La computadora no es una herramienta de productividad para todos

Publicado el 16 de agosto de 2008 — 0 Comentarios


Muy buen artículo de Lee Gomes en el WSJ, sobre si líderes importantes con una agenda super apretada deberían usar computadora. Creo que la idea de que todo el mundo tiene que saber usar con cierto grado de soltura la computadora para ser productivo no es correcta en el caso de los grandes líderes y CEOs. La verdad es que hay gente demasiado importante para ocuparse de su email, de navegar la web, del excel, etc. Como dice Lee, si por el contrario se ocupan de su laptop hay algo que anda mal. Les recomiendo el artículo, que pego a continuación.

Note to Next President: Avoid Computers

Should a president — of the United States, or even of a company, for that matter — use a computer? Or, are there jobs that are too important for the office holder to be spending the day deleting spam or closing pop-up windows in a browser?

The two presidential candidates this year, in addition to all their other, more-significant differences, also present two contrasting perspectives about the extent to which personal-computer technology can be integrated into someone’s everyday life.

Sen. Barack Obama lives the life of every modern road warrior, checking a BlackBerry as easily as he checks his wristwatch, and decompressing in his downtime with an iPod. That latter preference is one of the few he shares with the current president, who is known to take along an iPod, preloaded by his White House staff with classic rock, on his mountain-bike runs.

Sen. John McCain, by contrast, represents the last generation that will be able to claim imperviousness to the machines. Judging by the way his self-acknowledged computer illiteracy is mocked in YouTube videos, it’s probably a safe bet that his campaign wishes he were more fluent in technology, especially considering the number of his contemporaries who have taken up the machines without a problem. But anyone who has ever been flustered by a gadget, or who has watched a teenager work a cellphone, won’t be unsympathetic to Sen. McCain.

It’s a fair question to ask: Can someone who never touches a computer truly be in touch with what is happening in the world? The computer industry has worked very hard over the past few decades to cause us to suspect as much. But what about the opposite question: Does anyone who spends all day in front of a PC, forging a river of data posing as information, have any time to think?

A group of technology reporters once received the CEO of a midsize, low-tech company eager to impress his listeners with his connectedness. He described his day as one long session checking emails and news alerts, save for the occasional interruption of a staff meeting or a sales call.

All this was related with pride, as though it was what modern executives were doing. His listeners, though, were struck by how he seemed to have no time left in the day to think, which was surely why he had yet to realize that he was spending his day consuming the information version of junk food.

If I were the chief of staff at the White House, I would have some sort of computer, not in the Oval Office itself, since it wouldn’t match the furniture, but one office away. I’d push the president to spend, say, 20 minutes a day on the machine — whether he would complain about the limit or about the mandated time.

The president wouldn’t need to worry about his email inbox; a staff would be standing by ready to handle it. Memos, position papers, summaries of newspaper reports and all the rest, would be delivered via printouts, since words on printed paper appear to have more of an impact than words on a flickering screen.

The president could use his computer time any way he wished: a favorite blog, YouTube videos, a mind-clearing game of Spider Solitaire. So many of his constituents would be doing the same thing at the same time, it would be a good way to keep up with the common folk.

The severe time rationing is necessary because a computer, far from making you more productive, instead loads you down with things to do, and it’s important for the machine to know who is boss. Most people don’t have the luxury of off-loading their email-reading chores to a group of competent assistants. It’s an office perk that presidents are still important enough to deserve.

Everyone has heard the puzzle about whether Bill Gates, upon walking to work, should bother to stop and pick up a quarter he saw on the sidewalk. Yes, the quarter is bright and shiny, but a careful assessment of the situation would reveal that, for someone of that earning potential, the time spent retrieving the coin could be spent much more profitably at the office. At least in theory.

For a president, a computer can be a similar distraction. Sure, he could spend five minutes reading an especially insightful blog post from one of his core constituencies. But it would be better for him to be spending the time having coffee with the person thinking the thoughts that the world will be blogging about a week or a month hence.

With the world at his beck and call, a president is one of the few people lucky enough to be able to learn more off-line than he would chained to a keyboard. The 20-minute limit would be good for the country. The rest of us are stuck reading emails — and picking up quarters.

Sin categoría — 0 Comentarios

Contadores de historias

Publicado el 26 de octubre de 2007 — 2 Comentarios

Miren este video del discurso de Barack Obama en la convencion democrata del 2004. Concordando o no con la retorica y los valores del ‘modelo americano’, lo que es indudable es la capacidad del tipo para motivar a la gente.

Que es lo que hace que un lider, a travez del discurso, tenga semejante capacidad de movilizar a la accion? No el la fortaleza logica de los argumentos sino la capacidad de contar una buena historia. O sea los lideres son, como el protagonista de la pelicula de Tim Burton El Gran Pez, grandes contadores de historias.

Quienes estudian la estructura narrativa de estas grandes historias distinguen tres partes. Son la historia propia (story of self), la historia nuestra (story of us) y la historia del ahora (story of now), a lo que va a seguir un pedido de accion muy concreto por parte del lider.

La clave de la historia propia son los detalles. No se habla de valores en terminos abstractos sino con nombre propio. Obama cuenta sobre su abuelo paterno trabajando de cocinero para los ingleses en Kenya, de su abuelo materno enlistandose en la armada el dia siguiente a Pearl Harbor, de como se conocieron sus padres y decidieron llamarlo con un nombre africano, Barack. La clave es dar detalles, asi es como la gente empieza a vivir el mensaje, como entiende la historia del lider y la razon de su discurso. En definitiva con esto logra autoridad moral.

Despues hay que hablar de la historia nuestra, o sea hacer el vinculo entre lo que uno vivio personalmente y lo que los otros vivieron, asi todos se sienten participes. Al final, el lider va a pedir una accion concreta a los seguidores, que es parte de la historia del ahora, de como se puede hacer una diferencia hoy tomando la accion correcta (en este caso era que lo voten a John Kerry en las elecciones presidenciales).

Esta estructura de la narrativa, que es mitad arte y mitad practica, es lo que hace a estos mensajes tan efectivos. Abajo hay otro video, de Bono en un desayuno con los politicos mas importantes de US pidiendoles que destinen un 1% mas de presupuesto a ayuda para Africa. Otra vez, un pedido bien concreto despues de contar una historia muy personal.

Conclusion: si uno pretende que alguien le de pelota, a pensar mas en la historia, en la narrativa y menos en el racional. Me diran que siempre el lider tiene la alternativa de cooptar, de favorecer (en general en terminos economicos) a quienes quiere convencer. En politica (y sobre todo en Argentina) esta pareciera ser la estrategia predilecta. Es en gran parte lo que mueve el aparato politico de los Kirchner, y antes de ellos el de Duhalde y Menem. Tambien pasa en US, por supuesto. Sin embargo el problema de la dadiva es que cuando se retira se acaba el apoyo, el compromiso. La fuerza de una historia compartida es mucho mayor.

Sin categoría — 2 Comentarios