Why Free Internet for All is Critical to US

On December 12th, 2008, the FCC delayed a decision for opening up unused airwaves so that free Internet for all US citizens could be created (see news article). Why? Because T-Mobile and the wireless association oppose the plan, stating that it would interfere with their Wireless service and is a bad business model.

But consider this: we in the US subsidize highways, believing it a right for all to be able to drive where they wish. We subsidize air travel, providing much of the air traffic control and security. We subsidize energy. All such services are seen as vital to the economy of the country. But for some reason, when it comes to information, and especially access to it, we think that it is simply a business, an optional extra that you are entitled to if you have the money.

But without free access to information, we are basically crippling the ability of the United States to compete on a global stage. Why? Because innovation comes from everywhere, and often it comes from individuals hungry to advance and without the access afforded those with money. Limit access and you limit innovation, and without innovation we will fall behind, way behind.

It is not a hard stretch these days to argue that information is the most valuable element of our economy and essential to the jobs of millions of Americans. Given the current downturn it is inevitable that many more individuals will start working in smaller businesses, perhaps businesses of their own, and the vast majority of such people will need to reply heavily on information. As the cost of oil and transportation in general increases, more and more individuals will be forced to work from home, using the Internet to work together.

Can we then assume that America can possibly be competitive without free access to the Internet? And what of T-Mobile and others. The bottom line for such companies is that they will lose profits and their current business model will be disrupted. Yes that is painful, but does that not bring to mind the Auto companies that lobbied against higher emission standards because they would lose profits and have their business model disrupted? Look where they are now: losers to international competition.

The education of a leader

Granted! The qualities that make President-elect Obama stand out were all probably innate to his psyche. But it is said: "Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value, Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable mankind to benefit therefrom." (Tablet of Wisdom, Bahá'u'lláh.)

So even though Barak Obama possesses such outstanding qualities, without proper education his qualities would remain hidden. The question I ask, is apart from his unique personality, what went into bringing such qualities out?

Could it be that being raised by his grandparents had something to do with it? Grandparents, having raised their own children, no longer are in a position where they have to learn how to raise a child, and having lived several decades, have had time to reflect on life, on their own past behavior, and develop a wisdom that is rarely available to parents of young children.

But in today's society, grandparents do not have much role in raising children. They see kids once in a while, get to have them stay for maybe a week at a time, and then only once or twice a year, and often are too busy, or too tired to really engage with their grandchildren. Even worse, by the time kids are in their teens or twenties, they are acculturated to thinking grandparents as strange and definitely not cool to hang out with.

But imagine grandparents that were engaged on a much more regular basis with their grand kids; I'm talking about daily contact and also maybe parents that listen to the advice of their kid's grandparents. Could the wisdom built by this older generation be key, and I mean KEY, to unlocking the potential of their grandchildren?

A New Level of Thinking is Mandatory

Business literature and business school thinking today is rational, scientific, methodical, and full of gems in process improvement.

It is not enough.

In integral theory such thinking is classified as Orange level of consciousness, following a rational and evidence-based approach to solving problems. There is nothing wrong with this. If fact, such thinking is essential and important.

But increasingly business leaders are faced with a globalized world and a diverse population, and much of what goes wrong, goes wrong here, for business leaders fail to understand each other's perspectives, and basically miss the boat on what people want.

So, of-course, the response from the social sciences departments would be that it is a post-modern world where all meaning is subjective, where values are pluralistic, and people are all equal. But this is not enough either.

What is needed, is consciousness of consciousness. An awareness of your own values and the values of others, and the ability to detach yourself from such values and objectively examine what values are essential to the operation of an organization, and also to understand how to pull the organization, the whole organization, up to this new level of consciousness.

The level of consciousness I am talking about is classified as Teal in the Integral Hierarchy of development and I am arguing here, that this level is the minimum that is needed for the new global corporation. For without a proper awareness of your own assumptions, and an understanding of development, organizations will not be able to address the needs of their consumers. Worse still, they will not even understand why their customers are behaving the way they do. And it is not simply good enough to have tolerance and function in a pluralistic society, for in order to work together, a common set of values is necessary, a focus that unifies the organization is necessary, and without a Teal level of thinking, workers are not equipped to deal with challenges to their own assumptions.

So in summary, whereas we have hobbled along in the past with lower levels of consciousness, this has only been possible because one culture has dominated the world. But in a new multi-polar world, this is no longer the case, and organizations will need a minimum Teal level of thinking not only to succeed, but to survive.

Corporate Support for the Arts

We often hear corporate support for the arts couched as good citizenship and community involvement and can envision corporate leaders standing tall and proudly announcing that their company is a "good" company that cares.

But supporting the arts is much more basic. Following from my previous article about blue meme management, we can surmise that in the new globalized economy corporations live and die by advances in their thinking. And I'm talking about thinking not only at the top but through the organization, for no management initiative, however advanced, can succeed without the people in the organization incorporating it into their practice. The whole organization has to operate at a high level of consciousness if it is to survive global competition.

In this light, the arts can be viewed as a primary means for competitive success. If the community in which the corporation operates can be moved to a higher level of consciousness, then it follows that the corporation will be able to attract talent operating at a higher level of consciousness. We are not simply talking about recruiting from the local community, but also attracting talent that chooses to live where the corporation operates.

So money donated to arts should not really be seen as a give away, but an investment that creates the conditions for corporations to attract superior talent, and thus achieve competitive advantage on a world stage.

Blue Meme Management at American Corporations

We have come to a point where GM, Ford, and Chrysler are all in the doldrums. Chrysler's divorce from Mercedes was particularly painful, for the hush hush verdict from most Germans is that Chrysler is an inferior company. And all this despite the fact that all three companies hired a cadre of consultants and university professors to study the successful business models of their brethren, Toyota and Honda, from across the ocean. Worst yet, American management is supposedly trained at the best business schools in the world, the likes of Harvard and Stanford. You can be assured that the top ranks of these companies is certainly lined with graduates of such top business schools.

So what gives?

Following an Integral model, the analysis is simple: American management operates at a Blue level of consciousness, while their counterparts are operating from an Orange level. There is ample evidence for this, but first a few definitions. The Integral Model that I'm talking about is based on Ken Wilber's approach as delineated in his many books. A good starting point would be A Theory of Everything, by Ken Wilber. Part of this model delineates levels of consciousness through which society has grown and is growing. The Blue level of consciousness is focused on maintaining order through authority and power structures, the orange level of consciousness is focused on organizing through rational and scientific principles. In addition, a Blue level of consciousness is contained by and superseded by Orange consciousness. In other words, orange thinking includes an understanding of power structures, but blue thinking does not grasp or value scientific thinking.

Looking through this lens we can clearly see that Toyota and Honda have implemented an Orange level of organization. There is very little distinction between management and workers, trade union are integrated into decision making, work flows are based on what makes most sense for a flexible and effective production, and product choices are made based on scientific principles as well as detailed marketing surveys. For example, Toyota's commitment to Hybrid cars was very much based on their belief that something has to be done to create cars that are environmentally friendly, and that commitment was based on scientific consensus about the environment.

By contrast, American Automobile companies are dogged by chronic conflict with unions, political maneuvering at top posts, outlandish management compensation, efforts to eliminate workers through automation much of which has less to do with efficiency and more to do with power structures. So while American car companies have studied orange business in Toyota and Honda, they have not been able to adopt it in a Blue consciousness organization.

As such business schools have to ask themselves this: are they in the business of simply teaching management techniques, or do they need to figure out how to move their students to a higher level of consciousness. If the answer is simply to teach techniques, then students will have to increasingly turn to other sources of learning if they are to create the companies that will compete and survive in the new globalized economy.