You are in meetings and various other engagements all week. You are looking into the eyes of many individuals and, as psychologists say, speaking a language uniquely embedded in human intuition and perception. You are capable of offering hope to business people while your product is capable of disrupting theirs or their customers' lives.
I am pinpointing a matter of hope amid tensions business people face. Do you and your co-workers find it challenging to convey to clients, “The things we do and innovate and charge customers for offers hope, but...?”
Disruption or disruptive technology may not offer people hope but if your business can go the way of imagining a hopeful outcome for customers – you can lead them to even more imagining. Still, disruption is first and foremost indicative of chaos and overwhelming change. Another subject, genetic engineering, sounds very hopeful to people suffering with diseases and has even shown incredible progress using advanced technologies. For others, genetic engineering means humanity is about to get strangely out of control, diabolical. How about the less tangible like one’s personal freedom? This week the Fed released alarming traffic fatality stats showing a 7.2% increase in deaths since 2014 (35,092 in 2015). My guess is; and it’s only a guess, it that texting and managing that big screen while driving may be causing the rising stat. Still, auto companies are not only bringing more home entertainment features to their vehicles but also the freedom to be fatally distracted. The consumer hopes he or she wont be the next fatality. This creates tension between the vehicle owner, insurers and car makers. And another, genetically modified grains are the fear of many while also the hope of farmers trying to survive unexpected climate changes that destroy crops.
Hope for a better world has shifted toward technological solutions while diminishing in government and institutions. The technology introduced to us is on one hand marketed as the “future is now” and on the other hand “disruptive” only for the purpose of being relevant. When a business taps the internet-of-things does it demand too much personal information? Is a robotic innovation the result of a bunch of zealous mechanical engineers with myopia about displacing skilled workers? The answers aren’t simple when ethical and cultural considerations obscure the better future we hope for. How do you and your firm communicate hope if the goal of disrupting lives is central to overall strategy?
RPW2016
I am pinpointing a matter of hope amid tensions business people face. Do you and your co-workers find it challenging to convey to clients, “The things we do and innovate and charge customers for offers hope, but...?”
Disruption or disruptive technology may not offer people hope but if your business can go the way of imagining a hopeful outcome for customers – you can lead them to even more imagining. Still, disruption is first and foremost indicative of chaos and overwhelming change. Another subject, genetic engineering, sounds very hopeful to people suffering with diseases and has even shown incredible progress using advanced technologies. For others, genetic engineering means humanity is about to get strangely out of control, diabolical. How about the less tangible like one’s personal freedom? This week the Fed released alarming traffic fatality stats showing a 7.2% increase in deaths since 2014 (35,092 in 2015). My guess is; and it’s only a guess, it that texting and managing that big screen while driving may be causing the rising stat. Still, auto companies are not only bringing more home entertainment features to their vehicles but also the freedom to be fatally distracted. The consumer hopes he or she wont be the next fatality. This creates tension between the vehicle owner, insurers and car makers. And another, genetically modified grains are the fear of many while also the hope of farmers trying to survive unexpected climate changes that destroy crops.
Hope for a better world has shifted toward technological solutions while diminishing in government and institutions. The technology introduced to us is on one hand marketed as the “future is now” and on the other hand “disruptive” only for the purpose of being relevant. When a business taps the internet-of-things does it demand too much personal information? Is a robotic innovation the result of a bunch of zealous mechanical engineers with myopia about displacing skilled workers? The answers aren’t simple when ethical and cultural considerations obscure the better future we hope for. How do you and your firm communicate hope if the goal of disrupting lives is central to overall strategy?
RPW2016