Having Ideas Versus Having a Vision. Thoughts on Roberto Verganti's Recent Post

Just wanted to share a great blog post that I recently read on Harvard Business Review. Entitled "Having Ideas Versus Having a Vision," Robert Berganti in one short article breaks down the difference among those of us that have "ideas" vs. those that are truly "visionary." In Mr. Verganti's article, the difference is quite explicit, though often, we fail to see that difference in our daily actions. 

Specifically, Mr. Verganti defines "ideas" as something that occurs "fast" and are very "numerous" where the more occurrences, the better. Whereas in contrast, "visionary leadership" requires a relentless exploration of one direction with a "deep and robust understanding" of the issues and direction. More specifically, he makes clear that this profound difference is not only in the process, but the very way in which we think. Especially when it comes to making real change. In short, he believes that to be a visionary you must do things completely differently. That thought is neatly summed up in the following quote:

To generate fresh ideas we have been told to think outside of the box and then jump back in; vision building destroys the box and builds a new one. It does not     play with the existing paradigms; it changes them.

What struck me as most interesting about this article was the way in which it highlighted the "trap" that many employees and employers fall into regarding change in an organization. While many of us like to think of ourselves as visionary, the fact is, most of us are simply throwing ideas at a problem hoping that one answer "sticks" and solves the problem of the day. The implication of this fact of course, is that rarely does an organization spend the time to deeply understand an issue, putting all concerns (or sacred cows) on the table, in order to effect change. This happens even in the face of real and substantial challenges that organizations face. 

In my personal experience, I couldn't agree more with the way in which the definition of ideas and vision. Frankly, much of my day job is filled with proposing ideas to problems and only rarely do I seek to develop a true vision. In fact, there are probably only three or four situations that I can honestly say I acted as a visionary in the way Mr. Verganti defines. Interestingly, those experiences are the ones that I consider to be the most fulfilling...where I have seen real change, real opportunity, and have really made a difference.

So how about you? Are you an "ideas" person? Or a "visionary?"

Seven Reasons Why Google Should Stay in China

 vs. 

There has been a lot of discussion recently regarding Google and its future strategies in China. The genesis for this debate was the recent admission by Google that its systems were recently hacked in an attempt to gain access to the gmail accounts of certain Chinese human rights activists and the possible theft of intellectual property. In response, Google has stated that they will no longer censor their Google.cn website. For those that are unaware, Google.cn is the local Chinese-language site of Google and is generally regarded as the second most popular search site in China behind Baidu.

While I appreciate the moral debate associated with Google's actions, I disagree with their decision to possibly leave China or change their policies regarding search censorship. I do not make this decision lightly, and I certainly understand why many will disagree, but I also firmly believe that Google's decision is short-sighted (at best) and possibly counter-productive (at worst).  

I have outlined below the seven reasons (in no particular order) why I believe that Google should stay in China below. As always, I appreciate my readers opinions and comments.


Seven Reasons Why Google should stay in China

# 1: "Don't Be Evil" is Not A Business Model (aka Your Shareholders Have Expectations Too): Last I checked, Google was a publicly traded, for-profit, shareholder owned corporation. While Google makes great products, and is generally beloved by its users, and has become an inconic brand, Google's purpose in life is to make money for its shareholders...not spread goodness and cheer around the world. Leaving what will soon be the world's largest Internet-user market because of a new-found sense of morality is not a reason for such a radical shift to business strategy. If I was a share holder, I would be asking big questions as to why such a well-known policy matter (search censorship in China) suddenly over road a major international business plan.

#2: Google Knew the Rules When They First Went to China: Nothing has changed since Google first entered China in 2006. For a world-wide phenomenon, I find it hard to believe that Google thought that the Chinese would treat them differently.  And if they did, that is perhaps the most naive thing I have ever heard.

For that matter Google, please stop couching the implementation of bad security policies and practices in your China operations as the excuse that is "driving" you out of China. Allowing penetration of your systems is a failure of security. The fact that they were under attack should not have been a surprise. Seriously, did you think that the Chinese wouldn't try to spy on you and penetrate your systems? At least 20 other companies were also attacked as part of the same effort. 

In case you were wondering, if you Google "China spying on us" you get 1,870,000 hits.

# 3: Some Open Internet in China is Better than None: If Google wants to do some good in the world, providing even a partially censored Internet in China is a very good thing. The fact that the Internet in China is heavily fire walled and restricted is no surprise to anyone. The fact that China market-leader Baidu willingly restricts Internet search to remove terms such as Falun Gong is equally not surprising. That being said, the Internet is a big place and there are still millions of web pages that remain accessible to the average Chinese citizen only via Google. Even censored, Google.cn still provides a great service to the average citizens in China...and that fact alone says Google.cn should stay in operation. 

(Note: For more information on how the Internet in China is censored, check out this Wikipedia page.)

# 4: Google, You Made Your Point Already (In Fact, Maybe Too Much of One) The press around Google leaving China has certainly been global, but now it is time to ratchet it back. While the Western World gets the moral issues associated with this topic, further embarrassing the Chinese leadership on this topic is counter-productive. In fact, the implications of continuing to push the way you have may be more damaging in the long run to a broad swath of companies and industries that want to operate in China.

Now is the time to back off a little bit and come to a resolution that makes sense for both parties. In fact, you might even be able to get some agreement with the government that allows for you to maintain your Do-No-Evil position with the Chinese Government's interests.

#5: You Don't Get to Score if You Don't Play in the Game: Pardon the bad metaphor, but simply put, if Google is not in China, then Google doesn't get to discuss Chinese censorship and policies. We all know that Google is a very influential player in the Internet (in addition to search, advertising, etc.), but that influence is based on participation and market share. One thing that is very true about operating in China is that public officials are sensitive to world opinion and the "face" that China portrays to its neighbors, friends, enemies, and competitors. 

Why cede the position of influence from the largest Internet market in the world? Sure, if Google leaves they will be applauded for their moral position by various members of the blogosphere, but they will also instantly become a non-player regarding Internet policy matters in this part of the world.  Doubt me? How influential is Yahoo on this matter? Not a whole lot given that they left China years ago.

# 6: Where Does it End?: Let's be honest...every nation on Earth has its own interest, policies, and approaches to the Internet and accessibility. While nations like North Korea, Sudan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are particularly restrictive, even here in the US, our government has acted to restrict Internet access, content, etc. If Google leaves China for a difference in moral opinion, why should it stay in so many other nations? In fact, if I am a country that has a restrictive Internet policy, I now know how to push Google around. Simply require them to restrict a few search items and then dare them to complain. What kind of items? Could be anything? And if Google doesn't like it, they can leave.

# 7: Search is Not, and Never Has Been, A Moral Issue: Google, stop wrapping the issue of search into terms usually associated with conflicts between Good vs. Evil. Search is a tool, only as good as the algorithm that supports it and the results that it provides. We all live most our lives quite well without using search to make our decisions. I don't need Google to know right from wrong, much less to know that it is wrong to steal. Associating the Chinese Government's restrictions on search at the same level as the challenges of living under an autocratic regime is ludicrous. 


And besides, what is the difference between not making a search result available (as in China) vs. only making a result available on page 300 of the search results? What's the difference among having a company pay for a search result to appear high on a list vs. never showing it at all? For that matter, who decides what exactly is click-fraud? Or even how does the Google search algorithm work and how does it prioritize results? I know there is a lot of grey in these questions, but there is no such thing as search purity and philosophically, I doubt the Chinese see much of a difference.

In China, we call manipulating search results to be censorship. In the US, we call it advertising. The fact it is, both are manipulations of a given set of data to serve a specific purpose.  Search, of all things, is not an either / or issue, so why are we trying to make search to be such a thing?  

Full Disclosure Statement: This blog was originally written on Google Docs and has been posted using a Google-owned Blogging tool that contains Google-supplied Ads.

Give me Net Neutrality, Or Give Me Death - January 12, 2010

Interesting article this past week published in the National Journal describing how the debate around Net Neutrality has escalated into a "free speech" debate with each side citing 1st Amendment grounds as to why Net Neutrality (NetNet) rules should or should not be enacted. In particular, while one side is citing NetNet as required to *protect* 1st Amendment speech of individual users...the other side is saying that implementing this rule could in fact, infringe upon the free speech of content providers, ISPs, and portals. As summed up by National Cable & Telecommunications Association President Kyle McSlarrow:

Strict new FCC regulations might infringe on the ability of content providers to speak "how" they wish by preventing them from paying for better service; might prevent innovations by ISPs that would better facilitate free speech; could amount to "forced" speech; and might impact the delivery of high-bandwidth services such as video programming by laying a path toward government regulation of bandwidth use.
For the uninitiated, NetNet is a proposal by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that seeks to add certain principles to the regulation of US Internet Service Providers (ISPs) ensuring that all traffic sent over an ISPs "pipes" be treated equally. In effect, it would stop an ISP from stopping or preferring one type of traffic (e.g. Voice over IP) except in very specific circumstances.

On one side of the debate, proponents of the FCC's proposed NetNet rules believe they are necessary in order to preserve the free speech of individuals and keep ISPs from regulating, controlling, or preferring certain content over other content. In effect, this side believes that institutionalizing the open Internet is a cornerstone for the future success of the global network. It should be noted that the biggest proponents of NetNet are the large application and portal providers (e.g. Google, Yahoo, etc.) who say they are acting on behalf of the consumer. That is probably true, however, these are also multi-billion dollar companies with significant revenue and profit at stake.

On the other side of the debate, opponents of NetNet believe that the current Internet model works fine, and that the imposition of these proposed new rules is not only unnecessary, but also will restrict the future growth and development of the Internet. On the first point...they are probably right (the Internet works pretty well), though on the second, that is debatable. It should also be noted that the opponents of NetNet are the large Internet Carriers (who provide the backbone for the Internet), Cable Companies, and the large phone companies (e.g. Verizon, AT&T). Again, all companies with multi-billions of dollars at stake.

As for whether or not NetNet is a 1st Amendment argument, no one really knows. Critical to this question is whether or not a company even has 1st Amendment rights (or if these are only vested in individuals). Also, there are a lot of old court cases that seem to argue both sides of this question. None the less, it is clear that NetNet issues are going to be a source of major debate in 2010 and a topic of significant interest and debate.

LINK: National Journal: Net Neutrality Fight Turns To First Amendment

LINK: Wikipedia: Net Neutrality

Google Plays the Ad Game: The Most Remarkable Thing About the Launch of the Nexus One is not the Phone

An earth-shattering thing occurred this week with Google...and it wasn't just the launch of their mobile phone the Nexus One. Yes, that was interesting (more about that HERE), but it was the *way* in which Google brought this phone to market. While a lot of folks focused on the device's characteristics, or that it is unlocked, that is not what surprised me.

So...what did I think was remarkable? Well...

1) Google advertised the Nexus One on www.Google.com: While it sounds obvious to do this (after all, most companies do), this is a big change for Google. To-date, they have avoided selling any of their own products directly off of Google.com (e.g. Android, Adsense, Aps, etc.). Suddenly, the Nexus One appears on their home page directly promoting and enabling the sale of the device (And that doesn't even count what Google is doing as part of their own ad distribution network). That is not a minor change for the Googleplex.

2) Google is fulfilling the Nexus One directly: When was the last time you ever bought anything directly from Google and had it delivered to your home? Sure, you may have used Google to find something...and then bought from another vendor's site, but Google directly? And on those occasions where you paid Google (e.g. Google Aps), it isn't like something arrived in your mailbox. It is pretty remarkable that Google has built an infrastructure to deliver products. It will be interesting to see how good they are at this (and in fact, there are already complaints. See HERE).

3) Google is now competing against some of its best partners: For better or worse, Google has been very careful to avoid competing against its biggest mobile partners. To-date, they have stuck to selling Android as an operating system and striking search deals on mobile phones and websites. Sprint, Verizon and others sell a huge amount of Android-based cell phones which Google gets a share of. Now, they are basically introducing an entire line of products (e.g. it won't stop with the Nexus One) that could take share from their best friends.

So what is the impact of this change for the future? Well, time will tell. But among the questions I want to see answered are:

1) What is the future of Android? It used to be just about software on a mobile phone. Is that still the case? Or will Google build a whole line of its own devices that compete against the Android operating system.

2) What is the future of partnerships with mobile carriers like Verizon and Sprint? These two carriers represent fully 50% of the mobile phone business in the US. For the short term, I am sure nothing will change, but neither will look kindly on Google if they start to lose share to a directly sold Google phone.

3) Is Google about to "Yahoo" their website? One of the keys to Google's success has been their carefully constructed persona and strategy. Among that has been the simplicity of their website and the perception that they are not playing favorites (perception...because, of course they do play favorites). Will that still be the case?

4) Will they still be proponents of Net Neutrality? Google has been one of the biggest proponents of the FCC's proposed Net Neutrality legislation. Publicly, this is because they profess support for an "open" Internet...but like any large, for-profit company, also because the proposed legislation benefits them. It will be interesting to see if this proposal still holds. After all, now that they are in the hardware business, things are different. For instance, can someone use the Nexus One and make Bing (from Microsoft) the default search tool? What about other applications? Time will tell.