This post originally appeared on CNN.com/GPS. You can read the original post here.
In the last few weeks alone, we’ve heard this rising generation called everything from the Go-Nowhere Generation and the MacGyver and DIY Generation to Generation Stuck and Generation Flux. In recent years, the generation most commonly known as the Millennials has also been described as Generation Me, Generation We, the Trophy Kids, the Boomerang Generation and the Dumbest Generation. (Ouch).
If one theme runs through these different pieces, it’s that people really like to name this generation. (I am guilty of injecting my own label into the mix last week, when I wrote a piece on the Global Public Square casting my cohort as Generation FOMO. We are held together, I argued, by a shared tendency to make decisions based on the fear of missing out on something around the corner.)
As part of my job, I work with talented Millennials on building alternative future strategies. They often come to me feeling burned out and unsure how to make their mark in the world. We work together to think strategically and soulfully – yes, you can do both! – about the kind of future they wish to build.
In this work, I’ve found that, whatever you call them, many Millennials are inhibited by anxieties peculiar to our time. I’ve already spoken of the FOMO problem. In this post, I want to share some of the other blockages that Millennials tell me afflict them. Next week, I will share techniques that I’ve found helpful in overcoming FOMO and these other inhibitors of building, creating and doing.
1. The GTD syndrome. David Allen’s famous book “Getting Things Done” has become a productivity Bible for this cohort. Similarly, productivity apps likeEvernote, Things, TaskPaper and Producteev all help us do what we’re already doing faster or more efficiently. But there’s a tendency among those I work with to forget to ask why they are doing it in the first place. We often prioritize productivity over purpose.
At leading graduate schools around the country, the conversation about purpose and the why (rather than how) is a sideshow. In those moments that seem made for reflection, such as spring or winter break, there is a culture of “doing more,” with students signing up for “treks” to China, India, South Korea and the like. But these are treks not to climb mountains or even hills. They are treks to meet with the executives they might one day work for, the bureaucrats who may one day regulate them, the charities they may one day give to.
One week of spring break has become another opportunity to pack in even more. Gone is the thought of sitting and spending time asking what we actually want and how to build and create a life that represents those values. Initiatives like Bill George’s True North groups and talks by Clayton Christenson have been the rare exceptions.
2. Prioritizing success over mastery. Mastery is out. Serial dabbling is in. With the rise of personal branding and an increased ability to get your message out sooner, the networking mentality of “it’s who you know” has all but replaced “it’swhat you know.” Perhaps because of the rapid expansion of social networks and the flattening effects of the Internet, many of the people I’ve studied and work with estimate that they allocate more of their time to deepening their networks through coffee meetings and phone calls and such than to spending time alone developing an actual skill or craft – something they can strive to do better than anyone else alive. As one talented artist recently told me, every budding artist who asks for help wants to know how they can get recognized rather than how they can become a better artist.
3. The reactive day. Many of the people I work with speak of approaching each day defensively. The question that drives their work is “What do I need to respond to?” rather than “What should I create today?” They swat back emails that fly at them, sit in meetings that they unthinkingly agreed to two months earlier, take phone calls seeking their approval or advice. But they don’t build. They don’t sit and think. They don’t ask: “How could I redefine and reinvent what this job is?”
We’ve heard about the perils of multi-tasking and continuous partial attention. But, rather than finding ways to focus and own their own days, many of the most talented Millennials resist leading. Instead, they react to whatever’s in front of them at that moment. In my Visioning Labs, one exercise I use is to have people write down all of the activities they perform over the course of a typical day. Then I ask them to go back through and classify the activities as either “intake” – information they are taking in – or “output” – ideas or products they are actually putting out in the world. The majority of those I work with are “intaking” at much higher rates than they are creating. Most doers and entrepreneurs are the opposite.
4. Maintenance over courage. The Harvard Kennedy School has an excellent program that seeks to get more women into elected office. It’s called From Harvard Square to the Oval Office. One of the things the trainers tell women to do is to send an email, a handwritten card or a postcard every six months to everyone they know (!) so that their name crosses those eyes with some frequency. You never know whom you’re going to need, or when. You are taught to “water your armies” over decades in preparation for running for office one day. It is something seasoned politicians know and do regularly, and perhaps worthy advice.
However, when it came to advising us on policy ideas, the only real advice was not to put anything controversial in writing. It was not to be bold or think freshly. It was to crouch. This approach has spilled well beyond those people considering an office run. It has crept into the mindset of many Millennials, so that we are effectively encouraged to run personal, perpetual campaigns. The theory is that, one day, when we’re finally ready to cash in those chips and build, we’ll have an army behind us. But many of us spend more time writing emails and staying in touch than developing daring, imaginative, controversial ideas and testing those notions in the real world.
These are some of the blockages that Millennials tell me afflict them. Next week, I will share techniques that I’ve found helpful in overcoming these other inhibitors of building, creating and doing. Check back here.
This post first appeared on CNN.com/gps. You can read the original here.
If January is when the old guard gathers in Davos, Switzerland, March is when the new guard descends on Austin, Texas. At a time of crisis in America, Europe, the Middle East and beyond, a group of tech-savvy do-gooders meets, greets and tweets at South By Southwest.
The conference has experienced a surge in popularity in recent years, exploring questions well beyond the sphere of technology. The several hundred panels and featured sessions for this year’s SXSW Interactive tend to reflect the current concerns of the rising elite. In this post, I’d like to add one concern to their list: Can the avid, accomplished doers at SXSW show the way for a rising generation of Millennials who are all too often afraid to fulfill their potential as leaders?
I run an advisory firm that works with leaders young and old to conceive and implement bold, authentic visions. As part of that work, I recently completed a year-long study of the values and behaviors of the world’s next generation of leaders – the most talented, educated, capable Millennials. I was curious about how this rising cohort of leaders makes decisions and plots the future. I concentrated on dual degrees, or graduates of elite master’s degree programs in both business and public policy.
These are people in their late twenties and early thirties who have usually worked in both the public and private sectors, lived in multiple countries, and passed through some of the most prestigious organizations on earth (the Gates Foundation, McKinsey & Co., offices of prime ministers and presidents).
What I found was a rising generation of elite leaders who bring wonderful new gifts to the table – more empathy than their predecessors, more worldliness, more pragmatism for an angry, ideological age. But I also found my generation of young leaders paralyzed, hesitant, and unwilling stick their necks out and lead on the big questions of our time: how to build a more equitable and sustainable capitalism, how to manage the transition to a post-Western world, how to extend prosperity to developing countries without pushing the planet over the brink.
This generation is distinct from its predecessors in demonstrating new ways of leading: less top down and more lateral; less by command than by catalysis. Its members tend to believe that change is made by bringing out the best in others. It is also less ideological and dogmatic, and more empirical and pragmatic than the generation now in power. Its religion is not party or, frankly, religion, but rather “impact.”
This generation feels pressure to make a difference in the world, and is comfortable using the levers of business, public policy and civil society to do so. And they tend not to be satisfied with small, everyday impact. “For my Dad, it would be his patients,” one child of a doctor told me, when asked about definitions of impact. “For me, it’s providing health care to benefit the largest amount of people.”
But strange anxieties are getting in the way of these ambitions – none more prominently than something called FOMO. It is the “fear of missing out,” and it has been written about by others (including in an article about SXSW last year) as a phenomenon caused by social media. These media show them all the cool places they could be and cool things they could be doing, which always seem better than where they now are. However, my research shows that FOMO is leaking out of the technology realm and becoming a defining ethic of a new generation.
“Am I setting up my adult life to be the way that it could optimally be?” one of my subjects asked aloud, speaking of her general approach to life decisions. This subject explained how FOMO could even invade the pursuit of a spouse: “On the personal side, there’s this fear of ‘Am I committing to the right person?’”
More and more, particularly among those who have yet to make those big life decisions (whom to marry, what kind of job to commit to, where to live), FOMO and FOBO – the “fear of better options” – are causing these young leaders to stand still rather than act. “The way I think about it metaphorically is choosing one door to walk through means all the other doors close, and there’s no ability to return back to that path,” one subject told me. “And so rather than actually go through any doorway, it’s better to stand in the atrium and gaze.”
Those with the most options in this generation have a tendency to choose the option that keeps the most options open. Wrap your head around that for a second. It’s one of the reasons that management consulting has become so popular among today’s young elites.
As one subject explained to me, “Frankly, a lot of people end up defaulting to consulting as a compromise, because they look at it to get the best of both worlds, because it not only passes the airplane test, and you don’t have to sacrifice your social status, you can engage in all the activities, you’re never left out of anything, because it’s the 70 percent solution.”
A current consultant told me, “For me personally, it was lack of clarity.” He added: I knew the types of jobs I wanted, but there wasn’t something specific out there calling me.” A number of other subjects said that they didn’t feel “ready” to take on the problems that most interested them. They wanted to linger and dabble and “learn” for a while longer.
As a result, the North Star of this cohort has become what many of its members call “optionality.” There is great worry that they’re going to choose the “wrong” option. In the last year, I’ve run over 100 Visioning Labs with individuals and groups of young leaders to help them identify their values and passions, and build visions that reflect what they want to do in the world.
In one exercise, I ask people to imagine a year away from their present work and cares, with unlimited time and resources. People speak of doing things like “write a book,” “launch a venture,” “spend time with my grandparents,” “produce a film.” I then have them circle the top three options and reflect on them. Fear and practicality are the most commonly cited reasons for not doing such things in real life. And when they begin to think about what they want to do in the future, many look at their immediate next step as the one that will keep the most doors open so that they can have a Pocket Year much, much later.
Many of us watch the choices of our peers and predecessors with a blend of admiration and anxiety. What seems to afflict this cohort – more than the political strivings or existential angst that defined earlier generations of elites – is a persistent anxiety about their might-have-been lives, about the ones that got away. Life for this group is diminished by the presence of so many options one click, one job switch, one social connection away. Though many of these young people described themselves and their cohort with words such as “passionate,” a commonly cited fear was “not having my idealism match my choices” and “being too afraid to take the leap.”
A number of subjects talked about risk aversion rising with success. One subject said, “I’m probably unhealthily obsessed with making the right choices.” He added: “I think it comes from a fear of missing out on something bigger and better in whatever you do. So I like to think of myself as someone who has made good choices up until now and I have enjoyed the kind of outcomes that I’ve been able to get from making those kind of choices.
“I think when you feel like you’ve made all the right choices and don’t feel like you’ve had any major failures, that kind of track record makes you always cautious about continuing to make good choices, and improving outcomes – whatever that means for you.”
Over the next two weeks, I will write a series of posts on CNN.com/GPS sharing what I’ve found to be the obstacles blocking our generation of Millennials from thriving, as well as some of the activities that I’ve observed lead people to thrive again. This week’s gathering in Austin attracts the most adventurous and risk-seeking members of the Millennial cohort. But as they gather to discuss and debate and design the future, I hope they will help think about how to get the rest of us to think bigger, think bolder – and to do.
Last November, I had the privilege to speak on my visioning work and the patterns I’ve seen amongst this generation of leaders and doers. TedxCambridge has uploaded the talk on YouTube and I’d love to hear your thoughts, opinions and experiences related to FOMO, FOBO, optionality and thriving. Not sure what I’m talking about? Just watch.
A number of people have asked me how I began designing Visioning Labs and I often explain that it was really working in the field of conflict resolution for ten years that prepared me for this work now. In my earlier work with Sustained Dialogue and the Dalai Lama’s peace foundation our work consisted of creating safe spaces for people and communities in conflict to come together and imagine and create alternative possible futures. In order to do that, we had to know ourselves how to design those spaces and how to catalyze those difficult conversations.
I recently met an entrepreneur, Jason Gore, who has explicitly combined conflict resolution and innovation in his business model, From Conflict to Innovation. Jason lives in Boulder, Colorado and has worked with clients like Banana Republic, AT&T and the U.S. Army and Air Force as well as smaller, design-centric organizations. I was curious to see how Jason incorporates conflict transformation into his innovation and ideation work. The answer: he sees conflict as the catalyst to innovation.
Q. Who is the most unusual client you’ve ever worked with?
A. One of my favorite times was when I spent 5 days facilitating a retreat for the Burning Man organization, then worked at a big pharma company trying to figure out how to get their products to be used by the right people and not prescribed in situations where it won’t be effective, and then worked with executives from oil company wanting to go green. All in a two week period.
Q. You call your work “from conflict to innovation”. What’s the link?
A. When many of us think of innovation, we may imagine an individual genius or a small group of passionate, creative folks. Innovation can happen that way, but from what I’ve seen, innovation most often arises out of dilemmas–an insolvable problem, especially when there is more energy due to disagreement. The conflict or pain point, when handled through typical patterns of problem-solving, usually results in a proposed compromise, which doesn’t really meet any of the parties’ underlying needs. Frankly, people don’t like to change unless there is a need. And big organizational changes take a long time, so it’s through individual conflict that companies can actually change more readily. And they need a structured process to do this, because frankly, we don’t handle conflict well and we aren’t the most creative problem solvers. Most people avoid conflict or handle it poorly. This makes sense since the only training that most of us have received in dealing with conflict is from our personal experiences in dysfunctional home and business environments. And so we avoid the problem or we compromise. Compromise is boring, shuts down innovation, and leaves a lot of value on the table.
Q. How do you help companies innovate?
A. The way groups solve problems has a tendency to kill innovation. Let’s look at a typical meeting where a problem arises. Usually, the problem will be discussed for a while—complaints, ideas, contrary opinions, and a whole mess of other thoughts will be put on the table in a disorganized way. In frustration and impatience, one person will typically propose a solution. This is not necessarily a good thing, because the first solution presented usually doesn’t meet everyone’s interests and may not be that creative. In cultures that don’t have strong hierarchical boundaries, what happens next is that the idea is shot down for why it won’t work. The group will then return to waffling until a new idea is presented—the second idea usually meets needs a bit better… but will still be shot down. This pattern continues—where ideas are presented unilaterally until one idea meets most people’s interests and is tweaked until everyone can say OK.
But let’s look at this from an objective viewpoint. The process that was used to create the solution above was simply throwing out ideas until everyone could say yes, and the process stopped. This almost guarantees a solution that will be minimally acceptable by all parties. There is very little opportunity in this conversation to create a breakthrough. Plus, it’s very time-consuming and typically degrades trust and relationship.
There’s a better way, and it’s by handling conflict and differences of opinion as an opportunity to learn and change. I work with a lot of VERY smart people. And when they disagree, they are disagreeing for very valid reasons. Usually, these differences of opinion are seen as points of conflict and people fight to have their voice heard. There’s a lot of talking, not much listening, not much creative thinking, and often a lot of damaged relationships.
To me, compromise—at least compromise early in the process—is a killer of innovation. What I do is bring a structured process that accesses all the brilliance in a room in a time-efficient way. Any innovation process is better than none at all. I use a process which is founded on the work of the Harvard Negotiation Project and the Collaborative Way. And it’s one that is easy to teach people, so that my clients learn how to innovate on their own—without a facilitator in the room.
Q. I loved what you told me about the “next step” plan. Can you share with us some examples of when you’ve used that with clients?
A. People tend to want to make big decisions quickly because it relieves the internal tension of uncertainty. I often hear, “Let’s just decide so that we can move on.” So people argue over big decisions, rather than just focusing on figuring out the next step—often there is a “baby step” that needs to be taken before a big decision can be made. And in this case, all the concern, tension, and arguing over the big decision is a waste of time.
The brain is amazing, but it has limited processing capability around decision making and strategy (which is largely in the pre-frontal cortex). In our complex lives, we have lots of decisions to make so this capacity is constantly taxed. So, our brain tends to look for a solution quickly so that we can focus on other things. Once we have that strategy “in mind,” a different part of the brain can execute the strategy and thus free up space in the pre-frontal cortex.
In business, it’s the same thing:
- Two executives fighting over what customer group to focus on—the price-conscious mid-tier, or price insensitive high-tier. The next step was simply to have focus groups with each customer group and learn more about them, but they were so caught up in arguing that it was hard to take this next step. Once we did, we learned a lot more about the customer groups and the executives realized that they had been arguing over the wrong thing—what the customers wanted was the same product but had different risk tolerances. The company was able to offer a 100% reliability guarantee (which included overnight replacement if any issues arose.) It was only purchased by the price-insensitive customers, and thus the same product continued to satisfy both customer groups. A creative solution arose out of taking the next “baby step.”
- Another company was debating whether to drop their current insurance provider and find a new one. They argued and argued. The next step was simply to interview other insurance providers. When they did, they learned that another provider offered A LOT more for the same price. The choice then became obvious and no one argued against switching.
- A third group of executives were arguing over risk management criteria—when to offer financing to customers and when not to. It was a big argument without much data to support any decision. Instead of arguing, we just created two store-based tests with different criteria. We learned quickly which one worked and which one didn’t.
In all of these cases, I simply moved the attention from the big decision to the next step.
Q. You mentioned that you do rapid prototyping with ideas. What does that look like?
A. People love their own ideas, and for many innovators, it’s very easy to get excited about the big picture idea and what’s possible. From that place, it’s hard to test our assumptions. My advice is to work backwards. Start at the end, and go backwards to the beginning.
One of my past clients was developing a new consumer product to be sold through late-night television ads. He was focusing on product design and raising $100k to manufacture the first shipment. I redirected him to work on the marketing and advertising before placing the first manufacturing order. Working with the expertise of my business partner at the time, we spent $5k, developed a TV commercial, and aired it 15 times, even though we didn’t have the product available yet. This was an ethical concern that we discussed deeply. He anticipated 200 orders. His intent was that when people called, we would explain that there was a problem with manufacturing and the product was not available, and in earnest, offer to ship them a free product when it was available. We decided that this was well-worth the learning that we would achieve. To our dismay, we had only 3 calls from all 15 TV ads. Certainly we could improve the ad, but at this point we knew that we had just saved $100k in manufacturing costs because we had been walking down a dead-end street.
Q. You’ve worked with some of the world’s biggest companies. If you were to boil the challenges most companies face into one sentence, what would it be? [This may be an unfair question]
A. Ok, this is a bit of an unfair question, but there are two things I do see across the board.
1) As companies grow and as managers climb the corporate ladder, there is a lot more incentive to manage risk and ensure smooth operations, than there is to innovate. So, the status quo and doing things well is much more important than doing the right thing and implementing change. Managers get bogged down in doing what worked in the past and change becomes increasingly difficult. Organizations need to learn how to make failure OK and let risk be something that is honored, appreciated, and considered. If failure is not OK then the risk/reward of innovation is simply not sufficient to inspire innovation.
2) In conflict, people lose their curiosity. Interpersonally, staying curious and empathizing with other’s points of view is one of the fundamental ingredients of being able to move from conflict to innovation.
Q. When you first start working with a client, what are the first three questions you ask?
A. Each client is different, but here is what comes to mind:
1) What do you really care about?
- If money and resources were abundant in your life, e.g. if you won the lottery, what would you do with your time?
- What do you do in your free time now?
- What’s really important to you—if someone else was running the company, what would you insist that they do or don’t do?
2) What measurable outcomes do you want to achieve? In other words, what measurable and objective goals can you create to track your success? Sometimes, internal goals and measurements suffice, e.g. I want to be a 3 out of 10 on stress levels.
3) What will it feel like when you achieve your goal? How will you know internally what a 3 out of 10 feels like? I ask them to take me to that future time and place, and what shows up is what is behind their goal—what they really want. It usually has the flavor of, “I’d be able to relax,” “I’d know I did my best,” “I’d know that I’m good enough.” Ironically, that’s the real goal, so I start working with them on that goal in parallel to the measureable outcomes.
Q. You’re about to take off on a two-week vision quest. What is that? And what do you hope will come of this experience?
A. A vision quest is when, under the guidance and support of a vision quest leader, individuals go and sit in the woods for 4-8 days in a circle about 10-20 feet in diameter—usually without a tent and in my case only with a home-made lemonade to drink (no food for 8 days.)
My goal was simply to learn how to be present, listen, and be able to direct my attention without it feeling like work or effort. Really listening to someone seems to take a lot of energy—staying focused and attentive is work. I look forward to the day that putting my attention on something is easeful.
The vision quest was a big step in the right direction. And I think this is more of a journey than a destination—I’m convinced that I’ll be working on improving my presence for the rest of my life.
Q. Anything else you wished I’d asked?
A. There are a lot of other aspects to the tools that I bring. I want to mention two bits of advice.
1) Separate the person from the problem. Be hard on the problem, soft on the person. We tend to collapse this and be hard on both the person and the problem. The key is to build trust and relatedness with the person so that you can find an innovative solution together.
2) Figure out what the priorities and interests of all the parties are before problem solving. We often try to solve the problem, before we even understand what we are solving for.
I go into a lot of depth in these two subjects in my book—Conflict to Innovation—which I am in the draft stages of. I am also hosting a monthly meeting at my house in Boulder, Co. If people are interested in coming, I invite them to check out my website and send me an email.
I recently ran a mini-Lab at the Harvard Innovation Lab called Which Comes First, the Team or the Idea? In it, we explored a number of different companies to see how they were actually founded (team first or idea/need first?) and then used a number of social technologies to identify both. I first thought of crafting this question into a Lab after a conversation I had a few months ago with Riley Crane, co-founder of the hot new startup Talk To, post-Doc at the MIT Media Lab and winner of DARPA’s red balloon challenge. He and his co-founder, Stuart Levinson, intentionally got together regularly over a year to identify “a big idea” that they’d be excited enough by to drop everything and make it happen.
Q: I was impressed by the way you and your co-founder, Stuart Levinson, actively spent intentional time together over the course of a year identifying the kind of start-up you wanted to build together. Tell us more about that process.
A. It began with a coffee and a shared love for Italy. After that we began spending 1 or 2 days a week brainstorming and discussing ideas that we could build into a company. The premise for each meeting was always clear: to chase after big ideas. We’d spend hours discussing and refining (and often destroying) ideas and I remember it being one of the most creative periods of my life.
Q: Many first-time entrepreneurs struggle with whether to have an idea first or to build a team first. What’s your advice, and what have you learned?
A. I don’t think there is a good answer to this question. For us it was always a very organic process, driven by our passion to build something big…not necessarily knowing what that was from the start. Early on we brought in another team member to help us challenge our ideas as they were developing, and I think that was the right thing to do. It’s very easy to get caught up in your own ideas and fall in love with them, and it’s very important to challenge each assumption and iterate like mad until you hit something worth throwing all of your energy behind. We live in a world rich with ideas and poor in execution of those ideas. So once you refine your idea and think you are onto something big, it’s important to bring in the right people to help you build that vision.
Q: How has winning DARPA’s Red Balloon contest affected the way you think about your work?
A. I arrived at MIT focused on trying to understand how to shape behavior in social systems. For me, winning the challenge helped broaden my focus and think about solving bigger problems.
Q: The iPhone4S’s Siri technology is said to have come out of DARPA. What other things do they do around there?
A. DARPA is responsible for enabling many of the technologies that each one of us uses everyday. Their most notable creation is the internet, however they have been directly involved in the development of GPS, driverless vehicles, “Big Dog”, Roomba (the robot vacuum cleaner) and much more. It’s a department of “mad scientists” united by the mantra of creating technological disruption, and it attracts some of the most talented and visionary individuals.
Q: You and your team just launched TalkTo. What’s the most challenging part of the launch phase for your team? For you personally?
A. The most challenging part of the launch phase is juggling so many things at once. A startup is like a well-oiled machine and each of the pieces need to fire at just the right time or nothing works.
Q: TalkTo made it to the finalist round of TechCrunch. What did you learn about presenting an idea in 5 minutes? What advice do you have to other groups as they smooth out their pitches?
A. In the famous words of Mark Twain: “If I’d had more time, I’d have written a shorter letter.” Presenting years of work in 5 minutes presents enormous challenges and forces you to find the core and essence of your work. It is one of the best experiences that a startup can go through to find their soul.
Q: What companies do you admire most, and why?
A. I’ve always been a huge fan of Google because of the power and simplicity that goes into all of their products. They try a lot of things, and most of them fail, but I love that they try. They are also driven by big ideas and I think more than any other company, they want to change the world and make it a better place.
Q: What are the other three ideas that were on the table as a start-up that you didn’t end up choosing? (Share the love, man).
A. It’s hard to answer this because it didn’t really begin like that. There was never a moment where we thought: “Okay, we’ve got these three ideas and let’s see which one is the best”. We started from a place of wanting to build something to tap into the power of the crowd. This led us to think a lot about disasters and missing children — we actually wanted to reinvent the Amber Alert system.
Q: What do you see as the biggest perils for the tech + entrepreneurial community moving forward?
A. I think the biggest peril right now is that there is a lot of talent that is chasing incremental ideas, and there are very few disruptive ideas that are being built. I’m not the first one to say this, but I think there is an environment in which the best minds are being wasted building another social network add-on, and that’s not sustainable.
Q: What’s the best idea you’ve heard about in the past few months?
A. Hands down it’s Square’s new “Card Case” product that lets you pay with your name. If they can get critical mass they will revolutionize the payment industry.
Q: How have you and your team built vision?
A. I don’t think that we’ve “built vision” as much as we’ve championed it. The team we’ve hired is composed entirely of talented engineers that have their own vision, and we try to create an environment where everyone is equal. At TalkTo, ideas are king and vision rules the day.
Envision | Embody | Enact
Priya Parker is a visioner, conflict mediator and strategist. She works with organizations and leaders to zero in on their core purpose and build out smarter strategies. Drawing on ten years of work in government, social enterprise and Track II diplomacy in the United States, India and the Middle East, Priya designs visioning and innovation labs that help organizations grow from the root.