premium for these concierge services. Those customers that opted
for our premium level of services recognized that, through our direct
sources of several hundred current customers and nearly a thousand
key contacts in our relationship database, we were their ‘‘hub’’ for
nearly any information and opinion for which they were searching.
Our most challenging requests have included acquisition (without
paying a scalper’s premium) of Super Bowl tickets, sold out Broadway
Shows, dinner reservations at fully booked restaurants across the
country, and itineraries, including recommended accommodations,
for travel on nearly every continent.
We have also provided access to emergency medical treatment for
customers and their out-of-town guests. These services were for our
hometown while we were traveling. As Harvey Makay explained, 2:00
A.M. is a terrible time to learn that you need a referral to a doctor. What
we have learned is that our network of customers, team members,
referral networks, and professional associations is an excellent source
for effective and efficient solutions and advice for our customers.
The CSM has provided our firm with additional protections from
encroachment by aggressive competitors, enhanced the personal and
professional lives of our customers and their loved ones, and has
provided both financial and emotional enrichment for all of our team
members.
Nothing can compare to helping others achieve their dreams. Through
our continuous process of developing our social and knowledge
networks, we will continue to be our customers’ leading source for
happiness and problem solutions, and by so doing we will preserve
our pricing advantage and insure our future.
257
Baker-c13-2
258
SOCIAL CAPITAL: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Your organization’s social capital—customers, reputation and
brands, referral sources and networks, suppliers and vendors,
shareholders and other external stakeholders, joint venture partners and alliances, industry associations and formal affiliations,
alumni, unions, corporate universities, open source collaboration,
and cultural, moral, and ethical capital—not only represent a
lever to help you move the earth, but also provide a solid place on
which to stand. As with other nonrival assets, an organization’s
social capital is not limited by physical time or space. In fact,
it takes advantage of Metcalfe’s Law of the computer industry
and the Telecosm, which states the value of a network increases
as the square of the number of users connected to it—that is,
connections multiply value exponentially. Everyone in your organization’s social network is a producer, consumer, and supplier
of intellectual capital.
Gary Becker’s theory—as well as that of others studying this
area—of social capital recognizes the dominant role it plays in
our lives and the lives of our customers and ourselves. No one
exists in a vacuum. We are all heavily influenced by our family,
friends, colleagues, neighbors, and so forth. The knowledge firm
of the future will begin to leverage this inexhaustible source of
IC to create value for everyone who comes into its sphere of
influence, and it will become more effective in attracting the type
of people it wants to work with and for, and improve the quality
of its social, not to mention financial, life.
It is now time to turn our attention to the other side of the intellectual capital coin. Far more than we may care to acknowledge,
we are guided by our beliefs more than what we know. Let us
learn why.
09/05/07
258
Baker-c14-2
09/05/07
14
KNOWLEDGE VERSUS BELIEFS
Our knowledge is a drop, our ignorance a sea.
—William James, American psychologist and philosopher
Al Qaeda is an example of an organization that effectively leveraged all of the elements of intellectual capital—human, structural,
and social—to achieve its objectives on September 11, 2001. As
wicked as it is to write about their evil mission in a business book,
one has to admit that they leveraged an array of intangibles, specific knowledge, alliances, and networks, along with one of the
oldest tools known to man—the knife. In terms of the destruction
per person it was able to inflict—the immoral equivalent of profit
per person perhaps—the results were a validation that the capacity for intellectual capital (IC) is just as great to destroy wealth
as it is in creating it. Like technology itself, knowledge can be
used for both good and evil. Consider these two statements:
“In everyday life a person with a clear-cut life goal, which he
strives to reach in all circumstances, will always be superior to
others who are aimless.”
“We are participating in a New Economy, and the rules have
changed dramatically. What you own is not as important as what
you know.”
I would venture to guess most readers are nodding their head
in agreement with these two statements, especially the second in
the context of what we have been exploring in this book. Does it
259
259
Baker-c14-2
260
KNOWLEDGE VERSUS BELIEFS
change your opinion on the veracity of these statements to know
from whence they came? The first was written by Adolf Hitler
in his unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf . The second was from
the “Letter to Shareholders” in the 1999 Enron Annual Report.
We have hinted at the topic of negative intellectual capital
throughout this book. Obviously, not all knowledge is created
equal. We have also discussed how knowledge can become obsolete. Throughout, we have discussed legacy systems from the
Industrial Era that are holding organizations back from reaching
their full potential in an IC economy. Some examples of negative
IC are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Avoiding change
Not experimenting
Taylorite micromanaging, especially knowledge workers
Resisting ideas from employees
Bureaucratic rules and procedures that add no value, and
may even destroy value
Lack of risk taking
Confusing efficiency with effectiveness
Underinvesting in the future while overinvesting in the
present
An unclear, unarticulated, or uninspiring purpose
This is by no means an exhaustive list. Every reader, I am
certain, would be able to add several negative traits of their organizations that hold them back. All of these examples raise an
interesting dichotomy: Which guides us more, what we know or
what we believe?
At the end of World War II, English writer and prominent
socialist H. G. Wells wrote, “Human history becomes more and
more a race between education and catastrophe.” Wells was a
socialist who believed knowledge alone would create a more
peaceful world. But surely before they became the aggressors
in World War II, the German people were among the best educated in the world—with their universities to become the model
09/05/07
260
Baker-c14-2
KNOWLEDGE VERSUS BELIEFS
09/05/07
261
for America’s—and the Japanese among the most literate. For
as valuable as knowledge and education are—and they have
been given a prominent role in this work—it is imperative to
bear in mind that man is guided far more by his beliefs than
his knowledge. How else does one begin to explain why people fly airplanes into buildings? Rabbi Daniel Lapin makes this
point quite cogently in his book, Thou Shall Prosper, helping his
readers understand how the world really works:
You are best understood and appraised by others on the basis of the
things you believe rather than on the basis of the things you know .
For example, during the twentieth century, Jews again learned the
importance of this principle. They learned that what the Germans
of the Third Reich believed was far more important a guide to
their actions than the things they knew . After all, Germany was a
society whose universities had produced the world’s most accomplished scientists, like Max Planck, and great philosophers, like
George Hegel. Germany was a society that had produced writers
like Heinrich Heine and musicians like Ludwig van Beethoven.
Nonetheless, it was their beliefs about a superrace and the genetic
inferiority of Jews—beliefs that had little to do with facts—that
won the day and changed the course of history.
Most of the really important adventures on which you embark
depend on belief and faith. For instance, when you marry, you
seldom do so on the basis of incontrovertible facts: You don’t
walk down the aisle knowing for certain that you are going to live
happily ever after in a state of permanently wedded bliss. And you
don’t enter the state of matrimony knowing everything there is to
know about your spouse. You marry on the basis of belief and
faith.
. . . For an entrepreneur, starting a business far more closely
resembles marriage. . . . Faith is key (Lapin 2002: 183).
Indeed, all enterprise is an act of faith, a faith in the future,
faith in the ability to humble yourself before others and solve their
problems, create real value, investing in an unknown future where
predetermined returns are uncertain—supplying before you can
demand. Hence, all organizations are built and operated on a
261
Baker-c14-2
262
KNOWLEDGE VERSUS BELIEFS
worldview—what Peter Drucker called “The Theory of the Business.” We are ruled by our theories and worldviews far more
than we are willing to admit. Accumulated knowledge certainly
guides this theory, but ultimately any business is subject to the
same process as a scientific theory—that of falsification.
PROFITS COME FROM RISK AND UNCERTAINTY
The only way to look into the future is use theories since conclusive
data is only available about the past.
—Clayton Christensen, et al., Seeing What’s Next: Using the
Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change, 2004
In Chapter 5, we discussed how profits are derived from risk. At
this point, we will add uncertainty as well, the difference being
that risk can be measured by assigning a probability (such as the
chance of a coin’s coming up heads is 50%), whereas uncertainty
cannot be calculated at all. From an entrepreneur launching a new
business to an existing organization introducing a new product,
both are acting on a theory that ultimately will be subject to falsification in the marketplace. Peter Drucker explained this process in
one of his many Harvard Business Review articles entitled “The
Theory of the Business” (September-October 1994, reprinted in
Drucker, 2003). Since the macroeconomic environment of nearly
any developed country is comprised of millions of businesses, the
aggregate marketplace is a laboratory where multiple hypotheses
get tested, where customers spending their own money ultimately
falsify the theory of any one particular firm. All ideas and theories
are, ultimately, subjected to this authentication process.
For all of our advances in management thinking and the thousands of business books published each year claiming the path
to success with some new fad, there is simply no economic theory that can predict which particular company will succeed and
which will fail. If there were, competition itself would serve no
09/05/07
262
Baker-c14-2
PROFITS COME FROM RISK AND UNCERTAINTY
09/05/07
263
purpose. And competition is incredibly risky and full of uncertainty. Throughout history, man has developed various institutions
to deal with risk management, including:
▪
Domestication of wildlife —allowed the change from hunting
to agricultural society.
▪
The family —allows greater productivity without increasing
risk.
▪
Private property —barbed wire, the barking dog, laws and
institutions to protect it.
▪
Contracts —allow parties to bind themselves to take certain
actions if a risk did materialize.
▪
Trade —continuous expansion of voluntary exchange.
▪
Arbitrage —middlemen who take risk on future prices.
▪
Insurance —Originating in the maritime industry, insurance
was the first business based solely on risk management; were
it not available, a vast array of risky activities would not take
place.
▪
The corporation —According to Nobel laureate Ronald
Coase, a firm is created to perform tasks collectively at less
cost than could be done individually through the market.
▪
Accounting —to record historical transactions and, more
recently, the heroic attempt to assign static value to a dynamic
concern.
▪
External monitoring —banks, credit rating agencies, credit
scoring, and so on.
▪
Derivatives —transactions that derive their value from some
underlying asset, reference rate, or index. During the Great
Depression, “speculative excesses” were blamed, and financial contracts called privileges were outlawed. Not until
deregulation in 1981 were they legalized, and upon reappearance were known as options (Culp and Niskanen 2003:
277–284).
The above institutions, with the exception of the corporation,
are all conserving institutions, all with the mission of preventing
263
Baker-c14-2
264
KNOWLEDGE VERSUS BELIEFS
change or slowing it down. Only the business enterprise is a destabilizing institution, organized for creative destruction. This is why
economic dynamism and growth depends on innovation and the
entrepreneur, because as organizations age they tend to regress
to stability and homeostasis, not change. This is the reason most
innovations take existing industries by surprise, as Harvard professor Clayton Christensen has documented so well in his work
(see the Bibliography and Suggested Reading).
The buggy whip manufacturers did not invent the automobile,
and slide rule companies were taken out by the calculator, and so
on, as the history of all innovations show. Henry Ford famously
said, “If I had listened to my customers, I would have given them
a faster horse.” Without the risk takers in society, growth would
slow immeasurably. Discovery and innovation always take us by
surprise; otherwise, we could run the economy with bureaucrats
and our immense computational power—an idea falsified by the
former Soviet Union. George Gilder articulates this point well:
Knowledge emerges not from chaos, or fixity, but from conditions
of uncertainty. Under capitalism power flows to precisely the people who are willing to stake their money not on gambles or sure
things but on testable hypotheses, thus generating knowledge and
wealth for society.
Entrepreneurs are trustworthy because they accept a moral code
of testability and falsifiability rather than one based on sentiment,
sanctimony, good intentions, good press, good luck, good looks or
guarantees (Gilder 2002).
Thomas Sowell also explains the importance of risk, along with
its associated costs:
Although risks may be calculated mathematically, as in the actuarial tables of life insurance companies, the cost of a given risk is no
more objective than any other cost. Some people can sleep soundly
with their rent unpaid, and creditors threatening to repossess their
car or attach their salary. Other people worry about their money
in a government-insured bank account. In between are numerous
gradations of individual concern for a given risk, and therefore a
09/05/07
264
Baker-c14-2
PROFITS COME FROM RISK AND UNCERTAINTY
09/05/07
265
different psychic cost paid in carrying that risk, or different financial costs paid to reduce the risk. For example, bondholders may
accept a lower rate of return than stockholders as the price they
pay to reduce the risk of losing their investment.
If risky activities like drilling for oil wells (most wells have
no oil) were financed by nervous people, the cost would be much
higher than if such activities were financed by devil-may-care types
who are happy to be able to dream of striking it rich some day.
For an optimal distribution of risks, knowledge must somehow
be communicated through the system as to who is more willing and who is more reluctant to bear the various levels of risk
which are inherent in undertaking different economic (or other)
activities. This kind of knowledge is far too specific and changing to be reduced to a science or to be mastered by “experts”
(Sowell 1996: 61).
It is simply impossible to know how to do something until you
attempt it. In a free market system, it is the leap, not the look,
that generates the indispensable understanding and the necessary
knowledge to generate wealth. A world where companies are
“built to last” exists only in book titles, not in the “perennial
gale of creative destruction” necessary to propel the economy
forward. For my part, I would not want to live in a world where
companies last forever. This is the ideology of communism and
socialism, not a vibrant and dynamic free market economy. If a
business is no longer creating wealth for its customers, I want
the market—meaning sovereign customers—to ruthlessly drive
it out of business for wasting society’s resources. I do not want
to inhabit a world built from the economist’s perfect competition
model, where businesses do nothing but crank out commodities
on a “level playing field,” with no ability to affect prices, output,
or customer preferences. How dreadfully boring. No innovation,
no dynamism, no growth.
I look forward to the destruction capitalism produces as much
as I do the dynamism. Silicon Valley may be a font of creativity,
but only because it rests atop a mass cemetery of bankrupted
hypotheses—many more ventures fail than succeed—falsified
265
Baker-c14-2
266
KNOWLEDGE VERSUS BELIEFS
by the sovereignty of the customer. Henry Ford wrote, “The man
who is too set to change is dead already. The funeral is a mere
detail” (Ford 1922: 239). The same applies to companies, which
is why capitalism creates prosperity—it has a built-in falsification
process whereby companies, like scientific experiments, can be
proven wrong and removed from wasting society’s oxygen. It is
not survival of the fittest; it is survival of only those firms that
continue to add more value to society than they consume.
This is one of the problems with benchmarking, business
books, and consultants. They study only the survivors, those
companies with a track record of success, measured usually
by financial accounting statements. But as Phil Rosenzweig
points out in his insightful book, The Halo Effect, “So many
of the things that we—managers, journalists, professors, and
consultants—commonly think contribute to company performance are often attributions based on performance” (Rosenzweig
2007: 64). If consultants applied the same logic to war, they
would conclude that no one ever dies since they only observe
and study the living.
Since no one can know with any certainty which enterprise
is going to succeed, beliefs are far more powerful than simply
what we know. And it is also those very same beliefs that are
so difficult to alter in the face of changing conditions. Without
an authentication process, we simply could not progress. As we
learned in Chapter 6, science is one way to validate knowledge,
utilizing the scientific method of observation, categorization, prediction, and confirmation. Even within science, old theories can
take centuries before being replaced by better theories, as the
example of germ theory proves.
The physicist Max Planck wrote, “A new scientific truth does
not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see
the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and
a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” This statement has often been interpreted as “science progresses funeral
by funeral.” This seems a rather pessimistic view of mankind’s
09/05/07
266
Baker-c14-2
PROFITS COME FROM RISK AND UNCERTAINTY
09/05/07
267
progress, as if we had to line up our elders and shoot them to
advance. Yet, sometimes it seems so. How else do we account
for all of the negative and obsolete IC discussed throughout the
Intellectual Capitalism Series—cost-plus pricing, a ruthless focus
on efficiency, Taylorite thinking, and measuring for the sake of
measuring, confusing cause and effect?
I do not have a conclusive answer to this question; but I do
believe it is largely because we are guided far more by our beliefs
than our knowledge; and since our beliefs are part of our theories
of how the world works, we relinquish them only after some
traumatic experience, or the difference between our beliefs and
reality is simply too great to ignore—in other words, people
change not when they see the light but rather when they feel
the heat. This is precisely why entrepreneurs are so essential to
growth and wealth creation. Existing organizations that have done
something well millions and millions of times are usually not the
best vehicles to perform something new for the first time. Jack
Welch put it this way: “Change has no constituency.” Niccolo
Machiavelli said it even better in The Prince: “Innovation makes
enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime, and
only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would
prosper under the new.” John Perazzo, in his book The Myths
That Divide Us, sums it up nicely:
It requires courage to cast the accumulated myths of a lifetime
to the wind. Our natural desire for simplicity, certitude, and the
approval of others occasionally causes us to defend even our most
flawed worldviews as if our very lives depended on them. Dead
belief systems are difficult to bury, for in doing so we enter a
world we do not recognize; we watch the carefully crafted towers
of our understanding crash down in ruins; and we lose an integral
piece of the only reality we have known, reinforced and imprinted
on our minds by a thousand voices, internal and external (Perazzo
1999: 17).
This discussion on risk and uncertainty sets the stage for another
aspect of what is becoming increasingly a marginalized body
267
Baker-c14-2
268
KNOWLEDGE VERSUS BELIEFS
of knowledge, yet it is clung to with ferocity and has far too
much dominion in the running of enterprise. Prepare to challenge the most sacred of cows in the business world, what the
nineteenth-century German writer and scientist Johann Wolfgang
von Goethe described as “among the loveliest inventions of the
human mind.” As a recovering CPA, I think it is necessary to challenge my colleagues’ worldview by questioning whether accounting is really as relevant as they believe.
DEBITS DON’T EQUAL CREDITS
But Ric, in the real world debits don’t equal credits.
—Dan Morris, in an inspired moment at dinner with Ric Payne,
founder of Principa, and Ron Baker
Goodwill is the word we use to label our ignorance.
—Paul O’Byrne, chartered accountant, partner, O’Byrne and
Kennedy; senior fellow, VeraSage Institute
On December 21, 2006, George Gilder wrote on his blog about
the last time he saw Peter Drucker speak (http://blog.gildertech.
com). It is such a profound piece that goes to the heart of how
accounting is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the spirit of
enterprise, it is worth quoting in full:
The last time I saw Peter Drucker, he was keynoting a Forbes
conference in Seattle for CEOs. In the auditorium at the International Trade Center next to the bay, they had wheeled out the great
man to the middle of the stage in a great fluffy easy chair. Close
to 90 years old—at the end of the previous century gazing toward
the next—he was the numinous name and Delphic presence at the
conference. Everyone leaned forward to hear what he had to say.
Then a gasp shook the rows of CEOs. The conference management stood there stricken, unable to move: “For the Love of
Malcolm’s motorcycle . . .What is this?” The CEOs sat popeyed.
The hoary sage’s balding pate flopped back in the chair as if he
had fallen asleep . . . or worse.
09/05/07
268
Baker-c14-2
DEBITS DON’T EQUAL CREDITS
Perhaps Forbes had erred in staking a major conference on an
aging guru seemingly well over the hill and in parlous health.
Then his entire body fell forward. I was ready to run up to
catch him if he should tumble toward the crowd. But he somehow
caught himself. His eyes opened, and he looked out intently at the
throng of CEOs. Everyone sighed with relief. He was awake. He
had their attention.
Drucker growled: “I have just one thing to tell you today. Just
one thing . . .”
Wow, I said to myself, it better be good.
“No one,” he continued, “but no one in your company, knows
less about your business than your See Eff Oh.”
Huh?
This was the era of the heroic Chief Financial Officer (CFO).
Scott Sullivan of Worldcom, Andy Fastow of Enron, clever, inventive folk like that. You remember them. Across the country, CFOs
were in the saddle. CEOs would not move without consulting
them.
What could Drucker have meant?
He was stating law number one of the Telecoms.
Knowledge is about the past. Entrepreneurship is about the
future. CFOs deal with past numbers. By the time they get them all
parsed and pinned down, the numbers are often wrong. In effect,
CFOs are trying to steer companies by peering into the rearview
mirror. Past numbers do not have anything much to do with future
numbers. As Ken Fisher puts it in his new book The Only Three
Questions That Count, “Stock prices [and by extension other business numbers] are not serially correlated.”
Moreover, CFOs tend to focus on internal problems. But most
internal problems cannot be solved internally. Determining business outcomes are decisions made by customers and investors and
both are outside the company and not directly managed by the
company. Their views can change in an instant, casting all the
existing numbers into oblivion. To reach customers and investors
takes outside vision and leadership, not internal problem solving.
Tech companies should not try to solve problems. Solving problems sounds good, but it is a loser. You end up feeding your
failures, starving your strengths and achieving costly mediocrity.
Don’t solve problems—that’s the CFO’s forte and pitfall. Pursue
09/05/07
269
269
Baker-c14-2
270
KNOWLEDGE VERSUS BELIEFS
opportunities (http://blog.gildertech.com/index.php?/archives/36Law-Number-One-of-the-Telecosm.html, accessed December 28,
2006).
A lot of rules have been added since the Venetian monk Luca
Pacioli published the first accounting textbook, Summa de arithmetica, geometrica, proportioni et proportionalita, in 1494, introducing double-entry bookkeeping. It was a creation for future
accountants that was as big as the invention of zero for mathematicians. Unfortunately, one could also make the argument that
it was the last revolutionary idea to come from the accounting
profession. As quoted in Intellectual Capital, David Wilson, CPA
and partner at Ernst & Young: “It has been 500 years since Pacioli published his seminal work on accounting and we have seen
virtually no innovation in the practice of accounting—just more
rules—none of which has changed the framework of measurement” (Stewart 1997: 58).
The balance sheet dates from 1868; the income statement from
before World War II. Generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP) fits an industrial enterprise, not an intellectual one.
Currently, GAAP measures the cost of everything, and knows
the value of nothing. As Robert K. Elliott pointed out in an essay
entitled “The Third Wave Breaks on the Shores of Accounting”:
[GAAP] focuses on tangible assets, that is, the assets of the industrial revolution. These include inventory and fixed assets: for
example, coal, iron, and steam engines. And these assets are stated
at cost. Accordingly, we focus on costs, which is the production
side, rather than the value created , which is the customer side
(Stewart 1997: 58).
The profession of public accounting as we presently know it
came into existence in Great Britain in the 1850s with the introduction of the companies acts and the bankruptcy acts, legislation
designed to protect shareholders and promote capital accumulation during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution. In the
09/05/07
270
Baker-c14-2
DEBITS DON’T EQUAL CREDITS
09/05/07
271
decades following the U.S. Civil War, British chartered accountants came to the United States to monitor the capital investments
of the Old World in the New World.
But the traditional accounting model is over 500 years old,
and it is in bad shape. Financial statements presented in accordance with GAAP are based on a liquidation value of a business,
essentially historical cost assets less liabilities—a heroic attempt
to assign static value to a dynamic and going concern. The income
statement was set up to account for the most important cost in
an industrial society: cost of goods sold. But in an IC economy,
cost of revenue is less meaningful. In the Industrial Age, there
was not much of a lag between the creation of inventory and the
realization of its value from a transaction. In the knowledge economy, however, creation can precede transactions, sometimes by
years or decades, as with software and pharmaceutical research
and development (R&D). Even though IC is the main driver of
wealth, you will look in vain to find it in the traditional GAAP
statements—the balance sheet, income statement, and statement
of cash flows. Increasingly, these statements are being referred to
as the “three blind mice.”
Coca-Cola’s brand name alone was estimated to be worth $67
billion in 2006, according to Interbrand, a London consultancy
that calculates the value of brand names by comparing the premium priced earnings of branded products with what could be
earned by a generic equivalent (you can find more information
at www.interbrand.com). Some critics, such as Harvard Business
Review editor and managing director Thomas A. Stewart, have
asserted:
Most important, the case against conventional accounting has
become—it seems to most observers—open and shut: It’s incontrovertibly true that present financial and management accounting
does not give investors, directors, the public, or management the
information they need to make informed decisions. It is time, once
and for all, to drive a stake through the heart of traditional accounting, which is draining the life from business (Stewart 2001: xiv).
271
Baker-c14-2
272
KNOWLEDGE VERSUS BELIEFS
Abraham Briloff, a professor of accounting at Baruch College
and irritant to the auditing profession, contends that accounting statements are like bikinis: “What they show is interesting,
but what they conceal is significant.” According to Dr. Margaret
Blair, in a study for the Brookings Institution, in 1978, 80 percent
of a company’s value could be attributed to its tangible assets;
by 1988, only 45 percent; in 1998, only 30 percent (Harrison and
Sullivan 2006: 4). In effect, 70 percent of the average company’s
value cannot be explained by traditional GAAP financial statements. The consulting firm Accenture has arrived at the same
conclusion with respect to the value of companies listed on the
Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500. Adding more arcane and picayune
rules to GAAP, or converging existing GAAP with international
accounting standards, will not solve this problem. The accounting model is suffering from what philosophers call a deteriorating
paradigm —the theory gets more and more complex to account
for its lack of explanatory power.
These shortcomings of GAAP explain why Larry Page and
Sergey Brin, cofounders of Google, wrote, in effect, their worldview in their “Letter from the Founders: An Owner’s Manual for
Google’s Shareholders.” This letter was written at the time of
Google’s initial public offering in 2004, and it clearly illustrates
that Page and Brin had a definite theory of their business, while
understanding that the archaic accounting model should not be
the talisman to guide their company:
Many companies are under pressure to keep their earnings in line
with analysts’ forecasts. Therefore, they often accept smaller, predictable earnings rather than larger and less predictable returns.
Sergey and I feel this is harmful, and we intend to steer in the
opposite direction.
Our long term focus does have risks. Markets may have trouble
evaluating long term value, thus potentially reducing the value
of our company. Our long term focus may simply be the wrong
business strategy. Competitors may be rewarded for short term
09/05/07
272
Baker-c14-2
DEBITS DON’T EQUAL CREDITS
09/05/07
273
tactics and grow stronger as a result. As potential investors, you
should consider the risks around our long term focus.
We will make business decisions with the long term welfare of
our company and shareholders in mind and not based on accounting considerations.
Although we may discuss long term trends in our business, we
do not plan to give earnings guidance in the traditional sense. We
are not able to predict our business within a narrow range for each
quarter. We recognize that our duty is to advance our shareholder’s
interests, and we believe that artificially creating short term target
numbers serves our shareholders poorly. We would prefer not to be
asked to make such predictions, and if asked we will respectfully
decline. A management team distracted by a series of short term
targets is as pointless as a dieter stepping on a scale every half
hour.
We encourage our employees, in addition to their regular
projects, to spend 20% of their time working on what they think
will most benefit Google. This empowers them to be more creative
and innovative. Many of our significant advances have happened in
this manner. For example, AdSense for content and Google News
were both prototyped in “20% time.” Most risky projects fizzle,
often teaching us something. Others succeed and become attractive businesses (http://investor.google.com/founders letter.html,
accessed February 8, 2007, pp. 2; 3).
In all fairness to accounting, it never was meant to predict value
prospectively, only to record transactions retroactively. In effect,
accounting can only measure exchanges after they have taken
place. This is why accounting can only record the “goodwill” of
a business until after is has been sold. Accounting has no way
to place a value on that goodwill until a transaction takes place.
That is why my colleague Paul O’Byrne says goodwill is the
name we give to our ignorance, since to value goodwill before
a business is sold would require a theory, since theories are the
only way to peer into the future. The best an accountant can do
is to extrapolate the past into the future, and unless one believes
that the future is going to be the same as the past, this technique
is fraught with hazards. This was Drucker’s point at the CEO
273
Baker-c14-2
274
KNOWLEDGE VERSUS BELIEFS
conference in Seattle. CEOs have to create the future, not relive
the past, and the only way to do that is with a theory of the
business.
Financial statements are examples of lagging indicators, as
they report on where a particular business has been. This may or
may not be useful in determining where the business is heading.
Real-time financial statements would rise to the level of what
economists call coincident indicators, since they would track
present performance. But what every business should develop
is a set of leading indicators that would enable them to get a
sense of where the business is heading. Yet the accounting profession proffers little help in achieving this objective, for a very
fundamental reason: Accounting is not a theory.
Developing leading indicators requires evolving a set of falsifiable theories the business can test to determine the relationship
between those indicators and future financial performance. When
Fra Luca Pacioli introduced double-entry bookkeeping in 1494, it
was no doubt a revolutionary concept, as it allowed businesses to
expand beyond familial and geographical boundaries. Accounting to this day states, quite rightly, that debits must always equal
credits. That is, it is an identity statement, expressed in the following fundamental accounting equation taught in every beginning
bookkeeping course:
Assets − Liabilities = Owner’s Equity
An identity statement is true by its very definition. It is an
equation that can explain nothing but itself. It is not a theory. A
demand curve is an example of an identity statement: the summation of how much product customers would purchase at various
prices. The supply curve is the same: a summation of how much
product businesses would be willing to provide at various prices.
It was not until economists combined these two identities into the
scissors of the well-known supply-and-demand graph—inserting
some assumptions along the way—that they posited the theory
of supply and demand . This allows them to predict future price
09/05/07
274
Baker-c14-2
DEBITS DON’T EQUAL CREDITS
09/05/07
275
movements in the economy. The principles of accounting also
do not comprise a theory; rather, they are simply a set of guidelines, rules, and procedures for measuring financial items such as
assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses, grounded by standards
such as relevance, reliability, and materiality.
One cannot use the accounting equation to predict the future
performance of a business any more than one can use the federal
government’s budget deficit, or trade deficit, as a predictive tool.
It is not the equation or the measurement that provides the usefulness; it is the context of the assumptions behind it that matter.
Charles Handy sheds some light on the historical influence of the
accounting curriculum in Britain’s business schools:
The best preparation, however, for a management role in business was generally thought to be an accountancy qualification. In
preparing my report ‘The Making of Managers,’ I unearthed the
intriguing fact that Britain had 168,000 qualified accountants compared with four thousand in West Germany, six thousand in Japan
and twenty thousand in France. We didn’t need or use that many
accountants. The great majority were not working as accountants at
all, but as nonfinancial managers in business organizations. There
is nothing wrong with the accountancy training—for accountants.
But accountants are taught to give priority to the visible financial
costs and assets, not to the less quantifiable human assets, which
they regard as costs. They focus on the past rather than the future,
because that alone can be accurately measured and audited. Their
training regards risk, uncertainty and the unknown as undesirable.
People management, at that time, had no place in the curriculum,
for money and its measurement was all that mattered. The accountancy profession had, accidentally, become the business schools of
Britain. No wonder our economy was lagging behind that of our
competitors (Handy 2006: 59–60).
I am not prepared to draw the conclusion that Britain’s lagging economic performance is tied to accountancy education, but
I have no doubt of the accounting profession’s inability to take
the lead in movements such as the Balanced Scorecard, which
275
Baker-c14-2
276
KNOWLEDGE VERSUS BELIEFS
attempts to look at more indicators than merely historical financial performance metrics. They have begun some initiatives in this
area, but they have been half-hearted at best, nor have they been
very successful in changing the accounting model, as we shall
see later. Is it any wonder so many companies provide pro-forma
financial statements to their users? In any other discipline, this
would be a leading indicator that the information you are providing is not as valuable as it could be, but the accounting profession
is not innovative. After all, its last true innovation—financial
statement compilations and reviews, two lesser services to the
flagship audit—came in 1978, a nearly 30-year innovation curve,
and counting.
Robert K. Elliott, former partner at KPMG and past chairman
of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, summarized the state of the accounting profession, explaining what it
needed to do to stay relevant in an intellectual capital economy:
. . . I think we have to look at the scope question in terms of the
historical sweep of the adequacy or inadequacy of the accounting
model. I would like to address the issue from an historical perspective. Before the Industrial Revolution when we were in the
agricultural era, the information professionals were the scribes.
They were the people that could read and write. They wrote down
the accountability records and kept the contractual memos. Preceding industrialization, a necessary condition was the development of
accountancy, which was a much more elaborate way of keeping
records and of analyzing and interpreting and figuring out what
happened. When that happened the scribes went away. In one
sense, there were no professional scribes anymore, but in another
sense we all became our own scribes. We all learned how to read
and write and document things. Now we come to the Industrial
Revolution and we have these accountants, who keep records and
sum up financial transactions. I would submit that as we move
toward the Post–Industrial Era the accountant goes the way of the
scribe. We don’t have a class of accountants anymore. In effect we
all become our own accountants. We all do the data entry and the
analysis necessary to reach our own conclusions. And what has to
happen is there has to be an emergence of a new professional class
09/05/07
276
Baker-c14-2
FINANCIAL MODEL REFORM
09/05/07
277
that is focused not on just keeping records or summing up transactions but on the strategic use of knowledge to create value. And
that becomes the new playing field. As accountants, we have an
historical opportunity here to reposition ourselves into that space;
you can put any other name on it if you like. Or we can go the
way of the scribes—the way of the people whose function has
been absorbed into the fabric of what everybody can do for him
or herself. Much of the work we used to do in the accountancy profession is now done by those who would have been our clients by
using Intuit or Peachtree or TurboTax or something like that. We
have to move up the value chain to higher value activities, which
are those involved not about the production and summarization
of information but about the use of information in order to make
wise wealth creating decisions. And that’s the shift we have to
make. Now, that’s the good news because we have the opportunity to see the need and reposition ourselves. The bad news is
that history doesn’t provide many precedents for entire professions
or businesses transforming themselves into a new wealth creation
paradigm. Frequently they have expired. Their function has gone
away and they with it. But the opportunity still exists for us to
transform our profession (Jensen 2002: 20–21).
Will accountants go the way of the scribes? Is there a prospect
for real financial reporting model reform, or are we condemned
to a 500-year-old model that increasingly ignores IC?
FINANCIAL MODEL REFORM
Financial statement accounting today is where physics was a century ago. By that time, it was obvious that Newton’s laws failed
to explain gravity, the behavior of atoms, and so forth. Consistent
with all scientific progress, once some of Isaac Newton’s theories
were falsified, Einstein replaced them with his theory of relativity.
Unfortunately, accounting is not subject to the scientific method,
mostly because it is not a theory.
This is not for lack of effort on the part of the accounting profession. Various alternative models have been proffered, but each
is found lacking because it is glued upon the identity equation. For
277
Baker-c14-2
278
KNOWLEDGE VERSUS BELIEFS
example, some commentators have suggested a formula similar
to this:
Market Value = Book Value (GAAP) + Intellectual Capital
The problem with this is that they are different measurements.
Book value only captures value realization, whereas IC is about
value creation in the future. Bill Swirsky, vice president of the
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, explains how the
Institute has dealt with IC and traditional financial statements:
Our early efforts were focused on “shoehorning” IC into traditional
financial statements. In 1997, however, we came to the conclusion that trying to put IC into financial statements was bound
to be unsuccessful for a variety of reasons. Further, we realized
that financial measurement for intangibles produced an inaccurate answer to the wrong question: What is the financial value
of the firm’s IC? We concluded instead that the right question
was: How can we measure the value that organizations create?
We came to realize that traditional accounting is based largely on
recording transactions, and in so doing (quite well) what it actually
measures is the realization of value that was previously created
through R&D and other forms of innovation.
Thus the Value Measurement and Reporting Collaborative
(VMRC) came to be, comprising the accounting institutes of
Canada, the United States, Australia, South Africa, and Germany
. . . we now call the New Paradigm Initiative (NPI). The purpose
of NPI is twofold: in the short term, to identify and categorize
all of the current approaches for measuring value; and to provide
measurement professionals with a comprehensive listing of methods, including an assessment of what each does well (Harrison and
Sullivan 2006: 98–99).
In addition to the NPI, there is also the Enhanced Business
Reporting Model, and each of the Big Four accounting firms
have their own initiatives as well. Individual countries are also
promulgating regulations that require companies to disclose supplemental information on IC. Denmark was the first country to
require such disclosure with the passage of the Danish Financial
09/05/07
278
Baker-c14-2
FINANCIAL MODEL REFORM
09/05/07
279
Statement Act, 2003. In addition to disclosing a description of the
firm’s IC, it also requires a description of the firm’s environmental
impact along with its objectives for reducing and/or preventing negative environmental effects. There is also a movement
in Germany to create a “knowledge balance sheet” (Wissenbilanz ), reporting on important IC companies own or control. You
can find more information on these initiatives in the Resources
section at the back of this book.
As encouraging as some of these programs are, in my opinion
they are doomed to fail, for a very fundamental reason: Accounting is not a theory, but intellectual capital is. The philosopher
Wittgenstein wrote “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must
be silent.” We are asking far too much of accounting if we expect
it to be able to do anything other than record historical transactions. To peer into the future, whether it is with key predictive
indicators, valuing brands such as Interbrand does, or estimating
the future wealth-creation capability of IC projects, all require a
theory. The accounting profession simply does not possess the IC
to posit and test theories. All they seem to be able to accomplish
is to pile more rules and procedures onto an already outdated
reporting model. We are so busy polishing our glasses—the old
model—we are not putting them on to see the new realities in
front of us.
Enron and the other spate of accounting scandals from the
early 2000s were not so much about fraud, malfeasance, misfeasance, or other crimes, but rather the increasing irrelevance of
the traditional accounting reporting model. Enron’s legerdemain
is not what caused it to fail. Its financial deception allowed it
to remain in business for longer than an otherwise similar firm
engaged in accurate financial disclosures, but this is a question
of timing alone and not causality. The financial statements were
simply lagging indicators of bad business decisions. Had Enron
been reporting leading indicators, perhaps the market could have
responded sooner.
279
Baker-c14-2
280
KNOWLEDGE VERSUS BELIEFS
Compounding the mistake was the passage of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 (SOX), which will not restore relevance to
GAAP. All it does is pile burdensome and costly regulations onto
a decrepit reporting model. This is the equivalent of Baron Munchausen’s struggle to extract himself from a swamp by pulling
on his own hair.
I see three possible roads for the accounting profession to travel
into the future. On the first, it can do nothing, which is usually
the road traveled most by stagnating industries. Thinking that
the past will somehow equal the future, the leaders simply see
no reason to change. No doubt the profession would survive in
some shape, since a lot of its work is governmentally mandated,
but it will relinquish its status as the premier financial profession
if it chooses this path.
On the second road, outsiders could replace the profession—the
“perennial gale of creative destruction” Schumpeter wrote about.
Accountants would go the way of the scribes. In some instances,
this is already taking place with respect to key predictive indicators, social and environmental audits, brand valuation, and other
IC frameworks, being performed by consulting firms and even
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), as detailed in The ValueReporting Revolution: Moving beyond the Earnings Game (see
Bibliography). This is unfortunate since the accounting profession
should be out in the forefront in these areas, but it has simply
rested on its past successes.
Finally, on the third road, the profession could innovate and
become its own creative destroyers. Why not relinquish its monopoly on offering auditing services, opening up the field to
competition from banks, insurance companies, and any other
industry that wanted to attest to financial statements? Why should
the audit be a state-granted monopoly? Open it up and let the free
market innovate new solutions to attesting to the financial performance and risk position of companies. The goal is to protect
the public, disclose relevant financial information, while dealing
with the principal-agent dilemma; yet there are myriad ways of
09/05/07
280
Baker-c14-2
FINANCIAL MODEL REFORM
09/05/07
281
accomplishing these objectives, we don’t have to suffer with a
one-size-fits-all monopoly offering from an increasingly ossified
profession. Insurance companies and banks could innovate new
products, the stock markets could also enter the fray, perhaps by
hiring auditors themselves and thereby remove the major conflict
of interest—the fact that auditors are paid by the very companies
they are supposedly auditing. SOX did nothing to deal with this
conflict. There are so many permutations of what an unfettered
free market could accomplish in this arena, it cannot even be
speculated what types of new and dynamic ways investors could
be assured of receiving timely and accurate financial information,
and even insured against the risk of audit failure if they chose
to be. Additional governmental regulations will only slow this
innovation down further. Heavily regulated industries are rarely
hotbeds of innovation; if the computer industry were as heavily
regulated as accountants and auditors, we would have Vacuum
Tube Valley, probably located in West Virginia.
Another innovative tool being used by some companies are
so-called information markets. These markets are proving useful
in three areas: forecasting, decision making, and risk management. In effect, people are putting up their own money to predict
future outcomes. The most famous example is the Iowa Election Markets, which have outperformed election polls 451 out of
596 times across a wide variety of elections. Hewlett Packard,
Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, and Eli Lilly have all created internal
information markets to forecast sales, predict which drugs are
likely to be successful, and other profit-making decisions. Prediction markets exist on the weather, horse racing, the Oscars,
movie box-office receipts, legislative outcomes, economic indicators, initial public offerings, and a host of other uses. At one
point, the government floated the idea of using them to forecast
terrorism. Economists and other policy experts have made great
strides in their understanding of these markets, how to structure
them, eliminate distortions, and make them quite effective. There
is still much to learn, but the early successes are encouraging.
281
Baker-c14-2
282
KNOWLEDGE VERSUS BELIEFS
Information markets are an effective way to avoid “groupthink,” since groups often amplify errors, whereas markets correct
them. Imagine, for example, if interested investors could pay for
access to an internal information market for Apple’s forecast of
sales for its new iPhone. Would this help investors make better decisions? Would it provide more meaningful and relevant
information, allowing interested parties to peer into the future
rather than just analyze the past, as with the traditional financial
statements? Accounting information will never be able to provide
such knowledge, no matter how much it is tweaked and manipulated, since it is not a theory. Perhaps the stock markets could
require their listing companies to establish such markets, since
they have an incentive to capitalize on the information generated. Those companies that participated might incur a lower cost
of capital. Open competition would ultimately determine if this
type of information is valuable. For more background on information markets, see the book review of Information Markets, edited
by Robert Hahn and Paul Tetlock, in the Suggested Reading and
Resources sections, for a listing of information market Web sites.
Information markets are simply a microcosm of the larger
marketplace, where we know there is no better way for innovation and new knowledge to diffuse throughout society than to
have entrepreneurial experiments take place to satisfy the needs
and wants of consumers. Ask yourself which products and services have gotten dramatically better over the past decades—
computers, financial services, telecommunications, the Internet,
automobiles, trucking, airlines, electronics, and so on—and which
have stagnated and left the consumer with little or no freedom
to choose among competing offers—Social Security, the public school system, Medicare, the Postal Service, and the financial
statement audit, to name just a few. The difference between these
two sectors is the extent of regulation and barriers to entry, which
stifle creativity, innovation, risk taking, and experimentation.
None of these three paths will be very pleasant for the accounting profession, since any of them will no doubt cause disruption
09/05/07
282
Baker-c14-2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
09/05/07
283
of the status quo. But can there be any doubt that the current
accounting reporting model is the Edsel of our time? Is it not
incumbent on the profession to shape its own destiny, rather than
being relegated to part-time governmental bureaucrats destined
to comply with the ever-increasing tax code, GAAP, and SOX
rules and regulations? The only way to get the accounting profession to reform itself is to open it up to competition, forcing
it to innovate and respond to the very people it is designed to
protect—the public.
In the meantime, company’s should take Drucker’s advice and
leave history and problems to the chief financial officers, while
the rest of the C-suite focuses on opportunities and creating the
future we all, eventually, inhabit. This future is shaped by the
beliefs and worldviews we all walk around with. For despite all
of our advancements in knowledge, the act of enterprise is still
an act of faith. It is unpredictable. It has to be, for if it were
completely controllable, it would be unnecessary.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Milton Friedman told a wonderful story that may illustrate what
we need:
A young nun was out driving a car down a superhighway and ran
out of gas. She remembered that a mile back there had been a gas
station. She got out of her car, hiked up her habit, and walked
back. When she got to the station she found that there was only
one young man in attendance there. He said he’d love to help her
but couldn’t leave the gas station because he was the only one
there. He said he would try to find a container in which he could
give her some gas. He hunted around the gas station and couldn’t
find a decent container. The only thing he could find was a little
baby’s potty that had been left there. So he filled the baby potty
with gasoline and gave it to the nun. She took the baby potty and
walked the mile down the road to her car. She got to her car and
opened the gas tank and started to pour it in. Just at that moment,
a great big Cadillac came barreling down the road at 80 miles an
283
Baker-c14-2
284
KNOWLEDGE VERSUS BELIEFS
hour. The driver was looking out and couldn’t believe what he was
seeing. So he jammed on his brakes, stopped, backed up, opened
the window, and looked out and said, “Sister, I only wish I had
your faith!” (Poole and Postrel 1993: 10).
If we constantly reinvigorate, revitalize, and challenge our
worldviews, there is no limit to what we can achieve, as long
as we do not lose faith in ourselves. The manifestation of our
beliefs is expressed in the overarching purpose of the organizations we work with, the topic we turn to next, thereby concluding
our exploration of intellectual capital.
09/05/07
284
Baker-c15-2
09/05/07
15
PURPOSE
Anybody who’s running a business has to figure out the higher
calling of that business, its purpose. Purpose is about the difference
you’re trying to make—in the marketplace, in the world.
—Roy Spence, cofounder and president, GSD&M
Purpose is bigger than tactics. Purpose is bigger than strategy. It is a
choice to pursue your destiny—the ultimate destination for yourself
and the organization you lead. Purpose is your moral DNA. It’s what
you believe without having to think.
—Nikos Mourkogiannis, Purpose: The Starting Point of Great
Companies, 2006
Everyone has a purpose in life. Perhaps yours is watching television.
—David Letterman
Imagine you had to give a commencement address to a graduating
class of students who were about to enter your chosen occupation. What would you say to them? What would be the main
message you would want them to walk away with and remember
for the rest of their lives? If you have ever had the privilege of
being asked, you know this is a daunting challenge. How can you
possibly sum up the main lessons you have learned in your years
on this planet in a 30-minute speech? I feel exactly the same way
about writing the conclusion to this book.
285
285
Baker-c15-2
286
PURPOSE
Some would say the purpose of life is happiness. Happiness
is not a frivolous or selfish concern, but rather a serious subject, and a noble goal. It is also a uniquely human aim. Aristotle
believed the ultimate end of being human was eudaimonia, which
is sometimes translated as “happiness,” but is perhaps closer to
“fulfillment,” “flourishing,” or “success” (Mourkogiannis 2006:
32). Aristotle associated it with a type of happiness, based on virtuous conduct and philosophic reflection. John Stuart Mill wrote
in Chapter 2 of Utilitarianism: “It is better to be a human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” But how does one define, or measure,
eudaimonia, or happiness? Nobel Prize–winning economist Paul
Samuelson tried to do just that in his ubiquitous and famous economics textbooks, where he presented the following equation:
Happiness = Consumption ÷ Desire
At first glance, this appears to be crassly materialistic, but it does
not have to be viewed that way. It can also describe Buddha-like
levels of serenity—reduce your desire to zero and happiness becomes infinite. There now exists an academic discipline committed to understanding happiness, known as “subjective well-being.”
This new science uses psychology, physiology, and neurological
studies. A lot of it is meant to deepen our understanding of human
behavior, taking it beyond the economists’ assumption of rational
man. New indices of well-being are being developed, such as Australia’s Measures of Australia’s Progress, created in 2002 (www.
abs.gov.au) and the World Database of Happiness (www.eur.nl/fsw/
research/happiness). Along with others, these measures try to supplement the traditional gross domestic product (GDP) measurement
with other measurements, such as literacy, life expectancy, environmental damage, and so on. Richard Layard, a member of the
British House of Lords, makes a case that happiness should be a
goal of public policy, in his book Happiness: Lessons From a New
Science (2005). So far, what has been learned is there is, indeed, a
link between income and happiness, but only up to a point (around
09/05/07
286
Baker-c15-2
PURPOSE
09/05/07
287
$15,000 GDP per person). Beyond that, the correlation is more tenuous. I have severe misgivings regarding some of the methods and
public policy prescriptions arising from this discipline. Indeed, this
entire book is a testament to the salutary effects of creating wealth.
After all, to argue that reducing income would increase happiness
seems nonsensical. That said, I do believe the question of happiness
is important in understanding the motivations of why people work.
It has often been observed that if you define your happiness
by your level of success, you can never achieve enough success
to make you happy. Studies of lottery winners show the happiness effect wears off after about two years (Coyle 2007: 112).
When one works simply to make money, the work is rarely joyful or meaningful, which is why so many people volunteer at
not-for-profit organizations where they feel they are making a
significant contribution. The acid test to determine if you love
what you do is to ask yourself: Would you continue to work if
you won the lottery? The Chinese philosopher Lin Yutang made
this keen observation in his book The Importance of Living:
From my own observation of life, . . . the great humbugs of life are
three: Fame, Wealth and Power. There is a convenient American
word which again combines these three humbugs into the One
Great Humbug: Success. But many wise men know that the desire
for success, fame and wealth are euphemistic names for the fears
of failure, poverty and obscurity, and that these fears dominate our
lives (Yutang 1998: 102).
The relationship between the humbugs Yutang mentions and
happiness is indeed tenuous. Witness Hollywood actors who
achieve all three and burn out at relatively young ages or seem
to live in wealthy misery. We seem to have become richer and
less happy. Michael Novak says, “The aftertaste of affluence is
boredom.” Maybe this is why Andrew Carnegie wrote, “The man
who dies rich dies disgraced,” arguing that the rich should give
away their money before they die. Carnegie worked diligently
to achieve his own advice, spending the last 17 years of his life
287
Baker-c15-2
288
PURPOSE
giving away his vast fortune, some $332 million (Rockefeller, by
comparison, gave away $175 million). Even with his Herculean
efforts, Carnegie could not give away his money fast enough, for
by the time he gave away approximately $180 million, his fortune had grown—through the magic of compound interest—to a
sum nearly as large as where he started, which is why he transferred what remained to the largest philanthropic trust ever before
known, the Carnegie Corporation. All told, he had given away
90 percent of his fortune, 80 percent going to support the human
mind in universities, libraries, institutes, schools, grants and pensions for college teachers, and so forth. Not too bad for someone
born quite poor in the town of Dumferline, Scotland, in 1835,
whose family immigrated to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Bill Gates
and Warren Buffett are destined to follow in the footsteps of
Carnegie, each pledging their fortunes to the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation.
How would this affect your commencement address? Oscar
Wilde wrote, “No man is rich enough to buy back his past.” All
in all, if I were restricted to four key topics in a commencement
speech, they would be: vocation, intellectual capital, adventure,
and legacy.
VOCATION: WHAT IS CALLING YOU?
Business is a demanding vocation, and one is not good at it just by
being in it or even by making piles of money. The bottom line of a
calling is measured by pain, learning, and grace. Having a good year
in financial terms is hard enough; having a good year in fulfilling
one’s calling means passing tests that are a lot more rewarding. The
difference is a little like being drafted into the army and, instead,
volunteering for the Green Berets. Doing anything as a
calling—especially doing something difficult—is a lot more fulfilling
than merely drifting.
—Michael Novak, Business as a Calling: Work and the Examined
Life, 1996
09/05/07
288
Baker-c15-2
VOCATION: WHAT IS CALLING YOU?
09/05/07
289
Most of us have had career goals. A vocation, however, is
something quite different, and is usually not discovered until later
in life, after many paths have been followed. Vocation originates
from the Latin vocare, meaning “to call.” It literally calls you to
contribute your talent, energy, passion, enthusiasm, and desire to
the work you love and believe in.
I recall a fortuitous phone conversation I had with a remarkable
woman, Dr. Sheila Kessler, several years ago. She is a consultant for more than 100 of the Fortune 500 companies, a former
California Baldrige Quality Award examiner for the California
Council on Service and Quality (CCQS), and author of nine
books; she has worked and consulted in 54 countries. Every time
I have the good fortune to speak with her, my intellectual capital
rises immeasurably.
During our conversation Sheila asked the question: “How many
[large] companies do you truly admire?” This goes far beyond
merely patronizing them, but more relates to whether I would
want a son or daughter to work for them. It is an excellent question, and for all of her experience—with literally thousands of
companies around the world—she said there are perhaps 20 that
would make her list. Only 20?
As I thought about it, I could not name more than 20 myself.
Although Sheila’s and my list differ on the companies we truly
respect, is it not a sad commentary we cannot name more? What
is worse, when I recently spoke with her as I was working on
this chapter, her list has not expanded, nor has mine. We also
both believe the level of service from large organizations has
deteriorated over the past decade or two, which is quite sad. This
is a very philosophical question, because it caused me to think
deeply about the business education most of us have received
at universities, continuing education courses, seminars, conferences, and especially from the books we read. It seems as if, at
various times and places, different companies are held up as models to emulate for different purposes—Disney, Nordstrom, and
289
Baker-c15-2
290
PURPOSE
Ritz-Carlton for customer service; Southwest Airlines for managing customers’ expectations and competing on low price; 3M,
Apple, and Hewlett Packard for innovation; and so on—and I am
guilty of this as well in this book. But reflecting on my education,
I would have to say I have learned more from business autobiographies and biographies than all of the business books I have
read combined (with the exception of those by Peter Drucker).
The history of business is the history of dreamers and entrepreneurs, those rare individuals who cast aside the security of a
paycheck, mortgage everything they have, and chase a dream
that ends up creating our futures. The factories and technologies
of tomorrow—that may be nothing more than a glimmer in the
eyes of a garage tinkerer—will at some point rise up and supplant
the old order, disrupting the status quo and making a mockery
of static income distribution tables. It is the sophomore dropout
who starts a software company and creates the world’s standard
operating system—Microsoft’s Bill Gates. It is the perseverant
student who charges against the odds despite receiving a “C” on
his term paper and launches a company that, most likely, every
reader of this book has used, or uses, on a regular basis—Fred
Smith’s FedEx.
The tempo of business is not one of stability and order, but
rather of disequilibrium and instability. Stability exists only in the
graveyards. Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote: “An institution is
the lengthened shadow of one man.” Mike Vance, former Dean
of Disney University, tells this story of Walt Disney’s final hours
in 1966 in his book, Think Out of the Box :
At Disney studios in Burbank, California, Mike could gaze out
of his office window, across Buena Vista Street, to St. Joseph’s
Hospital where Walt Disney died. The morning he died, Mike was
talking on the telephone when he saw the flag being lowered over
at the hospital around 8:20 A.M. His death was preceded by an
amazing incident that reportedly took place the night before in
Walt’s hospital room.
09/05/07
290
Baker-c15-2
VOCATION: WHAT IS CALLING YOU?
09/05/07
291
A journalist, knowing Walt was seriously ill, persisted in getting
an interview with Walt and was frustrated on numerous occasions
by the hospital staff. When he finally managed to get into the
room, Walt couldn’t sit up in bed or talk above a whisper. Walt
instructed the reporter to lie down on the bed, next to him, so he
could whisper in the reporter’s ear. For the next 30 minutes, Walt
and the journalist lay side by side as Walt referred to an imaginary
map of Walt Disney World on the ceiling above the bed.
Walt pointed out where he planned to place various attractions
and buildings. He talked about transportation, hotels, restaurants
and many other parts of his vision for a property that wouldn’t
open to the public for another six years.
We told this reporter’s moving experience, relayed through a
nurse, to each one of our organizational development (OD) groups
. . . the story of how a man who lay dying in the hospital whispered
in the reporter’s ear for 30 minutes describing his vision for the
future and the role he would play in it for generations to come.
This is the way to live—believing so much in your vision that
even when you’re dying, you whisper it into another person’s ear
(Vance and Deacon 1995: 30).
Soon after the completion of Walt Disney World, someone said,
“Isn’t it too bad Walt Disney didn’t live to see this?” Vance
replied, “He did see it—that’s why it’s here.”
I do not mean to imply that it is only entrepreneurs, or men
and women of incredible foresight and tenacity, who should be
held up for emulation and education. I will admit a personal bias
for entrepreneurs (and entrepreneuses), because I consider them
to be more interesting to study than the CEO of an established
company. But you can learn from both. This is also not to imply
that an organization is the result of only one person—for it certainly is not. As we have explored throughout, the amount of
social and human capital that is required to build a Microsoft,
FedEx, and Disney—not to mention have them outlive their
founders’ lives—is staggering, a feat against all odds. Most of the
day-to-day business in our worldwide economy is carried out in
the more prosaic fashion of the local barber, and with the skilled
precision of the oncologist.
291
Baker-c15-2
292
PURPOSE
It is also too simplistic to say that all any business of the
future needs is an excellent vision statement, or the right type of
culture, or adequate leadership. No doubt these are all important,
but they are not enough to ensure inspired wealth creation. In the
introduction to the paperback edition of their book, Built to Last:
Successful Habits of Visionary Companies —an objective, again, I
do not share—James Collins and Jerry Porras define purpose as,
“The organization’s fundamental reasons for existence beyond
just making money—a perpetual guiding star on the horizon;
not to be confused with specific goals or business strategies”
(Collins and Porras 1997: xx). Business is all about purpose, those
internal beliefs and worldviews that define who we are and what
we want to accomplish. When a company has a strong purpose,
its people do not have to be “aligned” with a strategy because
they already believe in and are inspired—meaning, literally, to
breathe in —by what they are accomplishing. This is even more
important when it comes to attracting and inspiring knowledge
workers, who are more loyal to their profession or occupation
than any one employer. They simply can no longer be bribed to
do their best work.
We have already mentioned Johnson & Johnson’s credo in the
last chapter. The company will tolerate mistakes but not “sins,”
defined as a breach of the credo. A true purpose cannot be compromised, only adhered to or surrendered. The difference between
a purpose in a company like Johnson & Johnson and Enron is
putting these values in action, even when it costs more than it
wants to pay. It is a rare company that survives the ages by
putting greed and profits ahead of creating wealth for the customers it is privileged to serve. Money simply is not enough of
an inspiration to partake in work that serves a larger purpose, as
a visit to any local charity or Salvation Army office should teach
us. In fact, it would be interesting to ask people how many charities they would be willing to work with and compare it to the
number of companies they highly regard. No one has pictures of
money hanging on their office walls, but rather those things we
09/05/07
292
Baker-c15-2
VOCATION: WHAT IS CALLING YOU?
09/05/07
293
care most deeply about—family, friends, colleagues, communities, trophies, and memories that acknowledge the achievements
in our lives for what we contributed, not what we earned. Bill
O’Brien, former CEO of Hanover Insurance, sums it up well:
“The fundamental problem with business is that they’re governed
by mediocre ideas. Maximizing the return on invested capital is
an example of a mediocre idea. Mediocre ideas don’t uplift people. They don’t give them something they can tell their children
about. They don’t create much meaning” (Senge et al. 2005: 169).
Some of the more inspiring companies’ core purposes are:
Fannie Mae. To strengthen the social fabric by continually democratizing home ownership.
Hewlett-Packard. To make technical contributions for the advancement and welfare of humanity
Mary Kay. To give unlimited opportunity to women.
McKinsey. To help leading corporations and governments be
more successful.
Sony. To experience the joy of advancing and applying technology for the benefit of the public.
Wal-Mart. To give ordinary folk the chance to buy the same
things as rich people.
Walt Disney. To make people happy.
Charles Schwab. We are the guardians of our customer’s financial dreams.
Even former Pope John Paul II understood the importance of
creating wealth and generating a profit for the owners of the business. In his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus (“The Hundredth
Year”), Pope John Paul II approves of profit (quite a change from
the prior viewpoint of the Catholic church) but also admonishes
that profit is not to be considered the sole indicator of the success
of the business—capitalism is not a system merely of things, but
about the human spirit as well:
The church acknowledges the legitimate role of profit as an indication that a business is functioning well. When a firm makes
293
Baker-c15-2
294
PURPOSE
a profit, this means that productive factors have been properly
employed and corresponding human needs have been duly satisfied. It is possible for the financial accounts to be in order, and
yet for the people—who are the firm’s most valuable asset—to
be humiliated and their dignity offended. This is morally inadmissible [and] will eventually have negative repercussions on the
firm’s economic efficiency. The purpose of a business firm is not
simply to make a profit, but is to be found in its very existence
as a community of persons who in various ways are endeavoring
to satisfy their basic needs and who form a particular group at the
service of the whole of society. Profit is a regulator of the life
of a business, but it is not the only one; other human and moral
factors must also be considered, which in the long term are at least
equally important for the life of the business.
One trait that separates humans from animals is that humans
know they have a past and a future, and they are willing to
invest to improve the future, even though they know as mortals
they will not be around to enjoy the fruits of those investments.
Animals are not wealthy or poor; they are either well fed or
hungry. History remembers the builders and creators of wealth,
never consumers. In a sense, there is a free lunch, since each
generation is living off the accumulated intellectual capital of its
ancestors. Walt Disney was certainly a builder who created and
shaped the future by building a purpose-driven company:
You reach a point where you don’t work for money. . . . When I
make a profit, I don’t squander it or hide it away; I immediately
plow it back into a fresh project. I have little respect for money
as such; I regard it merely as a medium for financing new ideas. I
neither wish nor intend to amass a personal fortune. Money—or,
rather the lack of it to carry out my ideas—may worry me, but it
does not excite me. Ideas excite me.
I could never convince the financiers that Disneyland was feasible, because dreams offer too little collateral.
The U.S. Marines recently ran a television commercial expressing the difference between a job and a calling, with the voice-over
announcing: “We don’t accept applications. Only commitments.”
09/05/07
294
Baker-c15-2
CONTINUOUSLY DEVELOP YOUR INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL
09/05/07
295
Airline pilots understand this, recognizing the exits exist for the
passengers. Each individual’s calling is unique, and certainly passion is no substitute for talent. A higher purpose is measured by
the renewed energy it gives us, even when it involves drudgery.
There is no greater joy than watching someone engage in their
true calling with their entire mind, body, spirit, and soul.
CONTINUOUSLY DEVELOP YOUR
INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL
The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read
and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.
—Alvin Toffler
One of the central themes of this book is that, as a knowledge
worker, your intellectual capital (IC) is what enables you to create wealth for others, and in turn for yourself. Like any other
form of capital, however, IC is subject to obsolescence and must
be constantly renewed. The most skilled are constant students,
willing to look at the world in absolute wonder and think about
why things are the way they are. Continuing professional education will be one of the major growth industries in the coming
decades, since IC is constantly being developed, making it nearly
impossible to keep up with in your area of specialty.
Remember, though, that your IC is more than your human and
structural capital. It also consists of your social capital, the relationships that will have a profound impact on the rest of your life.
If you think the Pareto Principle is true in a business setting—that
is, that relatively few control the majority—think about it in terms
of your personal life. Meeting someone and falling in love takes
relatively little time but will have a major impact on your future.
Or meeting a colleague or mentor who will point you in a totally
new direction. You are whom you associate with. I do not feel
the need to tell you things you already know; suffice it to say, do
not pollute your social capital with people who have a zero-sum
295
Baker-c15-2
296
PURPOSE
mentality and believe you can only gain if someone else loses.
Develop relationships with a mentor and with individuals you
truly admire and respect, whether they are colleagues, authors, or
just a friend in whom you can confide. To expand your sphere of
IC, become a mentor to a younger person and guide him or her
with your accumulated wisdom.
ADVENTURE
We are perishing for want of wonder, not for want of wonders.
—G.K. Chesterton
Profit comes from taking risks since we live in a world of dynamic
disequilibrium, where the only equality is in the graveyard, to
paraphrase a German proverb. Not content to let the past stand
in the way of the future, we all engage in a never-ending cycle
of creative destruction. Change is our middle name, and we will
continue to embrace and accept it as the progress it represents. We
tear down the old order every day, in business, science, literature,
art, architecture, cinema, politics, and the law.
George Gilder, writer, economist, and eclectic thinker, wrote
of the ultimate conflict in Wealth and Poverty:
In every economy, as Jane Jacobs has said, there is one crucial
and definitive conflict. This is not the split between capitalists and
workers, technocrats and humanists, government and business, liberals and conservatives, or rich and poor. All these divisions are
partial and distorted reflections of the deeper conflict: the struggle between past and future, between the existing configuration
of industries and the industries that will someday replace them.
It is a conflict between established factories, technologies, formations of capital, and the ventures that may soon make them
worthless—ventures that today may not even exist; that today
may flicker only as ideas, or tiny companies, or obscure research
projects, or fierce but penniless ambitions; that today are unidentifiable and incalculable from above, but which, in time, in a
progressing economy, must rise up if growth is to occur (Gilder
1981: 235).
09/05/07
296
Baker-c15-2
ADVENTURE
09/05/07
297
Virginia Postrel adds to this observation in her book The Future
and Its Enemies:
How we feel about the future tells us who we are as individuals
and as a civilization: Do we search for stasis —a regulated, engineered world? Or do we embrace dynamism —a world of constant
creation, discovery, and competition? Do we value stability and
control, or evolution and learning? . . . Do we see technology as
an expression of human creativity and the future as inviting? Do
we think that progress requires a central blueprint, or do we see it
as a decentralized, evolutionary process? Do we consider mistakes
permanent disasters, or the correctable by-products of experimentation? Do we crave predictability, or relish surprise? These two
poles, stasis and dynamism, increasingly define our political, intellectual, and cultural landscape. The central question of our time is
what to do about the future (Postrel 1998: xiv).
Buying—and even reading—a book about change is easier
than actually implementing change. If you think of the future as
a threat, you will never innovate. In order to try something new,
you must stop doing something old. Ultimately, the power of the
ideas in this book rest in their implementation. Those who are
most complacent and comfortable with the present—or worse, a
nostalgic past—are likely to remain trapped inside it forever. It
is the uncomfortable and dissatisfied ones who take the risks and
ultimately create our future.
A new idea should terrify us, challenging our worldview, the
very core of our beliefs. And while many new ideas might need
to be rejected the way a healthy immune system kills off foreign
intruders, of course, this is where we must strike a healthy balance
between the status quo and doing something new, or we would
never have gotten the first airplane off the ground. In a business
setting, constant experimentation is its salvation. What would you
think of a company that had the following characteristics and
beliefs?
•
No official structure, organization chart, no business plan, or
company strategy; no mission statement, long-term budget,
297
Baker-c15-2
298
•
•
•
•
•
•
PURPOSE
fixed CEO or human resources department (don’t need a
mother and father of everyone in the company); no career
plans, job descriptions; no one approves reports or expense
accounts, and supervision or monitoring of workers is rare
indeed.
Instead of dictating [our company’s] identity, [we] let our
employees shape it with their individual efforts, interests,
and initiatives.
On-the-job democracy isn’t just a lofty concept, but a better way to do things. . . . People are considered adults in
their private lives, at the bank, at their children’s schools,
with family and among friends—so why are they suddenly
treated like adolescents at work? Why can’t workers be
involved in choosing their own leaders? Why shouldn’t they
manage themselves? Why can’t they speak up—challenge,
question, share information openly?
If we have a cardinal strategy that forms the bedrock for
all these practices, it may be this: Ask why. Ask it all the
time, and always ask it three times in a row.
We have been known to place ads reading: “We have no
opening but apply anyway. Come and talk about what you
might do for us, and how we might create a position for
you.”
[The company’s] Lost In Space program, assumes young
recruits don’t know what they want to do with their lives.
So do what you want, move where you want, go where
your interests take you. At the end of a year, anyone you’ve
worked for can offer you a job.
Telling people that the company trusts them and then auditing them makes it impossible for them to feel secure. . . .
We don’t require expense accounts because of what they
say about character. We’ve learned that peer control is as
effective as reporting and auditing. . . . Even in cases of
fraud, we shun audits or policing procedures because we
feel that responsibility and peer interest are stronger than
09/05/07
298
Baker-c15-2
ADVENTURE
•
•
•
09/05/07
299
any internal controls (and that was before the collapse of
Arthur Andersen, the king of audits and controls!).
Most people flourish under freedom, flexibility, and responsibility. Most who have left [the company] have been managers.
No management works quite like self-management. And
working at [the company] means self-managing as much
as possible. It isn’t nearly as frightening as it sounds. In
the end, it’s self-interest at work. It requires conceding
that managers don’t—and can’t—know the best way to
do everything. People who are motivated by self-interest
will find solutions that no one else can envision. They see
the world in their own unique way—one that others often
overlook.
The world desperately needs an “Age of Wisdom,” and
workplaces would be an inspiring place to start. At [the
company] we have little to teach and even less to “sell” in
a packaged form. We’re just a living experiment in eliminating boredom, routine, and exasperating regulations—an
exploration of motivation and passion to free workers from
corporate oppression. Our goal is helping people tap their
‘reservoir of talent’ and find equilibrium among love, liberty and work. . . . Once people learn to do that . . . I know
we’ll be alright (Semler 2003: 3, 4, 5, 62, 78, 116–117,
150, 175, 275).
After a speech the owner of this company gave, he was asked,
“. . . Can you please tell us what planet you’re from?” These
beliefs defiantly challenge the conventional wisdom of management practices. As someone whose mission it is to bury the
billable hour—a form of cost-plus pricing—and eradicate time
sheets from professional knowledge firms, I can attest to how
difficult it is to challenge long-held beliefs. But the preceding go
much further than these two relatively simple objectives. They
force us to challenge nearly everything we think we know about
299
Baker-c15-2
300
PURPOSE
how to properly run an organization. This 50-year-old company,
by the way, employs 3,000 people in three countries (some of
them union members); engages in manufacturing, professional
services, and high-tech software; and had revenues of $160 million in 2001—up from $35 million in 1994. If you had invested
$100,000 in this company 20 years ago, it would now be worth
almost $6 million (Semler 2003: ix).
When I discuss this company in presentations, I am met with a
staring ovation of disbelief. As a Persian proverb teaches: “When
the heart is willing, it’ll find a thousand ways, and when it’s
unwilling, it’ll find a thousand excuses.” This visionary leader
knew what type of future he wanted for his company, and he
was willing to pay the price to achieve it. Is this the type of
company—and leadership—you would want one of your children to work for? In the spirit of adventure, I implore you to
read the two books by Ricardo Semler, cited above, and discover
for yourself the possibilities of creating a better future.
LEAVING A LEGACY
No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor has been
the reward for what he gave.
—Calvin Coolidge, 1872–1933
Aristotle devised a “deathbed test,” to imagine our last day of
life on earth and to consider how we would evaluate ourselves.
In The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen Covey
lays out the second habit: “Begin with the End in Mind.” He has
you imagine being at your own funeral. What would you want
people to say about you?
If you study business biographies and autobiographies—which
former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli labeled “life
without theory”—you quickly discover successful cultures have
been the result of original thinking. And it is precisely those
cultures where original thinking is stimulated and encouraged
09/05/07
300
Baker-c15-2
LEAVING A LEGACY
09/05/07
301
that leave behind the richest legacies. Think of Walt Disney and
the impact he still has on the company he founded, embodied
in the continuously asked question: “What would Walt do?” Ben
Franklin’s epitaph, which he wrote, reads:
B. Franklin, Printer; like the Cover of an old Book, Its Contents
torn out, And stript of its lettering and Gilding, Lies here, Food
for Worms. But the Work shall not be wholly lost, For it will, as
he believ’d, appear once more, In a new & more perfect Edition,
Corrected and amended By the Author.
What do you want your legacy to be? Part of any writer’s
legacy will be his books, which in Voltaire’s words will have
provided him “the great consolation in life [of saying] what
one thinks.” You have read my beliefs, values, and convictions
(from the Latin word convictum, “that which is proven or demonstrated”). I have attempted to demonstrate the superiority of the
new Business Equation over the old one. It challenges the wisdom
of the ages because truth is not defined simply by seniority.
I have offered you a testable hypothesis, one that is subject to
the falsification principle described by Karl Popper, which is how
all scientific knowledge progresses. As a writer, I would desire
nothing more than having my theories and ideas accepted as part
of the conventional wisdom—not to mention next practices—of
the knowledge economy. I have stated what I believe to be the
truth, and I am now ready to accept the consequences, hoping
that what is false will be exposed and that what is true will be
admitted.
The thesis of this book has been that wealth is created by
intellectual capital, a process of the inexhaustible human mind
and spirit. The Mexican author Gabriel Zaid wrote, “Wealth is
above all an accumulation of possibilities.” These possibilities
lie hidden in the womb of the future, waiting to be discovered by
human imagination, ingenuity, and creativity, manifested in free
enterprises dedicated to the service of others. I would not want it
any other way.
301
Baker-c15-2
09/05/07
302
Baker-bbiblio-2 09/05/07
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albrecht, Karl, and Ron Zemke. Service America! Doing Business in the New
Economy. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1985.
Albrecht, Karl. The Power of Minds at Work: Organizational Intelligence in
Action. New York: AMACOM, 2003.
Albrecht, Karl. Social Intelligence: The New Science of Success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2006.
Allen, PhD, Mark, Editor. The Corporate University Handbook: Designing,
Managing, and Growing a Successful Program. New York: AMACOM,
2002.
Anderson, Chris. The Long Tail: How Endless Choice Is Creating Unlimited
Demand . London: Random House, 2006.
Arden, Paul. It’s Not How Good You Are, It’s How Good You Want to Be.
London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2003.
Baker Ronald J., and Paul Dunn. The Firm of the Future: A Guide for Accountants, Lawyers, and Other Professional Services. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003.
Baker, Ronald J. Professional’s Guide to Value Pricing. 6th ed. Chicago:
CCH Incorporated, 2005.
Baker, Ronald J. Pricing on Purpose: Creating and Capturing Value. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006.
Baker, Ronald J. Measure What Matters to Customers: Using Key Predictive
Indicators. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006.
Bastiat, Frederic, Economic Sophisms. New York: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1996.
Beatty, Jack. The World According to Peter Drucker. New York: The Free
Press, 1998.
Becker, Gary S. Human Capital:A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with
Special Reference to Education, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1980.
Becker, Gary S. Accounting for Tastes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1996.
Becker, Gary S., and Guity Nashat Becker. The Economics of Life: From
Baseball to Affirmative Action to Immigration, How Real-World Issues
Affect Our Everyday Life. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Beinhocker, Eric D. The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the
Radical Remaking of Economics. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press, 2006.
303
Baker-bbiblio-2 09/05/07
304
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bernstein, Peter L. Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk .
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001.
Berra, Yogi, with Dave Kaplan. When You Come to a Fork in the Road, Take
It!: Inspiration and Wisdom from One of Baseball’s Greatest Heroes.
New York: Hyperion, 2001.
Bethell, Tom. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. Washington, DC:
Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005.
Birla, Madan. FedEx Delivers: How the World’s Leading Shipping Company
Keeps Innovating and Outperforming the Competition. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005.
Block, Peter. The Answer to How Is Yes: Acting on What Matters. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2003.
Bornstein, David. How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the
Power of New Ideas. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Boulton, Richard E. S., Barry D. Libert, and Steve M. Samek. Cracking the
Value Code: How Successful Businesses Are Creating Wealth in the New
Economy. New York: HarperBusiness, 2000.
Bowie, Norman E. Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 1999.
Boyle, David. The Sum of Our Discontent: Why Numbers Make Us Irrational .
New York: Texere, 2001.
Branson, Richard. Losing My Virginity: How I’ve Survived, Had Fun, and
Made a Fortune Doing Business My Way. New York: Three Rivers
Press, 1998.
Branson, Richard. Screw It, Let’s Do It: Lessons in Life. Milsons Point, NSW,
Australia: Random House Australia, 2006.
Brookes, Warren T. The Economy in Mind . New York: Universe Books,
1982.
Brooking, Annie. Corporate Memory: Strategies for Knowledge Management. London: International Thomson Business Press, 1999.
Buchholz, Todd G. New Ideas from Dead Economists: An Introduction to
Modern Economic Thought. New York: Plume, 1990.
Buckley, William F. Jr. Let Us Talk of Many Things: The Collected Speeches.
Roseville, CA: Forum, 2000.
Callahan, Gene. Economics for Real People: An Introduction to the Austrian
School . Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2002.
Canabou, Christine. “Gone, But Not Forgotten.” Fast Company. May 2002:
28–30.
Caroselli, Henry M. Cult of the Mouse: Can We Stop Corporate Greed from
Killing Innovation in America?. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press, 2004.
Christensen, Clayton M., and Michael E. Raynor. The Innovator’s Solution:
Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press, 2003.
Christensen, Clayon M., Scott D. Anthony, and Erik A. Roth. Seeing What’s
Next: Using the Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2004.
304
Baker-bbiblio-2 09/05/07
BIBLIOGRAPHY
305
Cialdini, Robert B. Influence: The New Psychology of Modern Persuasion.
New York: Quill, 1993.
Cialdini, Robert B. Influence: Science and Practice. 4th ed. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2001.
Coens, Tom, and Mary Jenkins. Abolishing Performance Appraisals: Why
They Backfire and What to Do Instead . San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc., 2000.
Cohen, Martin. Smith’s Wealth of Nations: A Beginner’s Guide. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2001.
Collins, James C., and Jerry I. Porras. Built to Last: Successful Habits of
Visionary Companies. New York: HarperBusiness, 1997.
Collins, James C. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap . . .
and Others Don’t. New York: HarperBusiness, 2001.
Conway, Susan, and Char Sligar Unlocking Knowledge Assets: Knowledge
Management Solutions from Microsoft. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press,
2002.
Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons
in Personal Change. New York: Fireside, 1989.
Covey, Stephen R. The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness. New
York: Free Press, 2004.
Cowen, Tyler, and David Parker. Markets in the Firm: A Market-Process
Approach to Management. London: The Institute of Economic Affairs,
1997.
Coyle, Diane. The Soulful Science: What Economists Really Do and Why It
Matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.
Culp, Christopher L., and William A. Niskanen, eds. Corporate Aftershock:
The Public Policy Lessons from the Collapse of Enron and Other Major
Corporations. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003.
Darling, Marilyn, Charles Parry, and Joseph Moore. “Learning in the Thick
of It.” Harvard Business Review . July-August 2005: 84–92.
Dauten, Dale. The Gifted Boss: How to Find, Create, and Keep Great Employees. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1999.
Davenport Thomas H., and Laurence Prusak. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know . Boston: Harvard Business School
Press, 1998.
Davenport, Thomas H. Thinking for a Living: How to Get Better Performance
and Results from Knowledge Workers. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press, 2005.
Davenport, Thomas O. Human Capital: What It Is and Why People Invest It.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1999.
DeLong, David W. Lost Knowledge: Confronting the Threat of an Aging
Workforce. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Deming, W. Edwards. The New Economics: For Industry, Government, Education, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994.
Disney Institute. Be Our Guest: Perfecting the Art of Customer Service. New
York: Disney Editions, 2001.
305
Baker-bbiblio-2 09/05/07
306
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dougherty, Peter J. Who’s Afraid of Adam Smith?: How the Market Got Its
Soul! . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002.
Drucker, Peter F. Toward the Next Economics and Other Essays. New York:
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1981.
Drucker, Peter F. What Is Business Ethics? The Public Interest 63, 1981.
Drucker, Peter F. The Effective Executive. New York: HarperBusiness, 1993.
Drucker, Peter F. Adventures of a Bystander. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1994.
Drucker, Peter F. Management Challenges for the 21st Century. New York:
HarperCollins, 1999.
Drucker, Peter, F. Managing in the Next Society. New York: Truman Talley
Books, 2002.
Drucker, Peter F. Peter Drucker on the Profession of Management. Boston:
Harvard Business Review, 2003.
Drucker, Peter F. A Functioning Society: Selections from Sixty-five Years of
Writing on Community, Society, and Polity. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2003.
Drucker, Peter F., with Joseph A. Maciariello. The Daily Drucker: 366 Days
of Insight and Motivation for Getting the Right Things Done. New York:
HarperBusiness, 2004.
Drucker, Peter F. and Joseph A. Maciariello. The Effective Executive in
Action. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.
D’Souza, Dinesh. The Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of
Techno-Affluence. New York: The Free Press, 2000.
Duffy, Jan. Harvesting Experience: Reaping the Benefits of Knowledge. Prairie
Village, KS: ARMA International, 1999.
Ebenstein, Alan. Hayek’s Journey: The Mind of Friedrich Hayek . New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
Eccles, Robert G., Robert H. Herz, E. Mary Keegan, and David M.H. Phillips.
The ValueReporting Revolution: Moving Beyond the Earnings Game.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001.
Edersheim, Elizabeth Haas. The Definitive Drucker. New York: McGraw-Hill,
2007.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo Self-Reliance: The Wisdom of Ralph Waldo Emerson
as Inspiration for Daily Living. New York: Bell Tower, 1991.
Fallon, Pat, and Fred Senn. Juicing the Orange: How to Turn Creativity into a
Powerful Business Advantage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press,
2006.
Feulner, Edwin J., and Doug Wilson. Getting America Right: The True Conservative Values Our Nation Needs Today. New York: Crown Forum,
2006.
Flaherty, John E. Peter Drucker: Shaping the Managerial Mind . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1999.
306
Baker-bbiblio-2 09/05/07
BIBLIOGRAPHY
307
Florida, Richard. The Rise of the Creative Class . . . and How It’s Transforming
Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books,
2002.
Florida, Richard. The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent. New York: HarperBusiness, 2005.
Foray, Dominique. The Economics of Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 2004.
Ford, Henry, and Samuel Crowther. My Life and Work . Whitefish, MT:
Kessinger Publishing, 1922.
Freiberg, Kevin, and Jackie Freiberg. Nuts! Southwest Airline’s Crazy Recipe
for Business and Personal Success. Austin, TX: Bard Press, 1996.
Freidheim, Cyrus. The Trillion-Dollar Enterprise: How the Alliance Revolution Will Transform Global Business. New York: Perseus Books, 1998.
Friedman, Milton. “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its
Profits.” The New York Times Magazine. September 13, 1970.
Friedman, Milton and Rose. Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. New
York: Harcourt Brace, 1980.
Fukuyama, Francis. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity.
New York: Free Press, 1995.
Gandossy, Robert P., Elissa Tucker, and Nidhi Verma, eds. Workforce Wake-Up
Call: Your Workforce Is Changing, Are You? Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 2006.
Gardner, Howard. Changing Minds: The Art and Science of Changing Our
Own and Other People’s Minds. Boston: Harvard Business School Press,
2004.
Garvin, David A. Learning in Action: A Guide to Putting the Learning Organization to Work . Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000.
Gilder, George. Wealth and Poverty. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981.
Gilder, George. The Spirit of Enterprise. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984.
Gilder, George. Men and Marriage. Gretna, LA: Pelican Publishing Company, Inc., 1986.
Gilder, George. Recapturing the Spirit of Enterprise: Updated for the 1990s.
San Francisco: ICS Press, 1992.
Gilder, George. Wealth and Poverty: A New Edition of the Classic. San Francisco: ICS Press, 1993.
Gilder-technology-report, The Gilder Friday Letter, Friday, December 13,
2002.
Gilder, Joshua. Web page: www.newmysteryreader.com/joshua gilder.htm,
undated, accessed December 27, 2006.
Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big
Difference. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2000.
Gladwell, Malcolm. Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking. New
York: Little, Brown and Company, 2005.
307
Baker-bbiblio-2 09/05/07
308
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gregory, John Milton. The Seven Laws of Teaching. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 1995.
Gustafsson, Anders, and Michael D. Johnson. Competing in a Service Economy: How to Create a Competitive Advantage through Service Development and Innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
Hahn, Robert W., and Paul C. Tetlock, eds. Information Markets: A New Way
of Making Decisions. Washington, DC: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for
Regulatory Studies, 2006.
Hamel, Gary. “The Why, What, and How of Management Innovation.” Harvard Business Review , February 2006: 72–84.
Hamilton, Roger. Your Life, Your Legacy: An Entrepreneur Guide to Finding
Your Flow . Pre-launch E-Book Edition, 2006.
Handy, Charles. Myself and Other More Important Matters. London: William
Heinemann, 2006.
Harrison, Suzanne S., and Patrick H. Sullivan Sr. Einstein in the Boardroom:
Moving beyond Intellectual Capital to I-Stuff . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 2006.
Hayek, Friedrich A. “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” American Economic
Review 35, September 1945: 519–530.
Hayek, Friedrich A. Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1948.
Hazlitt, Henry. Economics In One Lesson. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc.,
1979.
Herrnstein, Richard J., and Charles Murray. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and
Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press, 1994.
Hoopes, James. False Prophets: The Gurus Who Created Modern Management and Why Their Ideas Are Bad for Business Today. Cambridge, MA:
Perseus Publishing, 2003.
Horibe, Frances. Managing Knowledge Workers: New Skills and Attitudes to
Unlock the Intellectual Capital in Your Organization. Ontario, Canada:
John Wiley & Sons Canada Limited, 1999.
Howey, Richard S. The Rise of the Marginal Utility School , 1870–1889. New
York: Columbia University Press [Morningside Edition], 1989.
Howkins, John. The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas.
England: Penguin Books, 2001.
Huber, Peter W., and Mark P. Mills. The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of
Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy.
New York: Basic Books, 2005.
Imagineers, The. The Imagineering Way: Ideas to Ignite Your Creativity. New
York: Disney Editions, 2003.
Jensen, Daniel L., ed. Challenge and Achievement in Accounting During the
Twentieth Century: A Conference Celebrating the Fiftieth Anniversary
of the Accounting Hall of Fame. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University,
2002.
308
Baker-bbiblio-2 09/05/07
BIBLIOGRAPHY
309
Johnson, H. Thomas. “Reflections of a Recovering Management Accountant.” Society for Organizational Learning Initiative, First Research
Forum, January 14-16, 1998. Accessed on September 24, 2005 at:www.
solonline.org/repository/download/johnson.html?item id = 443237.
Johnson, H. Thomas, and Anders Br¨oms. Profit Beyond Measure: Extraordinary Results through Attention to Work and People. New York: Free
Press, 2000.
Johnson, Paul. A History of the American People. New York: HarperCollins,
1997.
Johnson, Paul. Creators: From Chaucer and D¨urer to Picasso and Disney.
New York: HarperCollins, 2006.
Kay, John. Foundations of Corporate Success: How Business Strategies Add
Value. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Kay, John. Culture and Prosperity: The Truth about Markets—Why Some
Nations Are Rich but Most Remain Poor. New York: HarperBusiness,
2004.
Kay, John. Everlasting Light Bulbs: How Economics Illuminates the World .
London: Erasmus Press, 2004.
Kay, John. The Hare & the Tortoise: An Informal Guide to Business Strategy.
London:Erasmus Press, 2006.
Keen, Steve. Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences. Annandale, Australia: Pluto Press, 2002.
Kehrer, Daniel. Doing Business Boldly. New York: Time Books, 1989.
Kessler, Sheila. Measuring and Managing Customer Satisfaction: Going for
the Gold . Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press, 1996.
Khalsa, Mahan. Let’s Get Real or Let’s Not Play: The Demise of Dysfunctional
Selling and the Advent of Helping Clients Succeed . Salt Lake City, Utah:
White Water Press, 1999.
King, Thomas A. More Than a Numbers Game: A Brief History of Accounting.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006.
Klein, David A. The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital . Woburn,
MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998.
Koch, Richard. The Natural Laws of Business: How to Harness the Power of
Evolution, Physics, and Economics to Achieve Business Success. New
York: Doubleday, 2001.
Koch, Richard. The 80/20 Individual: How to Accomplish More by Doing
Less—the Nine Essentials of 80/20 Success at Work . New York: Currency Doubleday, 2003.
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Lapin, Rabbi Daniel. Thou Shall Prosper: Ten Commandments for Making
Money. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002.
Layard, Richard. Happiness: Lessons from a New Science. London: Allen
Lane, 2005.
309
Baker-bbiblio-2 09/05/07
310
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lev, Baruch. Intangibles: Management, Measurement, and Reporting.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001.
Liebowitz, Jay. Building Organizational Intelligence: A Knowledge Management Primer. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC, 2000.
Low, Jonathan, and Pam Cohen Kalafut. Invisible Advantage: How Intangibles Are Driving Business Performance. Cambridge, MA: Perseus
Publishing, 2002.
Machlup, Fritz. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United
States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1962.
Marcus, Stanley. Minding the Store: A Memoir. Denton, Texas: University of
North Texas Press, 1997 Facsimile Edition [Original Publication, 1974].
Marshall, Alfred. Principles of Economics. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books,
1997.
Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. The Communist Manifesto. London: Verso,
1998 (modern edition; originally published 1848).
Marx, Karl. Value, Price and Profit. New York: International Publishers, 1995
(paperback edition; originally published 1865).
Maxwell, John C. There’s No Such Thing as Business Ethics. New York:
Warner Books, 2003.
May, Matthew E. The Elegant Solution: Toyota’s Formula for Mastering Innovation. New York: Free Press, 2007.
McCloskey, Deirdre. How to Be Human—though an Economist. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press, 2000.
Menger, Carl. Principles of Economics, transl. James Dingwall and Bert F.
Hoselitz. New York: New York University Press, 1976 [1871].
Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. The Witch Doctors: Making
Sense of the Management Gurus. New York: Times Books, 1996.
Miniter, Richard. The Myth of Market Share: Why Market Share Is the Fool’s
Gold of Business. New York: Crown Business, 2002.
Mintzberg, Henry. Mintzberg on Management: Inside Our Strange World of
Organizations. New York: Free Press, 1989.
Mintzberg, Henry. Managers Not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice
of Managing and Management Development. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler Publishers, Inc., 2004.
Mokyr, Joel. The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Morris, Edmund. Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan. New York: Random
House, 1999.
Mourkogiannis, Nikos. Purpose: The Starting Point of Great Companies. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
Murray, Charles. Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the
Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 . New York: HarperCollins, 2003.
Neuhaus, Richard John. Doing Well and Doing Good: The Challenge to the
Christian Capitalist. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
310
Baker-bbiblio-2 09/05/07
BIBLIOGRAPHY
311
Niskanen, William A., Editor. After Enron: Lessons for Public Policy.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2005.
Nonaka, Ikujiro and Hirotaka Takeuchi. The Knowledge-Creating Company:
How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
North, Douglass C. Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Novak, Michael. The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York:
Free Press, 1993.
Novak, Michael. Business as a Calling: Work and the Examined Life. New
York: Free Press, 1996.
Novak, Michael. The Universal Hunger for Liberty: Why the Clash of Civilizations Is Not Inevitable. New York: Basic Books, 2004.
Novak, Michael, and Brian C. Anderson, eds. On Cultivating Liberty: Reflections on Moral Ecology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1999.
O’Kelly, Eugene. Chasing Daylight: How My Forthcoming Death Transformed My Life. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006.
O’Rourke, P.J. On The Wealth of Nations. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press,
2007.
O’Shea, James, and Charles Madigan. Dangerous Company: Management
Consultants and the Businesses They Save and Ruin. New York: Free
Press, 1998.
Pacioli, Fra Luca. Particularis de Computis et Scripturis, 1494, A Contemporary Interpretation by Jeremy Cripps. Seattle, WA: Pacioli Society,
Seattle University, 1995.
Paine, Thomas. Rights of Man and Common Sense. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, Inc., 1994.
Parkinson, C. Northcote. Left Luggage: A Caustic History of British Socialism
from Marx to Wilson. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1967.
Paul, Annie Murphy. The Cult of Personality Testing: How Personality Tests
Are Leading Us to Miseducate Our Children, Mismanage Our Companies, and Misunderstand Ourselves. New York: Free Press, 2004.
Penrose, Edith. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1995.
Peppers, Don, and Martha Rogers, PhD. Return on Customer: A Revolutionary
Way to Measure and Strengthen Your Business. New York: Currency,
2005.
Perazzo, John. The Myths That Divide Us: How Lies Have Poisoned American
Race Relations. Briarcliff Manor, NY: World Studies Books, 1999.
Peters, Tom. Re-Imagine!: Business Excellence in a Disruptive Age. London:
Dorling Kindersley Limited, 2003.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey. The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People
First. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1998.
311
Baker-bbiblio-2 09/05/07
312
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Robert I. Sutton. The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart
Companies Turn Knowledge into Action. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press, 2000.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Robert I. Sutton. Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and
Total Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-Based Management. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press, 2006.
Pink, Daniel H. A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future.
New York: Riverhead Books, 2006.
Polanyi, Michael. Knowing and Being. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1974.
Poole, Jr., Robert W. and Virginia I. Postrel. Free Minds and Free Markets:
Twenty-Five Years of Reason. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute
for Public Policy, 1993.
Postrel, Virginia. The Future and Its Enemies: The Growing Conflict over
Creativity, Enterprise, and Progress. New York: Free Press, 1998.
Prusak, Laurence, and Dan Cohen. “How to Invest in Social Capital.” Harvard Business Review , June 2001: 86–93.
Reagan, Ronald. Speaking My Mind: Selected Speeches. New York: Simon
& Schuster, 1989.
Reagan, Ronald. An American Life: The Autobiography. New York: Simon
& Schuster, 1990.
Roberts, Russell. The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protectionism.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
Roos, G¨oran, Stephen Pike, and Lisa Fernstr¨om. Managing Intellectual Capital in Practice. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005.
Rosenzweig, Phil. The Halo Effect . . . and the Eight Other Business Delusions
That Deceive Managers. New York: Free Press, 2007.
Sanford, Linda S., with Dave Taylor. Let Go to Grow: Escaping the Commodity Trap. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR, 2006.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York:
Harper & Row, 1950.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. Ten Great Economists From Marx to Keynes. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1951.
Seabright, Paul. The Company of Strangers: A Natural History of Economic
Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.
Semler, Ricardo. Maverick: The Success Story Behind the World’s Most
Unusual Workplace. New York: Warner Books, 1993.
Semler, Ricardo. The Seven-Day Weekend: A Better Way to Work in the 21st
Century. London: Arrow Books, 2003.
Senge, Peter, C. Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski, and Betty Sue Flowers.
Presence: An Exploration of Profound Change in People, Organizations,
and Society. New York: Currency, 2005.
Sertoglu, Cem, and Anne Berkowitch. “Cultivating Ex-Employees.” Harvard
Business Review , June 2002: 20–21.
312
Baker-bbiblio-2 09/05/07
BIBLIOGRAPHY
313
Skousen, Mark. The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of
the Great Thinkers. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2001.
Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
Introduction by Ludwig von Mises. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1998.
Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Amherst, NY: Prometheus
Books, 2000.
Sowell, Thomas. A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1987.
Sowell, Thomas. The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis
for Social Policy. New York: Basic Books, 1995.
Sowell, Thomas. Knowledge and Decisions. New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
1996.
Sowell, Thomas. Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays.
Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1999.
Sowell, Thomas. Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy. New
York: Basic Books, 2000.
Sowell, Thomas. Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One. New York:
Basic Books, 2004.
Sowell, Thomas. Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy, Revised
and Expanded Edition. New York: Basic Books, 2004.
Sowell, Thomas. Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy,
3rd ed. New York: Basic Books, 2007.
Stewart, Thomas A. Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations.
New York: Currency, 1997.
Stewart, Thomas A. The Wealth of Knowledge: Intellectual Capital and the
Twenty-First Century Organization. New York: Currency, 2001.
Sullivan, Gordon R., and Michael V. Harper. Hope Is Not a Method: What
Business Leaders Can Learn from America’s Army. New York: Broadway Books, 1996.
Sveiby, Karl Erik. The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring
Knowledge-Based Assets. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1997.
Taylor, Frederick Winslow. The Principles of Scientific Management. New
York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1967.
Taylor, William C. and Polly LaBarre. Mavericks and Work: Why the Most
Original Minds in Business Win. New York: William Morrow,
2006.
Tedlow, Richard S. Giants of Enterprise: Seven Business Innovators and the
Empires They Built. New York: Harper Business, 2001.
The Economist. “The Brains Business: A Survey of Higher Education.”
September 10, 2005.
The Economist. “The Ageing Workforce: Turning Boomers into Boomerangs.” February 18, 2006.
313
Baker-bbiblio-2 09/05/07
314
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Economist. “The Battle for Brainpower: A Survey of Talent.” October
7, 2006.
Toffler, Alvin, and Heidi Toffler. Revolutionary Wealth. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 2006.
Torvalds, Linus, and David Diamond. Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental
Revolutionary. New York: HarperBusiness, 2001.
Turchi, Peter. Maps of the Imagination: The Writer as Cartographer. San
Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press, 2004.
Vance, Mike, and Diane Deacon. Think Out of the Box . Franklin Lakes, NJ:
Career Press, 1995.
Warsh, David. Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations: A Story of Economic
Discovery. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006.
Watson, Robert A., and Ben Brown. The Most Effective Organization in the
U.S.: Leadership Secrets of the Salvation Army. New York: Crown Business, 2001.
Wattenberg, Ben J. Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will
Shape Our Future. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2004.
Wetherbe, James C. The World On Time: The 11 Management Principles That
Made FedEx an Overnight Sensation. Santa Monica, CA: Knowledge
Exchange, 1996.
Wheelan, Charles. Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science. New
York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2002.
Wheen, Francis. Idiot Proof: Deluded Celebrities, Irrational Power Brokers,
Media Morons, and the Erosion of Common Sense. New York: PublicAffairs, 2004.
Whyte, David. Crossing the Unknown Sea: Work as a Pilgrimage of Identity.
New York: Riverhead Books, 2001.
Wight, Jonathan B. Saving Adam Smith: A Tale of Wealth, Transformation,
and Virtue. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2002.
Will, George. Suddenly: The American Idea Abroad and at Home 1986–1990 .
New York: Free Press, 1992.
Williams, Tim. Take a Stand for Your Brand: Building a Great Agency Brand
from the Inside Out. Chicago: Copy Workshop, 2006.
Young, S. David. The Rule of Experts: Occupational Licensing in America.
Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 1987.
Young, Jeffrey S., and William L. Simon. iCon: Steve Jobs, the Greatest
Second Act in the History of Business. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 2005.
Younkins, Edward W. Three in One: Essays on Democratic Capitalism,
1976–2000, Michael Novak . New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001.
Yutang, Lin. The Importance of Living. New York: Quill, 1998 edition.
314
Baker-bother1-2
09/05/07
SUGGESTED READING
Books, not which afford us a cowering enjoyment, but in which each
thought is of unusual daring; such as an idle man cannot read, and a
timid one would not be entertained by, which even make us
dangerous to existing institutions—such call I good books.
—H. D. Thoreau: A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers,
1849
Arranging blind dates and recommending books are quite similar
trials. Not only does everyone have different reading preferences,
either activity can waste an enormous amount of time if it does
not lead to a more desirous future. I offer the following suggested
reading list knowing full well the risks, because I am fairly certain
the books reviewed will enhance your intellectual capital, and
may even be the catalyst to your seeing the world differently.
All of the books are included in the Bibliography, hence subtitle,
publisher, and copyright date are omitted here.
Mark Allen, PhD, ed., The Corporate University Handbook . An excellent
overview of the corporate university movement, including lots of ideas
and case studies of successful universities. Allen makes it clear that
corporate universities are more than merely training grounds, but the
connective tissue of organizations linking learning to strategy. One of
the most important lessons from this book is the corporate university
should report to the CEO, not the traditional HR department, if it is to
have an impact on the culture.
Chris Anderson, The Long Tail . The digital age, like the knowledge age,
makes matter more and more insignificant; it also does the same to
shelf space. This has important ramifications for retailers who have
traditionally been dependent on superstars, hits, and most popular items
for the majority of their profits. In a world where you can get your first
choice, we do not need 500 TV channels, only one—specifically, the
one you want, when you want it. The long tail will make businesses
reevaluate the traditional 80/20 rule, as customers will demand exactly
what they want—and be able to get it.
315
Baker-bother1-2
316
SUGGESTED READING
Ronald J. Baker, Professional’s Guide to Value Pricing, 6th ed. The author’s
first book, written specifically for accountants, lawyers, and other professional knowledge firms. It challenges the pricing-by-the-hour paradigm
(a form of cost-plus pricing) and offers alternatives for professionals to
get out from under the artificial ceiling imposed—on themselves—by
the billable hour, while offering alternatives to maintaining timesheets.
Ronald J. Baker and Paul Dunn, The Firm of the Future. This book explores
the old and new practice equations for leveraging intellectual capital in
today’s knowledge economy. Topics discussed include intellectual capital, customer selection, pricing, key performance indicators, leadership,
and issues facing the professions.
Ronald J. Baker, Pricing on Purpose. The first book in the Intellectual Capitalism Series, it discusses the old and new business equations, the labor
versus subjective theories of value, cost-plus pricing’s epitaph, price-led
costing, what and how people buy, the value proposition, price discrimination, Baker’s Law, ethics of pricing, antitrust law, the concept of a chief
value officer, and an extensive bibliography and suggested reading list.
Ronald J. Baker, Measure What Matters to Customers. The second book in
the Intellectual Capitalism Series, it deals with “effectiveness” in the
new business equation, discussing why it is more important than “efficiency” in knowledge firms. In an example of knowledge creep, it also
introduces the crucial difference between a key performance indicator
and a key predictive indicator, while challenging the famous McKinsey
maxim of “what you can measure you can manage” by suggesting we
cannot change our weight by weighing ourselves. Other topics include:
constructing a theory, developing KPIs for your company, increasing
knowledge worker effectiveness, managing by results versus managing
by means, the moral hazards of measurements, an extensive bibliography, and suggested reading list.
Frederic Bastiat, Economic Sophisms. If you enjoyed the essay in Chapter
1, “The Right Hand and the Left,” this book contains much more of
Bastiat’s brilliance. Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter—famous
for his “perennial gale of creative destruction” metaphor—said Bastiat
was “the most brilliant economic journalist who ever lived.” Read this
book, and his others, to find out why. You can also access Bastiat’s
books at the Library of Economics and Liberty, at www.econlib.org.
Gary S. Becker, Human Capital , 2nd ed. This is Becker’s classic study of
human capital; although quite academic and mathematical, there are
insights to be gleaned for all readers. His Accounting for Tastes is more
accessible, although still quite theoretical, presenting a coherent explanation for how individuals develop tastes, which has implications for
leveraging social capital. The Economics of Life, written with his historian wife, Guity Nashat Becker, is a compilation of his monthly columns
for BusinessWeek , examining a wide range of topics through the lens
of economic theory and arriving at counterintuitive conclusions, which
is Becker’s specialty. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for economics
in 1992.
09/05/07
316
Baker-bother1-2
SUGGESTED READING
09/05/07
317
Eric D. Beinhocker, The Origin of Wealth. A senior adviser to McKinsey &
Company, Beinhocker has assembled a well-researched journey through
the economics of wealth, though it is too rambling in places. His assertion that “economics in the future may be able to make prescriptive
recommendations about business and public policy with a level of scientific authority that it has not had before” illustrates the amount of
faith he is putting into the “Complexity Economics Revolution” he documents. Being a free market proponent, I took exception to nearly all
of his political and economic positions, but still found the book well
worth reading.
Peter L. Bernstein, Against the Gods. A fantastic book, very well written.
Bernstein takes us on a historical crossing of man’s increasing capacity
to deal with risk, all the while understanding how important risk is to
increasing a society’s standard of living. Highly recommended.
Peter Block, The Answer to How Is Yes. This is a splendid book, detailing the
importance of starting with why questions rather than how questions
when confronted with any change. Anyone involved in changing people’s minds needs to read this illuminating and lucid book. For more
information on Peter Block, visit www.designedlearning.com.
Warren T. Brookes, The Economy in Mind . I read this book the year it was
published, 1982, and it was the inspiration—along with the books by
George Gilder discussed below—for the book you are now holding.
Brookes was an economics columnist for the Boston Herald-American,
with the ability to discuss complex economic issues with clarity and
great insight. This was the book cited by President Reagan in his
speech at Moscow State University (reproduced in Chapter 3). It is
only available used, but worth finding for its historical contribution to
the intellectual capital economy.
Clayton M. Christensen et al., The Innovator’s Solution and Seeing What’s
Next. Christensen is one of the few management thinkers who understands the importance of utilizing theory in the embryonic discipline of
management science, and these two books are excellent examples of
the usefulness of positing, testing, falsifying, and advancing theories in
business. With more thinkers like Christensen, the discipline of management might someday reach parity with economics in the understanding
of human behavior.
Robert B. Cialdini, Influence, 4th ed. Containing many examples from marketing and advertising, this absolutely fascinating discussion of human
behavior is entertaining and informative.
Tom Coens and Mary Jenkins, Abolishing Performance Appraisals. This book
forever altered my worldview regarding the uselessness and destructiveness of the annual performance appraisal process. The authors do
a wonderful job dispelling every conventional myth about why this
archaic method is still necessary. The fact is, it’s not, even for legal reasons (Coens should know, he’s a former labor attorney). After reading
this book, I was even more convinced of the effectiveness of utilizing
After Action Reviews. I strongly suggest you read this book to see what
317
Baker-bother1-2
318
SUGGESTED READING
conclusions you reach about a practice that is increasingly irrelevant in
organizations comprised of knowledge workers.
Stephen R. Covey, The 8th Habit. In this follow-up to his classic The 7 Habits
of Highly Effective People, Covey provides a framework I believe is
relevant to knowledge workers, even if a bit dense and convoluted.
Though I remain unconvinced by some of his arguments, such as his
“5 ages of civilization”—from hunter/gatherer, agricultural, industrial,
information/knowledge worker, to wisdom—which makes it sound as
if there was no wisdom prior to modern times (what about Aristotle,
Adam Smith, etc.?), Covey does a superb job focusing on doing the
right things (effectiveness) rather than doing things right (efficiency).
He also calls on existing leaders to begin treating their people like the
knowledge workers they are, in order to achieve greatness.
Christopher L. Culp and William A. Niskanen, eds., Corporate Aftershock ;
and William A. Niskanen, ed., After Enron. Without doubt, these are
the best books written so far on why Enron happened and the public policy implications for this and other accounting scandals. One of
the editors, William Niskanen, is a former acting chairman of President Reagan’s Council of Economic advisers and has been chairman
of the Cato Institute since 1985. Both books dissect the failures leading up to Enron, from its board (which complied with all elements of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act) to internal and external auditors, attorneys,
bankers, credit rating agencies, stock analysts, the business press, and,
most egregious, the Securities and Exchange Commission—the watchdog that didn’t bark. The latter book especially is the only one I’ve
read that offers meaningful ideas on accounting and auditing reforms,
such as the innovative idea of having the stock exchanges select which
accounting standards its listed companies should be required to follow,
as well as paying the auditors itself in order to remove the ultimate
conflict that exists between auditors and their clients—the fact that
they are being paid by the very companies they are hired to audit.
This would force competition into the promulgation of accounting standards as different exchanges would select different standards, a salutary
idea. Both books are very deep, grounded in solid economic theory,
and, unfortunately—but not surprisingly—I’ve never seen anyone in
the mainstream accounting press mention any of the ideas they contain.
For true accounting and auditing reform, we must look to the think
tanks, not the universities, government, or the regulatory sector. These
books prove, beyond doubt, that think tanks are the modern-day “idea
brokers” in the arena of public policy and have definitively eclipsed the
universities as the ultimate intellectual institutions.
Dale Dauten, The Gifted Boss. Another book that will challenge you on many
different levels, helping any company with what it needs to do to attract
and inspire great people.
Thomas H. Davenport, Thinking for a Living; and Thomas H. Davenport and
Laurence Prusak, Working Knowledge. We are going to need more books
like this, and more thinkers like Davenport and Prusak, if we are going
to keep alive Peter Drucker’s legacy of increasing the effectiveness
09/05/07
318
Baker-bother1-2
SUGGESTED READING
09/05/07
319
of knowledge workers. The fact that there are so many disagreements
over the definition of a knowledge worker, their optimal working environment, and how to manage them, among other points of contention,
vivifies how much work is left to be done.
David W. DeLong, Lost Knowledge. An excellent examination of how, in
the coming years, companies stand to lose an enormous amount of
knowledge as workers retire, providing many examples of how organizations can capture some of this at-risk knowledge. DeLong thinks
the distinction between explicit and tacit is too general to be useful,
so he provides four categories instead—implicit rule-based knowledge,
implicit know-how, tacit knowledge, and deep tacit knowledge. I think
these are a distinction without a difference, so I stayed with the simpler
tacit/explicit definitions in deference to Occam’s razor.
Peter F. Drucker. Drucker is one of the truly serious thinkers the management
consultant industry can point to with justifiable pride. Read anything and
everything by Drucker; for aficionados, his autobiography, Adventures
of a Bystander, is essential. Even though Drucker passed away November 11, 2005, at age 95, it does not mark the beginning of the end, but
the end of the beginning, since he has left such a rich legacy. It is too bad
the Nobel Prize is not given posthumously, since he certainly deserved
one. Along with the economics profession, Drucker alone is responsible for introducing—and being among the first to recognize—the
knowledge worker and economy to the business world. For excellent
one-book summaries of his life’s work, see The World According to
Peter Drucker, by Jack Beaty; Peter Drucker: Shaping the Managerial
Mind , by John E. Flaherty; and The Definitive Drucker, by Elizabeth
Haas Edersheim.
Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class; and The Flight of the Creative
Class. Florida is another thinker contributing to the knowledge worker
topic, though he labels it the creative class. While I have serious doubts
about some of his proposals with respect to government “investing”
in furthering creativity, his books are thought-provoking expositions of
this important sector of the workforce, providing a global perspective
on the coming competition for this type of talent.
Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose; and “The Social
Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” Milton and Rose
Friedman are each eminent economists, with this book and article being
among their classics, and a must-read for anyone who wants an understanding of how free markets work. Milton passed away November 16,
2006, but his ideas live on. You can watch his Free to Choose PBS
series (the original from the 1980s as well as the updated version from
the 1990s, at www.ideachannel.tv).
Francis Fukuyama, Trust. Like Peter Bernstein’s historical tour of risk,
Fukuyama does the same for trust, a virtue he believes is an economic
factor of production. Well written and highly recommended, especially
if you have an affinity for history. Combine trust with Adam Smith’s
“invisible hand,” and you have the “invisible handshake,” the moral and
ethical foundation of free markets.
319
Baker-bother1-2
320
SUGGESTED READING
David A. Garvin, Learning in Action. An excellent book for creating a learning organization. Garvin makes clear that “intelligence gathering is
aimed at the present; experiential learning is aimed at the past; and
experimentation is aimed at the future”—present, past, and future—and
how to put it all together effectively. Includes many examples, along
with Garvin’s lively writing, a rarity, especially compared to other books
on this topic.
George Gilder, Recapturing the Spirit of Enterprise and Wealth and Poverty.
In my opinion, Gilder is the best writer and thinker on economics,
sociology, technology, and entrepreneurship that you will find. I discovered his work, Wealth and Poverty, in 1981, and it forever altered
my vision of the way the world works (thanks dad!). His thinking
greatly influenced the Reagan administration, and was echoed in Reagan’s Moscow State University speech. These two books are his classics,
but he has written many others. If you read only two books from
this entire list, read anything by Gilder—twice. Gilder is a senior fellow at Seattle’s Discovery Institute (www.discovery.org); he blogs at
http://blog.gildertech.com.
Robert W. Hahn and Paul C. Tetlock, eds., Information Markets. This book
is from the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institute
Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, two think tanks that have teamed
up to study alternatives to regulatory policy. This book is a compendium of essays on information markets, as discussed in Chapter 14
on accounting model reform. The book explains how these markets can
be constructed and maintained to reduce bias, demonstrating just how
much we have learned about the usefulness of these markets. Some
of the more popular information markets are examined, such as the
Iowa Election Markets (www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem), which has an excellent track record in predicting political campaigns, as well as other uses
for which this innovative tool could be used, such as weather forecasts,
economic indicators, international relationships, and terrorism, to name
just a few. For a list of active event markets and more information visit
www.aei-brookings.org/policyfutures.
Charles Handy, Myself and Other More Important Matters. Charles Handy is
the United Kingdom’s Peter Drucker. This is his autobiography, not only
splendidly written but parts of it are deep and profound. I particularly
enjoyed his “portfolio life” metaphor for today’s knowledge worker
along with his idea of studying a theatrical program to understand how
knowledge workers should not be managed, merely directed. A fantastic
read from an innovative management thinker.
Suzanne S. Harrison and Patrick H. Sullivan Sr., Einstein in the Boardroom.
This book contains many resources and examples of companies successfully leveraging their “I-Stuff,” an unfortunate, trivial moniker, which
is all right since the authors don’t much care for it either. The authors
are attempting to expand the concept of intellectual capital beyond the
boundaries of legal definitions (intellectual property), while also subscribing to “if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it,” which is nonsense on stilts, as I pointed out in Measure What Matters to Customers.
09/05/07
320
Baker-bother1-2
SUGGESTED READING
09/05/07
321
That said, the book is still quite valuable, and has a good discussion of
how the accounting profession is trying to reform its model, even though
it does not reach the same conclusions about the obsolescence of the
accounting model because it is not a theory, as I explain in Chapter 14.
H. Thomas Johnson, “Reflections of a Recovering Management Accountant”;
and Profit Beyond Measure. The first is an excellent paper Johnson delivered that especially resonated with me since I, too, consider myself a
recovering accountant. The second is the book that is Johnson’s study
of the legendary Toyota (and Scania) production process, all done without a standard cost accounting system, as discussed in the first two books
of the Intellectual Capitalism Series. I believe both of these works are
seminal, and will further the debate between managing by results versus
managing by means, the former approach being embodied by the Balance
Scorecard, while the latter is more akin to the Toyota Production System.
John Kay, Foundations of Corporate Success; Culture and Prosperity; Everlasting Light Bulbs; and The Hare & the Tortoise. Kay is one of Britain’s
leading economists, currently a visiting professor at the London School
of Economics. He’s quite adept at explaining economic theory and how
it applies to real-life business situations. The first two books are not
easy reads, but worth the effort to understand how economic theory
and business really are complements, not to mention how nations create
wealth. The latter two books are compilations of articles that contain
maximum wisdom in a minimum of words. You can learn more about
Kay at www.johnkay.com.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Thou Shall Prosper. No matter which religious faith
you maintain, or even if you don’t have one, everyone needs a rabbi
(“teacher” in Hebrew). I’m proud to say Daniel Lapin is my rabbi,
especially after listening to his radio show, and certainly after reading
this book. Rabbi Lapin is the founder and director of Toward Tradition
(www.towardtradition.org). This is an incredibly important work, offering a learned, cogent, entertaining, and exceptionally well-written moral
defense of capitalism. That’s no small feat, since capitalism works better in practice than it sounds in theory. Lapin sincerely hopes you want
to make more money, since “if you are living on a park bench, panhandling passersby and feeling quite content with your life, you are unlikely
to be motivated to do anything for me.” There is so much wisdom in
this book, it is impossible for me to do it justice in a short review. It
is one of the best books I’ve read on this topic in years, establishing
Lapin as a serious contributor along with Gilder, Novak, Hayek, and
the other writers mentioned herein. Well done, Rabbi Lapin. I’m proud
to have you as my rabbi (and I’m not even Jewish).
Richard Layard, Happiness. Layard is an economist and, since 2000, a member of the House of Lords, who does not believe that happiness correlates
to income. If you want to explore economists’ attempts to measure happiness and innovative public policy proposals for promoting it, this is an
excellent resource. While I have severe misgivings of some of Layard’s
policy prescriptions—they will strike lovers of liberty as redolent of
the nanny state—his writing is cogent, learned, and informative.
321
Baker-bother1-2
322
SUGGESTED READING
Matthew May, The Elegant Solution. If you want to delve into the secrets
of Toyota’s incredible success, this is the book. May is senior adviser
to the University of Toyota, so he is well qualified to take you on an
insider’s journey through the DNA of this incredible company. Highly
recommended.
John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, The Witch Doctors. This piercing
work—by two editors from The Economist —gave voice to the backlash against the $100 billion-plus profession known as “consulting.”
Although the authors bestow far too much power on the consultants in
altering the course of life, referring to them as “the unacknowledged
legislators of mankind,” their four defects of the “witch doctors” of
our age are fatally accurate. The profession has yet to refute successfully the charges against it, so eloquently laid out in this book. For all
those who have suffered through many a poorly written business book,
Micklethwait and Wooldridge offer a refreshing alternative.
Richard Miniter, The Myth of Market Share. This little book makes a simple,
but important, claim: Companies that pursue market share rather than
profits hurt shareholders. A great read, which also provides the historical
context for the term market share.
Henry Mintzberg, Mintzberg on Management and Managers Not MBAs.
Mintzberg is Cleghorn professor of management studies at McGill
University in Montreal, Canada. If you ever thought our business
education—especially the MBA—is dysfunctional, you will find Mintzberg’s work compelling. The second work is especially relevant, and
Mintzberg, like Peter Drucker and Clayton Christensen, is another management thinker who understands the importance of theory.
Joel Mokyr, The Gifts of Athena. Mokyr is a professor of arts and sciences,
and economics and history, at Northwestern University; as you would
expect, this book is highly academic. While it is not meant to be an
explanation of how knowledge is leveraged to create wealth, it does
explain the historical origins of the knowledge economy, which, of
course, is not a new phenomenon. For those craving a more thorough
history of this fascinating topic, this is an excellent book.
Nikos Mourkogiannis, Purpose. My VeraSage colleague, Tim Williams, has
enhanced my knowledge of the importance of purpose in business.
Mourkogiannis has done the same. I especially like how he discusses
purpose as more important than strategy, and how business is really
about ideas and worldviews, not merely competitive positioning. An
excellent book, highly recommended.
Charles Murray, Human Accomplishment. Murray, a senior fellow at the
American Enterprise Institute, studied outstanding human accomplishment from 800 b.c. to 1950, and concludes that we stand on the shoulders of 4,002 individuals who invented, created, or otherwise innovated
all human progress in the sciences (including technology), philosophy,
music, visual arts, and literature. What is astonishing about these 4,002
individuals is the mean age at the time of their contribution was 40.
This book proves there is, indeed, such a thing as a free lunch. A
09/05/07
322
Baker-bother1-2
SUGGESTED READING
09/05/07
323
good companion read is Benjamin Jones, “Age and Great Invention.”
Available at http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/jones-ben/
htm/Research.htm.
Richard John Neuhaus, Doing Well and Doing Good . An excellent book,
exploring the moral foundations of work, enterprise, and profits, as well
as the late Pope John Paul’s encyclical of May 1, 1991, Centesimus
Annus(The Hundredth Year) as discussed in Chapter 15. Neuhaus is a
theologian and editor of the religious magazine First Things.
Michael Novak, The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism; Business
as a Calling; On Cultivating Liberty; and The Universal Hunger for
Liberty. Four exceptional books from one of the most thoughtful and
gifted writers of our times, also a theologian and senior fellow at the
American Enterprise Institute. Novak makes a profound argument for
why business is a serious moral enterprise. Required reading for anyone
interested in morality, ethics, and enterprise. For more information on
Novak, visit www.michaelnovak.net.
Eugene O’Kelly, Chasing Daylight. This may seem like a peculiar book to
suggest, but I found it profound. I knew the author; he was a partner in
the same office I was at Peat, Marwick, Mitchell (now KPMG) in the
mid-1980s. In the last week of May 2005, at the age of 53, he was told
he had three months to live. When he consulted another specialist on
how long he had, the doctor replied: “You’re not a statistic.” What is
fascinating is how O’Kelly, who went on to become CEO of KPMG,
the international accounting firm and one of the Big Four, changed
his perspective on evaluating people from competency, proficiency, and
quality, to the energy that someone puts into a task. He admits he
could have limited his office schedule, spent more time with his family,
and probably have been more focused and creative at work, and gotten
more done. In other words, he confused being busy with being effective.
This is especially relevant to increasing the effectiveness of knowledge
workers, and I hope we have the wisdom to learn from it—and practice
it—without having to wait for a fatal diagnosis.
P. J. O’Rourke, On the Wealth of Nations. O’Rourke is the Cato Institute’s
Mencken research fellow and a gifted humorist. This is P. J.’s attempt to
explain Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations so the rest of us don’t have
to read it ourselves. An excellent summary of Smith’s ideology, along
with a valuable alphabetized quote dictionary from Smith’s writings,
and pithy statements, such as this one: “Incidentally, if the labor theory
of value were true, certain children would be less worthless than they
are.” Highly recommended.
Annie Murphy Paul, The Cult of Personality Testing. A devastating critique of
the personality testing industry that I found compelling, based on solid
evidence and scholarly research. If you have ever taken a personality
test, you know they have a tendency to reinforce what we already know
about ourselves. But as Paul points out, labeling our personalities is
not the same as understanding them, let alone predicting our behavior
based on them. A very interesting read, especially the historical origins
323
Baker-bother1-2
324
SUGGESTED READING
of some of the most famous of the test’s creators—a real hodgepodge
of eccentrics.
Jeffrey Pfeffer, The Human Equation; The Knowing-Doing Gap; Hard Facts,
Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense. Pfeffer is another management thinker who understands the importance of theory, whose books
contain excellent examples, including much wisdom along the way.
Daniel H. Pink, A Whole New Mind . Pink’s general thesis is the creative and
intuitive right-centered brain is going to become more dominant than the
left-centered brain in the knowledge economy. He says the six senses on
which knowledge worker success depends are design, story, symphony,
empathy, play, and meaning. Of course, there is not much new here,
and some of Pink’s ideas are irritatingly simplistic. Nevertheless, it is
a useful book to further our understanding of how knowledge workers
differ from industrial and service workers.
G¨oran Roos, Stephen Pike, and Lisa Fernstr¨om, Managing Intellectual Capital in Practice. For those who want a very comprehensive survey of
managing intellectual capital, this book qualifies. It also brings an international perspective to the topic, with many case studies of companies
from around the world. One novel fact I gleaned from this erudite book
was that the Balanced Scorecard idea originated in France in the 1960s
as the Tableau de Bord , such as with the book Des Ratios au Tableau de
Bord , by P. Lauzel and A. Cibert. If part of your job entails managing
intellectual capital, this book should be in your library.
Phil Rosenzweig, The Halo Effect. In the spirit of The Witch Doctors,
reviewed above, this book takes a shot across the bow of the pabulum that emanates from the faddish management consultancy industry.
Rosenzweig is fearless, attacking Built to Last, Good to Great, and
other books he claims may tell good stories but have little empirical
evidence to support their conclusions. If you are an avid reader of business books or the business press in general, this book is essential reading
to increase your sensitivity to nonsensical conclusions drawn based on
looking at financial performance alone. Rosenzweig has written a valuable contribution that will help management thinkers understand the
difference between a process and a result—if they heed his advice. In
the meantime, I urge you to read this incredibly important book.
Paul Seabright, The Company of Strangers. This book is outstanding. Why
is it that our ancestors, thousands of years ago, roamed around in small
bands highly suspicious of any strangers they encountered, but now
we walk out our front doors and disappear into a city of 10 million
strangers? This seismic change has happened in a historically relative
short period of time. We are so dependent on complete strangers for
our everyday sustenance, and in some cases our very existence, we
no longer are even cognizant of it—a situation that would baffle our
ancestors. Seabright is an economist who has that rare talent of also
being an engaging writer. If you want to deepen your understanding of
the salutary effects of Adam Smith’s invisible hand, while enjoying a
great historical journey, I highly recommend this book.
09/05/07
324
Baker-bother1-2
SUGGESTED READING
09/05/07
325
Ricardo Semler, Maverick and The Seven-Day Weekend . Since I implored
you in Chapter 15 to read these books, I won’t add anything else here,
except to reiterate a strong desire that you suspend everything you think
you know about running an organization and read these two books,
especially the latter. Please. The present owes it to the future.
Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and An Inquiry into the
Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). These are Smith’s
major books, which are the basis for the classical economic view of
markets. Smith is wrongly attributed with saying—or making the case
that—greed is good; he never said or implied any such thing. He
believed in a system of natural liberty, operating under the guidance
of an “invisible hand.” For an excellent summary of Smith’s thinking,
in the genre of an academic novel, see Saving Adam Smith, by Jonathan
B. Wight, a well-written, innovative work of economic history. The Liberty Fund has an excellent electronic library, the Library of Economics
and Liberty, containing each of Smith’s works (and many other classics), which you can search by topic, keyword, phrase, and so forth, at
www.econlib.org. Also, visit www.adamsmith.org.
Thomas Sowell. Since Thomas Sowell is one of the nation’s leading economic
writers and scholastic thinkers, all of his books are worth reading. One
reviewer wrote that reading Thomas Sowell was like chewing on nails,
since his work is so powerfully logical, not to mention that Sowell
is fearless in reaching conclusions that are not politically correct, or
at all intuitive. Friedrich Hayek in a 1985 interview said of Sowell:
“He’s a genius.” Sowell’s Knowledge and Decisions would be the most
directly relevant to intellectual capital—it was inspired by the paper
Hayek wrote in 1945, “The Use of Knowledge in Society”—and Sowell considers it his finest book. For those interested in exploring the topic
of Chapter 14 (knowledge versus beliefs) in greater depth, his A Conflict of Visions is just exceptional. How can people of good intentions
hold two opposite beliefs of the world? As Sowell writes, “Conflicts
of interests dominate the short run, but conflicts of visions dominate
history.” A book that, again, will change how you view the world, or
at the least help you understand how others do. Sowell is the Rose and
Milton Friedman senior fellow on public policy at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. You can learn more about Thomas Sowell at
www.tsowell.com.
Thomas A. Stewart, Intellectual Capital and The Wealth of Knowledge. Probably the two best books written on intellectual capital, since Stewart is
such an excellent writer on what can be a very dry topic. He’s now
editor of Harvard Business Review , but began his passionate study of
intellectual capital as a Fortune writer. Required reading.
Gordon R. Sullivan, Hope Is Not a Method . Sullivan was chief of staff of the
Army from 1991 to 1995, and was largely responsible for disseminating
the After Action Review throughout the entire ranks to increase effectiveness and learning. It is unusual to read a business book by a military
leader, but well worth it, since he peppers his topics with fascinating
military historical stories. Highly recommended.
325
Baker-bother1-2
326
SUGGESTED READING
Karl Erik Sveiby, The New Organizational Wealth. Sveiby, one of the leading
thinkers in the intellectual capital movement, was the first (in 1989) to
propose the framework of separating intellectual capital into its three
components of human, structural, and social. This work is a profound,
yet very accessible and easily written, exploration of the importance
of intellectual capital. Highly recommended. You can learn more about
Sveiby at www.sveiby.com.
William C. Taylor and Polly LaBarre, Mavericks and Work . Written by editors
at Fast Company, this is a breezy book packed with many examples of
some of the most progressive companies, especially relevant to knowledge workers. It also contains many resources you will want to explore
in greater depth.
Richard S. Tedlow, Giants of Enterprise. Fred Smith, founder of FedEx, said
in an interview with USA Today, “There are only about six business
books worth reading. For enduring lessons, read history.” If that is true,
then Richard Tedlow is one of the business historians who can bring
those lessons to life. This work is a fascinating historical account of
the lives of Andrew Carnegie, George Eastman, Henry Ford, Thomas J.
Watson Sr., Charles Revson, Sam Walton, and Robert Noyce. A great
read from a great writer.
Alvin Toffler and Heidi Toffler, Revolutionary Wealth. You are probably
familiar with the Tofflers from Future Shock and other best-sellers they
have written over the decades. As usual, Toffler makes you think about
the world around you in new ways, pointing out interesting trends along
the way. This book, though long, is an excellent survey of how wealth
is now created in the knowledge economy.
Linus Torvalds and David Diamond, Just for Fun. Linus, of course, is the
creator of the open source (not free!) Linux operating system. Reading
this book restores one’s faith in the free marketplace, where people get
together to change the world the rest of us live in. Linus comes across
as just your average techno-nerd, but as with most geniuses, he had a
burning desire to achieve something great. He explains why humans do
the things they do based on three instincts: survival; your place in the
social order; and entertainment. I would add liberty to that list, but there
can be no doubt his list has some wisdom. This is a great book, a better
story, and an illustration of how knowledge is a nonrival asset that can
be used by many people at the same time without diminishing it, creating untold wealth in the process. Despite Bill Gates’s and Microsoft’s
protestations to the contrary, the open source movement is far more
consistent with capitalism—since it is a bottom-up revolution—than
the traditional proprietary, closed-looped R&D labs of yesterday.
David Warsh, Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations. The epigraph to Warsh’s
book says it all: “The construction of a model, or of any theory for that
matter (or the writing of a novel, a short story or a play) consists of
snatching from the enormous and complex mass of facts called reality
a few simple, easily-managed key points which, when put together in
some cunning way, become for certain purposes a substitute for reality
09/05/07
326
Baker-bother1-2
SUGGESTED READING
09/05/07
327
itself” (Evsey Domar, Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth). This
is the story of “new growth theory” in economics, led by Paul Romer,
whom we met in Chapter 7. An excellent survey of this exciting new
field, and highly recommended for those who want to enhance their
economic education of the power of ideas and knowledge to better the
world.
Robert A. Watson and Ben Brown, The Most Effective Organization in the
U.S . Peter Drucker said, “The Salvation Army is by far the most effective organization in the U.S. No one even comes close to it with respect
to clarity of mission, ability to innovate, measurable results, dedication, and putting money to maximum use.” This book, by the former
national commander and 44-year veteran, is the story of how it earned
Drucker’s admiration. There are untold lessons in this book for inspiring
knowledge workers to be their best. As Drucker taught us so well, the
nonprofit sector has an enormous amount to teach the for-profit sector
about purpose, dedication, and meaning. Everyone needs to read this
exceptional book.
Ben J. Wattenberg, Fewer. Demography may not be destiny, but it is still
important to understand how it will affect all of our futures. No one does
this with greater ease than Ben Wattenberg, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Smashing the conventional wisdom of a rising
and unsustainable world population, Wattenberg proves—utilizing and
interpreting the United Nation’s population statistics, recognized to be
the best in the world—the population is actually shrinking. What are
the ramifications of this? Well, we don’t know for sure because we
don’t have a model for it. But Wattenberg’s commentary seems sane
and reasoned, and worthwhile reading for anyone interested in the future
landscape of the world. To access the United Nations’ population statistics, visit www.unpopulation.org.
David Whyte. Crossing the Unknown Sea. Another unusual book to include,
especially since Whyte describes himself as a corporate poet. Yet what
he has to say about work is especially relevant to knowledge workers,
hence I believe worth reading. He is also a terrific writer.
Lin Yutang. The Importance of Living. If you enjoyed reading the quote from
Yutang in the first part of Chapter 15, you will thoroughly enjoy this
classic, a far cry from the self-help books so ubiquitous today. Superbly
written and an enchanting read.
327
Baker-bother1-2
09/05/07
328
Baker-bother2-3
09/05/07
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
To make it easier for you to find additional online resources on
topics not already specifically cited in the book, this list is sorted
by chapter (though not all chapters have additional resources).
For the books cited in each chapter, see the bibliography and the
suggested reading list for more information. An easily accessible
starting source for all topics can usually be found by searching
on www.wikipedia.org, which also contains links and additional
resources.
Chapter 1: Mind over Materialism
For more information on Adam Smith, visit www.adamsmith.org.
For Smith’s and Frederic Bastiat’s books online, visit the Library of Economics and Liberty at www.econlib.org.
Chapter 2: Mind Over Marxism
More information on Karl Marx, including his writings, is available at www.
marxists.org.
For those interested in the marginalist revolution, including modern-day
Austrian economists who are carrying on the tradition, visit www.
marginalrevolution.com.
Chapter 3: The Economy in Mind
For a copy of Ronald Reagan’s speech at Moscow State University, visit
www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1988/053188b.htm.
For more information on Ronald Reagan, visit his presidential library web
site, at www.reaganlibrary.com/welcome.asp.
For information on all presidential libraries, visit http://archives.gov/
presidential-libraries/index.html.
Chapter 4: A Flawed Theory—The Old Business Equation; and Chapter 5:
A Better Theory—The New Business Equation
VeraSage Institute, the author’s think tank, is dedicated to promoting the
new business equation, especially in professional knowledge firms, at
www.verasage.com.
Karl Sveiby, who proposed the three types of intellectual capital—human,
structural, and social—can be found at www.sveiby.com.
Chapter 6: The Scarcest Resource of All
329
Baker-bother2-3
330
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Thomas Sowell can be found at www.tsowell.com.
For information on Friedrich Hayek, visit www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/hayek.html.
Chapter 7: Ideas Have Consequences
Economist Paul Romer’s selected writings can be found at www.stanford.edu/
promer/index.html.
Charles Murray can be found at www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.43/scholar.
asp.
Chapter 9: Human Capitalism
Nobel Prize–winning economist Gary S. Becker’s home page is http://home.
uchicago.edu/gbecker .
Becker blogs, along with Judge Richard Posner, at www.becker-posner-blog.
com.
Many countries now recognize the importance of the knowledge economy
with iniatitives meant to attract knowledge workers and organizations,
such as:
The Scottish National Intellectual Assets Centre (the IA Centre), www.
ia-centre.org.uk
Arabian Knowledge Economy Association, www.akea-me.com/akea.asp
IDA Ireland, www.idaireland.com
EDB Singapore, www.sedb.com
Chapter 11: Developing and Inspiring Knowledge Workers
For more information on Frederick Winslow Taylor, with links to his writings,
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick Winslow Taylor.
For more on Frank Gilbreth, see: http://gilbrethnetwork.tripod.com/front.html.
To download a copy of Henry Ford’s autobiography, My Life and Work , see
www.gutenberg.org/etext/7213.
Chapter 12: Structural Capital: If Only We Knew What We Know
For Ben Wattenberg, visit www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.59,filter.all/scholar.
asp.
For the United Nations’ population statistics, see www.unpopulation.org.
Visit the U.S. Library of Congress’s American Folklife Center, at www.
storycorps.net.
For Paul O’Byrne and Paul Kennedy, of O’Byrne & Kennedy in Great Britain,
visit www.obk.co.uk.
For information on After Action Reviews from the U.S. Army, see http://call.
army.mil.
Chapter 13: Social Capital: No Man Is an Island
For more information on U.K. consultancy Interbrand that values the world’s
leading brands, visit www.interbrand.com.
For more information on Rabbi Daniel Lapin, see www.towardtradition.org.
For the author’s series, “Earning My Mouse Ears,” Parts 1–3, visit www.
verasage.com.
09/05/07
330
Baker-bother2-3
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
09/05/07
331
For more information on O’Byrne & Kennedy’s GOBS MBA programs, visit
www.obk.co.uk.
For the Josephson Institute on Ethics, see www.josephsoninstitute.com.
For an excellent example of the open source movement applied to an application other than software, visit http://librivox.org, where you can download amateur recordings of books in the public domain.
Chapter 14: Knowledge versus Beliefs
For more information on George Gilder, see www.discovery.org, www.
gildertech.com, and his blog, http://blog.gildertech.com.
For the Enhanced Business Reporting Consortium, visit www.ebr360.org.
For the New Paradigm Initiative, see http://npi.valuemeasurement.net.
For more information on information markets, visit The American Enterprise
Institute–Brookings Institution Joint Center, at www.aei-brookings.org/
policyfutures, which contains an active list of information markets,
research, articles, links to software for building them, and other information.
For the Hollywood Stock exchange, using pretend money, see www.hsx.com.
Chapter 15: Purpose
See the World Database on Happiness, at http://www2.eur.nl/fsw/research/
veenhoven/Pub1980s/84-wdh.htm.
For Richard Layard’s web site, with information and research on the science
of happiness, see http://cep.lse.ac.uk/layard.
A great web site for budding entrepreneurs, a partnership between Walt Disney Company and the charitable Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation,
is www.hotshotbusiness.com.
See Virginia Postrel’s blog at www.dynamist.com/weblog.
See George Gilder’s speech to the Vatican, June 1, 1997, “The Soul of Silicon,” one of the most profound pieces of writing on the morality of
markets, at www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command =
view&id = 230.
For Pope John Paul II’s 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus (“The Hundredth Year”) wherin the Pope writes about the morality of profits,
see www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0214/ INDEX.HTM.
For the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, visit www.
heritage.org/index.
The Economic Freedom Network’s web site can be found at www.
freetheworld.com.
331
Baker-bother2-3
09/05/07
332
Baker-bindex-1
09/05/07
INDEX
Blogs, 180, 193, 194, 210, 212, 226,
268
B¨ohm-Bawerk’s Law, 70
Brands, 80, 221, 224, 225
Brin, Sergey, 135, 272
Bullion as wealth, 1, 2, 5, 6
Business equation
new business equation, 59–69, 72, 301
traditional model of enterprise, 52–57,
72
Business organizations as interdependent
system, 64, 65
Business purpose, 55, 65–67, 222, 285
Absorptive capacity, 174
Accountability of knowledge workers,
130, 156, 161, 165
Accounting principles
goodwill, 273
human capital, 108, 109
and knowledge assets, 103
origin of, 270, 271
reform, 277–283
relevance of, 66, 268–277, 279
tangible and intangible assets, 103
trade deficits and surpluses, 8
and valuing intellectual capital, 48, 49
After Action Review (AAR), 121, 171,
202–211
Alliances, 221, 230–232
Alumni as part of social capital, 221, 233,
234
Amazon.com, 223, 226, 245
American Airlines, 49, 199, 200
Ash, Mary Kay, 220
“Ash heap of history,” 32, 45, 55
Autarky, 3
Authentication process, 76, 77, 82, 91,
115, 266
Capacity, 53
Capital, origin of term, 110, 111
Capital goods (producer goods), 24
Capitalism, 16, 17, 45, 66, 91, 94, 144,
213, 214, 266
Carnegie, Andrew, 109, 146, 187, 287,
288
Change, 26, 27, 60, 64, 266, 267, 296,
297. See also Creative destruction
Chief knowledge officer (CKO), 118,
119
Chrysalis metaphor, 35, 44, 45
Classical model of competition, 15, 16
Coca-Cola, 67, 104, 122, 201, 224, 225,
271
Coincident indicators, 274
Communism, 13, 19, 20, 32, 44, 45, 216,
217
Communities of practice (CoPs), 192–199
Competition, 15, 16, 262, 263
Competitive advantage, 56, 137
Concierge Service Model, 254–257
Conscience, 15, 16
Consultants, 85, 89, 143, 266
Consumer goods, 23
Baker’s Law, 61, 182, 223
Balance of trade, 3, 6–13
Balanced Scorecard, 275, 276
Barter economy, 3, 6
Bastiat, Fr´ed´eric, 9, 13, 21
Becker, Gary S., 107, 108, 173, 174, 189,
218, 219, 258
Before Action Review (BAR), 208, 211
Behavior, 15, 219, 220, 286
Beliefs, 169, 260, 261, 266, 267, 299
Benchmarking, 59, 84, 266
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,
288
333
333
Baker-bindex-1
334
Consumerism, 66
Consumers as determiner of value, 22
Corporate social responsibility, 230
Corporate universities, 174, 221, 236–243
Correlation and causation, 86
Cost of production theory of value, 18
Cost-plus pricing, 52, 53, 55, 267, 299
Creative destruction, 31, 45, 91, 92,
264–265, 296
Creativity, 31, 45, 97
Culture, 217, 221, 251
Customers. See also Social capital
Baker’s Law, 61, 182, 223
and business purpose, 65, 66
creating value for, 65, 67, 129
creating wealth for, 55, 65, 154
customer relations and employee
relations, 141
as part of social capital, 221–224
selecting, 61
Danish Financial Statement Act, 278,
279
Data, 81, 82
“Deathbed test,” 300, 301
Decision making, 80, 86, 87, 155, 226
Demographics, 188–190
Discretionary effort, 141
Disney. See Walt Disney Company
Disney, Walt, 2, 54, 104, 162, 237, 290,
291, 294, 301
Disney Institute, 180
Disney University, 237, 239, 290
Double-entry bookkeeping, 3, 110, 270,
274
Drucker, Peter, 30, 54, 64–66, 71, 73, 82,
93, 99, 101, 103, 111, 117, 125, 127,
132, 133, 139, 143, 148, 151–153,
164, 166, 174, 222, 237, 246, 252,
262, 268, 269, 273, 290
Economic growth, 52, 92–97, 114, 115,
264
Economic rewards, 132
Economic self-sufficiency, 3
INDEX
Education, 30, 95, 111–117, 173–177,
221, 236–243
Effectiveness
versus efficiency, 62, 63, 68, 155, 156,
212
improving, 59
IQ as predictor of, 168
knowledge workers, framework for,
151–156
and removal of tasks, 165, 166
and Scientific Management, 144, 145
Efficacious, 68
Efficiency, 53, 54, 62, 68, 123, 149, 150,
154–156, 212, 267
Emotional intelligence, 168
Emotions, 62, 63, 134, 135, 155
Enhanced Business Reporting Model,
278
Entrepreneurs, 95, 264, 267, 269, 282,
291
Epistemology, 75, 77
Ethical capital, 221, 251–254
Ethical egoism, 215, 216
Ethnography, 158, 159
European Union (EU), 114, 116, 117
Executives, 132
External stakeholders, 221, 229, 230
Faith in the future, 36, 40, 45, 261, 262,
283, 284
Falsification principle, 47, 83, 86, 87, 90,
91, 301
FedEx, 53, 100, 140, 141, 173, 183, 228,
290, 291
Financial statements as lagging indicators,
274
Ford, Henry, 5, 145, 146, 264, 266
Franklin, Benjamin, 125, 301
Free trade, 7, 8
Friedman, Milton, 70, 82, 90, 217, 230,
283
Gates, Bill, 44, 54, 95, 114, 130, 246,
288, 290
General Electric (GE), 56, 174, 237
09/05/07
334
Baker-bindex-1
INDEX
General Motors, 163, 228
Generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP), 48, 49, 270, 271, 280,
282
Germ theory, 88, 266
G.I. Bill of Rights, 30, 111, 112
Gilbreth, Frank, 146–148
Gilder, George, 1, 264, 268, 296
Gold. See Bullion as wealth
Goldcorp Challenge, 249, 250
Goodwill, 273
Google, 48, 49, 100, 135, 171, 226, 245,
246, 272, 273
Gorbachev, Mikahil, 27, 29, 32, 45
Gresham’s law, 61
Growth opportunities, 131
Hansei, 208
Happiness, 286–287
Hayek, Friedrich A., 76, 78, 79, 81, 90
Heuristics, 80
Hewlett Packard, 50, 229, 290, 293
“Higher order” goods, 24
Hiring choices, 134, 182–184
Human capital. See also Knowledge
workers
as category of intellectual capital, 50,
61, 62
competition for, 117
defined, 218
development of as social process,
216
and education. See Education
and emotions, 62, 63, 123, 155
and human traits, 123
importance of, 109, 110
and intellectual capital, 48
“Karl Marx’s revenge,” 122
and meaning of capital, 110, 111
meaningful work, need for, 122,
123
measuring, 112–117
negative, 51, 182–184
origin of term, 107, 108
ownership of, 104
and performance capacity of
organization, 122
09/05/07
335
as source of wealth, 31, 46, 108
and spirit of enterprise, 115, 116
theory of, 108
and treatment of people, 122
Human spirit, 48, 49, 123, 134
Ideas, 75–77, 82, 91–97
Identity statements, 274
Imagineering, 97, 104, 105
“Impartial Spectator,” 16
Industrial Age, 29, 30
Industrial Revolution, 29, 30, 44, 114,
122, 123
Industry associations, 221, 232, 233
Information, 80–82
Information age, 80, 81
Information Era, 44
Information markets, 281, 282
Innocentive, 247
Innovation, 69, 94, 96–97, 99, 172, 264,
276
Inputs and outputs, 146, 148–150, 153,
159, 171, 175, 182
Intangible assets, 49, 103, 104
Intellectual capital economy, 45
Intellectual capital (IC). See also Human
capital; Social capital; Structural
capital
characteristics of, 99–104
components of, 49–51, 61
and dealing with people, 134, 135
defining, 104, 105
and destruction of wealth, 259
economy, 44
and future value creation, 278
individual development of, 295, 296
and intellectual property, 103
leveraging, 48, 51, 199–201, 212
negative, 51, 52, 260
ownership of, 104
and problems with GAAP, 270–272
as source of wealth, 44, 48–50, 301
and tangible and intangible assets, 104
as theory, 279
Intellectual property, 103
Intelligence quotient (IQ), 168, 169
335
Baker-bindex-1
336
Interdependent nature of business, 64, 65
Intrinsic rewards, 131, 135, 136
Invention, 102
“Invisible hand,” 16, 17
Ireland, 116–117
Jefferson, Thomas, 92, 102, 172
Jobs, 130, 131
Jobs, Steve, 49, 95, 114, 115, 160, 184,
244
Johnson & Johnson, 253, 292
Joint venture partners and alliances as
part of social capital, 221, 230–232
Judgment, 151, 152, 155, 161
Keynes, John Maynard, 17, 19, 20, 26,
253
Knowledge, 75–80
authentication process, 82
and bad ideas, 60
and beliefs, 260, 261, 266, 267
capturing, 121
characteristics of, 82, 102
and creation of value, 104
data and information distinguished, 81,
82
explicit, 117–122, 197–199
and formal education, 114
and human capital, 109
ideas compared, 75, 76, 91
importance of, 100, 101
leveraging, 50
loss of, 187–191
as nonrival asset, 50, 101–102
purpose of, 82
sharing, 50
specific knowledge, 76, 77, 105
tacit, 80, 82, 91, 117–122, 192
transfer of, 82, 120, 121, 192–199,
211, 212. See also After Action
Review (AAR)
types of, 101
validating, criteria for, 86, 87
velocity versus viscosity of, 195, 196
as a verb, 100–104
INDEX
Knowledge balance sheet, 279
Knowledge bank, 197–199
Knowledge companies, 50, 51, 161–166
Knowledge creep, 90
Knowledge economy, 44, 99–101
Knowledge industry, 30, 31
Knowledge management (KM), 104, 118,
119, 121, 122, 195–197
Knowledge society, 111
Knowledge theory, 50
Knowledge work, 30, 123, 150
Knowledge workers, 30, 101, 109, 111,
119
accountability of, 130, 156, 161, 165
and accounting, 125, 126
as assets, resources, or inventory, 125,
126, 184
attracting, 133–137, 139, 160, 179,
180, 185
autonomy, 159–161
and continuing education, 173–177
and customer relations, 141
effectiveness, framework for, 151–156
emotions, 62, 63, 134, 135, 155
and employer/employee relationship,
131–133
firing, 182–184
as human capital investors, 123, 126,
134–136, 185
and human traits, 122, 123, 184
loyalty, 165, 179
and management style, 157–161
and number of jobs, 156
as owners of company’s means of
production, 122
personality testing and performance
appraisals, 166–173
and productivity, 148–154, 157, 159,
185
professionals as, 157, 158
putting workers first, 140, 141
and removal of tasks, 165, 166
retaining talent, 139, 140
strengths and weaknesses, 164, 165
and trust, 141, 142
value of, 130–133, 136
as volunteers, 126, 130
and work-life balance, 178–182
09/05/07
336
Baker-bindex-1
INDEX
Labor, specialization and division of,
3–5, 101
Labor theory of value, 17–21, 24–27, 55
Labor unions, 70, 221, 234–236
Lagging indicators, 274, 279
Lapin, Rabbi Daniel, 123, 168, 169, 225,
261
Law of comparative advantage, 18
Law of diminishing marginal utility, 21
Law of diminishing returns, 18
Law of imputation, 23, 24
Leading indicators, 210, 274
Learning, importance of, 50. See also
Education
Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, 143, 144
Linux operating system, 44, 245, 246, 249
Loyalty, 131, 132, 141, 165, 179, 180,
292
Management
innovations, 96, 97
micromanagement, 161
origin of term, 143
research, 84
theory, 89
and treatment of knowledge workers,
157–160, 164–166
Manager, use of term, 132, 133
Marginal utility, 24
Marginalist Revolution, 22–27, 55, 101
Market share, 55, 56, 223
Marketing, attracting human capital
investors, 134, 135
Marketing concept, 65
Marx, Karl, 15–17, 19–22, 24, 29, 31,
45, 55, 122
Mary Kay Cosmetics, 220, 226, 293
Materialism, 1–13, 27, 31
MBNA, 227, 228
McDonald’s, 174, 210, 211, 231
McKinsey Global Institute, 242, 243, 293
Menger, Carl, 22–24, 101
Mentoring, coaching, and shadowing
and development of individual
intellectual capital, 295, 296
as means of knowledge transfer, 192,
193
09/05/07
337
Mercantilism, 1–3, 5, 6, 27, 48
Meta-inventions, 95
Metcalfe’s Law, 258
Microsoft, 48, 49, 51, 207, 246, 291
Mill, John Stuart, 22, 90, 139, 286
Money, 2, 6, 48, 109
Morris, Daniel D. (Dan), 124, 157, 159,
160, 178, 180, 182, 254–256, 268
Myelin Repair Foundation, 248, 249
Napster, 244, 245
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), 187, 188
Natural resources, 1–2, 20, 92
New growth theory, 93–96, .97
New Paradigm Initiative (NPI), 278
New United Motor Manufacturing Inc.,
163
NineSigma, 247, 248
Nonprofit sector, 126, 127, 140
Nonrival assets, 50, 92, 96, 101, 102, 258
Nordstrom, 154, 161, 172, 237, 289
O’Byrne, Paul, 177, 197–199, 208, 240,
268, 273
Open source and mass collaboration as
part of social capital, 221, 244–251
Opportunity
and loyalty, 131
and work-life balance, 180–182
Opportunity cost, 24
Pareto Principle, 295
Pepsi, 67, 201
Performance appraisals, 166, 169–173
Personality tests, 166–169, 173
Peter Principle, 170
Physical assets. See Tangible assets
Physical fallacy, 1, 45, 46, 92, 93, 100
Pixar, 160, 239
Popper, Karl, 47, 83, 301
Population statistics, 188–190
Portfolio life concept, 178
Potty test, 113, 216
337
Baker-bindex-1
338
Poverty, 2
Prediction, 262, 273, 274, 279, 281, 282
Procter & Gamble (P&G), 56, 246, 247
Production, 8, 69
Productivity
and “clean desk” requirement, 158
inputs and outputs, 146, 148–150, 153,
159, 171, 175, 182
and learning, 175, 176
measurement, 152, 153, 157
and Scientific Management Revolution,
143–151
Profit centers, 65, 66
Profitability
economic profit, 77
epistemological profit, 77
and human spirit, 293, 294
and market share, 55
and new business theory, 60, 61
profits from investment in human
capital, 109
and risk, 296, 297
source of profits, 69–72
Promotions, 172, 173
Pronoun test, 129, 130
Psychological egoism, 215, 216
Purpose, 286–295
Reagan, Ronald, 27, 32, 33, 44, 45, 52,
73, 81
remarks at Moscow State University,
34–43, 81
Recognition of accomplishments, 131,
132, 171
Referral sources and networks as part of
social capital, 221, 226–228
Reputation as part of social capital, 221,
224, 225
Revenue and traditional business
equation, 53, 55
Ricardo, David, 18–20, 22, 24
Risk
categories, 71
costs and benefits, 70, 71
importance of, 264, 265
and intangibles, 51
INDEX
management, 263
responses to, 69, 70
reward for risk-taking, 172
as source of profits, 69, 71, 72,
262–268
uncertainty distinguished, 262
Rival assets, 92
Romer, Paul, 93–95, 97, 99
Salvation Army, 127–129, 140, 292
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), 280,
281
Scalability, 49
Scarcity, 2, 19
Scientific Management Revolution,
142–148
Scientific method, 87–89
Search costs, 82
Selection bias, 86
Self-interest, 15
Service Economy, 30
Service worker, 30, 147
Shareholder value, 67
Shareholders as part of social capital,
221, 229, 230
Singapore, 117
Singapore Airlines, 176
Smith, Adam, 2–5, 7, 8, 15–18, 22, 29,
48, 67, 92, 100, 101, 108, 114, 142,
146, 150, 214, 215
Smith, Fred, 53, 54, 100, 123, 141, 290
Social capital
as category of intellectual capital, 50,
62
Concierge Service Model, 254–257
and culture, 217
defined, 214
elements of, 221, 258
importance of, 213–217
and individual preferences, 218–220
leveraging, 221–254
negative, 51, 52
ownership of, 104
and self-education, 113
Social proof principle, 219, 220
“Socially necessary labour,” 21, 22
09/05/07
338
Baker-bindex-1
INDEX
Society, stages of, 29
Solow, Robert, 94, 95, 149
Solow model of economic growth, 94, 95
Southwest Airlines, 56, 133, 134, 176,
290
Soviet Union, 45, 51, 52
Sowell, Thomas, 8, 9, 26, 75–77, 81, 83,
91–93, 105, 109, 114, 115, 264
Specialization of labor. See Labor,
specialization and division of
Storytelling, 192
“Stradivarius secret,” 187
Strengths and weaknesses, 164, 165,
170–172, 183
Structural capital
as category of intellectual capital, 50,
62
economics of, 190–192
leveraging intellectual capital,
199–201, 212
and loss of knowledge, 187–190
negative, 51
ownership of, 104
and transfer of knowledge. See
Knowledge
Subjective theory of value, 22, 25, 26, 44
Subjective well-being, 25, 286
Success, 287, 288
Sun Microsystems, 244, 246
Suppliers as part of social capital, 221,
228, 229
Supply and demand, 274, 275
Tacit knowledge. See Knowledge
Tacit workers, 156
Tangible assets, 1, 48, 49, 103, 104, 108
Taylor, Frederick Winslow, 142–148,
155, 156
“The Right Hand and the Left,” 9–13, 21
Theories, 56, 57, 59, 68
construction of, 83
diffusion of, 88
disproving, 83–86, 90
as essential part of education, 85, 86
and practical knowledge, 47, 48
and predictions, 47, 262, 273, 274, 279
09/05/07
339
and scientific method, 88–90
supply and demand, 274, 275
and use of knowledge, 82
3M, 174, 290
Time-and-motion studies, 142, 146–148,
150, 155, 184
Time sheets, 160, 161
Toffler, Alvin, 29, 86, 102, 113, 216, 295
Toffler, Heidi, 29, 102
Torvalds, Linus, 44, 245, 246
Torvalds, Nil, 43, 44
Toyota, 162, 163, 173, 174, 208, 238
Trade deficits, 6–13
Training, 177
Transfer of knowledge, 82, 120, 121,
192–199, 211, 212. See also After
Action Review (AAR)
Trust, 16, 17, 141, 142, 159, 161, 170,
185
Turnover, 180
Uncertainty, 70, 71, 262–268
Unions, 70, 221, 234–236
U.S. Army, After Action Reviews. See
After Action Review (AAR)
Utility, 25
Value, theories of
cost of production theory, 18
labor theory, 17–21, 24–27, 55
marginalism, 23–27
subjective theory, 22, 25, 26, 44
and utility, 25
Vendors as part of social capital, 221,
228, 229
VeraSage Institute, 124, 157, 160, 177,
178, 180, 197, 210, 254, 256
Vocation, 288–295
Voluntary labor, 113
Volunteers, 287
Wages, 109, 111, 132, 172
Wal-Mart, 56, 231, 293
339
Baker-bindex-1
340
Walt Disney Company, 2, 97, 100, 160,
162, 173, 174, 289, 291, 293
War analogy, 67
Wealth
defined, 3
and human capital, 31, 46, 108
intellectual capital as source of, 44,
48–50, 301
and knowledge economy, 100
INDEX
and money, 2, 6, 48, 109
systems, 29
and tangible assets, 1, 48, 49
Wikipedia, 249
Work environment, 158, 159
Work-life balance, 178–182
Zero-sum trade, 2, 3, 7, 8, 67
09/05/07
340