The Vision Pioneers Blog

by Miriam Garvi

When I was writing my dissertation just a few years ago about the world of venture capital and the financing of entrepreneurial ventures, it was a challenge to find a terminology that would adequately convey the purpose of a particular enterprise beyond the doctrine of profit maximization.

Today, however, this has changed. Yesterday’s oxymorons have become politically correct, and terms like non-profit companies and for-profit philanthropy reflect the on-going upgrade of concepts ascribing a sense of common good to the narrowly-focused, profit-seeking objective that has dominated our view of companies and corporations for far too long. Hybrid terms such as the «for-benefit enterprise» are promoted as examples of how capitalistic interests will merge with the idealistic into a harmonious compromise as long as everyone stands to gain from the alliance.

But behind the plethora of upgraded labels, what is actually changing? Bill Gates proposed a win-win scenario for all through the Gates foundation. Does this mean that he has left his strong-arm tactics behind, or has he simply found a way of practicing technology dumping on future markets in a form that is socially acceptable to the global community?

Many will say that we should settle for an upgraded version of capitalism that will allow for the continued pursuit of wealth and growth, where the costs incurred in that process are affordable to our conscience. A system of compromise that we can live with, and yet remaining the major beneficiary of it all.

But what legacy is it to leave behind, if all we do is minimize the damage of our lifestyle having realized that it is not sustainable?

A compromising alliance between selfishness and philanthropy is not what will bring our world meaningful progress and prosperity. Nor is the enticing language that offers what it does not deliver a satisfactory answer. It is time to raise the stakes and start aiming for visionary initiatives, where unlike the hybrids, the purpose is crystal-clear: fulfilment that will truly benefit mankind.

by Miriam Garvi

With so many quasi-ideas out there being endorsed by the big money, it is funny how difficult it can be for people with real commitment to find the resources they need to do something good. Quasi-ideas have a remarkable way of ending up in fancy packages, and they are never on display without their wrapping.

So when the dean of a business school I happen to know very well becomes involved with a company for mobile learning, proposing to supply teaching programs for the people of Africa or for hundreds of millions of farmers in China, I am intrigued. Being “of the world, by the world, and for the world” is deluxe wrapping indeed, but what benefit is intended for the citizens of African countries or the farmers in China, and how does it relate to their true needs?

When hearing this, I wonder whether teaching the world through a mobile interface is in fact a superior pedagogical idea, or if it is simply an easy way of re-churning pre-recorded messages to the greatest possible audience.

During the Internet boom almost ten years ago, e-learning was hot, and any business adding an e- prefix to its idea could retain astonishing amounts of venture capital. Today it appears that by changing the prefix to m- (mobile learning or m-learning) and dreaming of conquering the world, pockets will be filled once again. Only this time instead of JP Morgan and others we have government institutions such as the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) willing to endorse any dreamer of a «mobile academy» that will target the Third World. But to what purpose?

So many ideas are brought about not because we believe they will be good for the world, but because they might be an opportunity to make more money, enhance careers, or make better connections. And with the right packaging, the client becomes the excuse that legitimizes us making ourselves the beneficiary of it all.

Every once in a while, I have this wish that we would do away with the glossy paper and the fancy bows and see things for what they actually are. And in that light, we might come to recognize those treasures that are truly worth their weight in gold. The ones that impress without the wrapping.

Those are the ideas worth fighting for.

by Miriam Garvi

Since his speech in Davos last January, Bill Gates has been receiving accolades for launching his version of capitalism, which he has labeled «creative capital».

Creative capital à la Bill Gates (“Microsoft”) is a wonderland vision where global corporations satisfy their hunger for new markets by introducing technology to the poor, making everyone prosperous in the process. According to Gates, this will generate both profit and recognition, whilst making astonishing headway in the fight against world poverty. An improved variant of corporate social responsibility that we simply cannot do without.

And since the speech, creative capital has been center-stage.

But beyond the shimmering rhetoric, however, what does his suggestion really mean? Are we to understand that for the first time in history, the profit maximizing agendas of global corporations find themselves in harmony with the needs of the poorest of the poor? That products and services will now be created that can really help people out of their miseries?

Inspired by professor C.K. Prahalad’s fortune at the bottom of the pyramid, Gate’s version of creative capital envisions to reach untapped markets with technological salvation, making the rest of the world dependent on the know-how of those controlling the innovation.

This is not an eradication of poverty through profits, but a strategy for creating the capacity to consume where there would appear to be none. It would seem that our global society welcomes the poor as consumers, as long as they are not empowered.

by Miriam Garvi

For the inquisitive soul who seeks to understand what leads people to make fatal choices, Swedish writer and historian Bengt Liljegren’s recent biography comes as a most welcome surprise.

Wondering what another book might add to the by now extensive list of Hitler biographies, I needed to read no further than the prologue for my interest to be awakened:

«My interest was triggered during the summer holidays in 1974. I had just finished sixth grade and rode my bicycle down to Gleerup’s bookstore in Lund and invested … in Mark-Arnold Forster’s The World at War 1939-1945. The book made a deep impression on me. I was even more taken by the British television series The World at War… (…). Adolf Hitler obviously played a big role in the book and the series, yet he remained strangely diffuse, it was as if there were no real person behind the figure of terror who started WWII and murdered Jews. As a thirteen year old I was given the impression that Hitler was a monster - not a human being. (…) I hope to make Hitler more understandable, to generate a truer image of his personality and private life as the background for his evil deeds… It is about time Adolf Hitler is undemonized. Knowledge about him as a person is an effective vaccine against his sick ideology.» (Liljegren 2008, pp. 8-11; own translation).

Bengt Liljegren (2008) Adolf Hitler, Historiska Media.

However comforting it may be to look back on people as monsters or idols, we need the human stories that make us reflect on the consequences of what may at first seem to be harmless actions and choices. The uncanny truth is that anyone can become a Hitler at heart, but not everyone is endowed with his kind of charisma and brilliance that will charm a nation.

Only by seeing people as the you and mes that we really are can we truly learn from history.

by Miriam Garvi

Of all the research interviews I have done, one particular conversation still stands out in my mind. A serial entrepreneur, founder of a VC company and keynote speaker at many a growth event described himself as an «enlightened despot» whose leadership style was based on a fondness for what he called «doers» - meaning people who would execute strategy. Needless to add that in his world there were clear boundaries between «thinkers» and «doers», between the elite who could read the strategic game and lay out the next move and those who were to implement decisions and report back on their effect.

In other words, any real thinking should only be done by those behind the scenes?

As I was tracing the origins of the venture capital phenomenon, I became aware of how easily something is labeled «the solution», endorsed by those institutions which will give it credibility, and of the strong impact that such labeling will have on business and policies (see chapter 7 in my dissertation).

It is interesting to note how little attention is given to understanding a problem and the real causes of observed symptoms in favour of cure-all remedies. The promotion of microcredits, laureated with a Nobel peace price, illustrates this trend in a different setting.

Are cure-alls becoming the new religion? As long as someone is conveniently labeling the solution no one is asking us to think for ourselves. We are urged to buy into «inconvenient truths» and endorse whatever is promoted as the next panacea for growth, world poverty or for saving the planet.

But if we choose to put our faith in ideas and technologies that are placed on a pedestal, we will inevitably be deceived. Because real solutions demand that we go beyond the symptoms and ask ourselves why a particular choice is important and what goals are fulfilled in the process.

There is no easy way out for true progress.

by Miriam Garvi

There is a tune that is played quite frequently these days. It is the anthem of social responsibility.

Basically, the lyrics go like this:

• start off by condemning child labor
• then enter a few couplets on environmental concerns
• end with a chorus of «we make the world a better place…»

This pleasant song celebrating high-standing codes of ethics and morals confirms the virtues of the global corporation and dispels any doubts or uneasiness that we might feel about the globalization of production flows and the concentration of power in a few nodes - reminiscent of a «space of flows» à la Manuel Castells.

Outsourcing has become a global application of the «law of supply and demand in self-regulating markets». Multi-national corporations assure us of their high-standing social responsibilities. But beyond codes of ethics is a reality that seldom corresponds with what we profess. In the new ‘hinterlands’ overseas, away from the public eye, production is outsourced to production facilities which take us back to working conditions of the pre-industrial era - times where one man’s life and well-being carried little value because there would always be another individual ready to take his place.

The recent example of Bangladesh and GrameenPhone raises important questions. Is our consumption pattern sustainable in the long run? Or does it rely on other people’s desperation to work in countries which have little industrial history - such as Bangladesh - and where production costs can be kept at bay with minimal concern for security and environmental issues?

Sometimes when codes meet reality even the most pleasant of tunes rings false if you listen more intently, blurring the lines between corporate social responsibility and corporate social hypocrisy.

by Miriam Garvi

Look at this picture. Nothing but bare skies over a bare, snow-covered landscape.

But beyond what is captured by the camera lens is a moment rich in satisfaction and peace, a moment of untouched open space that awakens the hope of new beginnings. A breather from all the musts and the matters of course that frame our everyday life.

In our relentless pursuit of knowledge, we assemble everything we think we need to know about the ‘how tos’ and the ‘how not tos’. But this structure of fragmented pieces robs us of a quality so fundamental that it is known by the smallest child: that childlike innocence that allows us to believe in the unwritten page of new beginnings.

All too often what we see is blocking our sight. Unless we make room for the invisible qualities of life they will fall into oblivion, quenched by conventional professionalism. Vision pioneering is about unwritten pages and new beginnings: to start afresh by allowing fulfilling qualities to be brought out into the world. It is about new seeds taking form, germinating and growing so that we may be enriched not just monetarily but in a wider, human sense as we experience true fulfilment.

by Miriam Garvi

The other day I was walking around among the glass skyscrapers of Hong Kong.

In business ideals of competition and growth have been put on a pedestal. Markets are redefined so we can claim to be the best or the biggest at something - but what that something is is of little importance as long as we can claim the position. We take great pains to belong to the beautiful people, that exclusive crowd of world citizens who can walk through life in luxurious air-conditioned gallerias with marble flooring where the daily pains of the unfortunate are far from sight. Great image, but what’s our contribution to the world?

Some fifty years ago, venture capital pioneer Georges F. Doriot raised a challenge as he was teaching future business leaders at the Harvard Business School: “Do we want to build or merely enjoy what others ahead of us have made possible? Really, how can one enjoy anything if one is not building for the future of others? Remember that our happiness is in direct proportion to the contributions we make.”

In the era of image, we seem to have forgotten all about legacy - forgotten about the strong imprint that is made when somebody is dedicated to making a difference even when there is no instant pay-off in sight. Such pioneering initiatives inspire us to find our own way of making a meaningful contribution.

Image is exclusive and lies in the eyes of the beholder. Legacy is a challenge for each and every one of us and it is there for the taking.