HOPEFULLY AN EASIER BICULTURAL EXPERIENCE

My wife and I are in the process of adopting a baby from China. As such, articles about the adoption experience have caught my eye more than usual. Even so, it seems there’s been a spate of stories recently on the identity crises faced by Asian kids adopted by American families. Many of them tell the inner turmoil of adoptees who grow up thinking themselves Caucasian and one day realize that everyone around them sees them as Asian. Most conclude by saying that the healthiest kids, when asked whether they are Asian or Caucasian, reply in a matter-of-fact sort of way, “Both.”

Having a bicultural identity is easier said than done, though. Which is why I hope our daughter will have an easier path to get to that place of duality. For one, it’s a journey I’ve gone on. For another, our marriage is an interracial one. Finally, we live in a big city that is very multicultural and attend a church where interracial marriages and international adoptions abound. Between all of that, it is my hope that she will be able to explore her bicultural identity, her sense of self, and her understanding of how she is perceived by others, with confidence and assurance and strength.

HOOKED UP ECONOMY

Buzzword alert: I may use some nauseating words and phrases below. But this entry is inspired by an article in this month’s Wired about the Design Economy. While I understand the importance of design to the next stage of business – prototyping, form AND function, left brain AND right brain -- I think it captures too narrow an aspect. So I got to thinking about an alternative. And so I present to you my entry into the contest that no one is running, on what to call this next age of business we are entering. I present to you the hooked-up economy.

First, some historical background. Our country’s first age was an agrarian one. Commerce meant growing things, and the world was divided into landowners and field workers. Access to land was the differentiator. The cotton gin and the steam engine helped usher in our second age, the industrial revolution. Commerce meant making things, and the world was divided into management and labor. Access to capital was the differentiator. ENIAC and the Internet brought in our third age, the information economy. Commerce went from bits to bytes, and the world was divided into the techno-savvy and the techno-illiterate. Access to information and technology were the differentiators.

I would like to argue that we are now entering a fourth age, which I am trying to find a clever name for but for now will refer to as the hooked-up era. Please bear with the crassness of the terminology; I am aware that “hooking up” can be taken to mean having casual sex, and while I don’t condone such a lifestyle on a social plane, I do intend to borrow some of that connotation on a business plane. Let me unpack this choice of words a little bit. The hooked-up economy is one in which relationships are central, but not necessarily permanent. It is peer-to-peer and informal and fluid. And (oh God, don’t visualize about this for too long) it’s not necessarily monogamous and in fact is quite often serially monogamous and/or simultaneously polygamous.

What are some of the symptoms of the hooked-up economy? Organizations, from police departments to start-up ventures, are forgoing traditional hierarchies and chains of command for decentralized, customer- and results-focused structures. Doing everything in-house is giving way to outsourcing, to the point that some entities do nothing but manage their partnerships and manage their brand. Work is now project-oriented, with teams forming, getting the job done, and then disbanding to move onto the next project. And today’s youth are increasingly linked up with their nearby friends and with their faraway peers, feeding from a multicultural buffet of influences.

What are some of the causes of the hooked-up economy? Increased complexity, from information overload to global terrorism, is smashing old ways of thinking and demanding a more diffuse view of the world and of solutions. Decreased transaction costs thanks to the Internet and a shrinking world mean that traditional hierarchies and “might over right” strategies simply cannot survive. And, on a related note, barriers are tumbling, so if trade is free and mp3’s are flying all over the place you know there are going to be more hook-ups.

What are some of the ramifications of the hooked-up economy? If social justice in the agrarian age was about getting people land, and capital in the industrial age and access in the information age, then in the hooked up economy, it will mean helping people not as connected to get more connected. Building social capital will be as vital to success as massing land or capital or intellectual property; and like these hard assets, while quantity is important quality is more important. And if relationships are long-lasting but the “hook-up” is temporary, creating mutually beneficial situations will be the key to building the kind of trust that makes for true synergy.

So there you have it: the hooked-up economy. I believe we are moving inexorably in this direction. The symptoms are becoming more pronounced, the causes more evident, and the ramifications more important. This movement has ramifications for how we work, how we run our organizations, how we seek social justice, and how we train the next generation.

TWO GOOD LESSONS FOR URBAN CHRISTIANS

The stories in the tenth chapter of the gospel of Luke of the good Samaritan and of Martha and Mary are familiar to many Christians including me. But when I read them back-to-back this morning, I drew a new insight that I hadn’t seen before, because I hadn’t ever really read them together. Individually, I’ve pored over each story, in sermons and Bible studies and commentaries. But this morning I was struck by how the two stories might relate in the life of an urban Christian.

Allow me a brief summary of each story. In the first, a religious man smugly asks Jesus what the key to eternal life is. Jesus asks him back. Smugly, he quotes a couple of lines from Scripture, about loving God and loving neighbors. Jesus approves. But not satisfied with that approval, the religious man asks, “And who might my neighbor be?” Jesus tells a story about a man who was beaten while on the road, and how a priest and religious leader both passed him by, but a Samaritan (who the audience of this story considered inferior half-breeds) tends to the wounded traveler and sees to it that he gets care and shelter.

In the second story, Jesus invites himself to a house of two sisters, Martha and Mary. Dutiful Martha plays host by busying herself in the kitchen preparing refreshments, while impetuous Mary sits with the men (a cultural no-no at the time), hanging on Jesus’ every word. When Martha, exasperated by her labors and Mary’s behavior, confronts Jesus, he replies that it is Mary and not she who is doing right by him.

These are compelling stories, when taken separately. But this morning, I read them together. And from an urban Christian perspective, they have somewhat opposite things to say to me. In the first, the message seems to be that we ought to broaden our definition of who are neighbor is, and deepen our concern for them. And in fact, those who love God and love people in cities do well to hear such a word, for there are many more people we could touch and more meaningful ways in which we could touch them.

But the second story seems to carry an opposite message. Rather than broadening and deepening, the behavior Jesus seems to be praising is that of being more narrow and shallow. Don’t worry about so many people and so many responsibilities, Jesus seems to suggest; focus on being with me and being in the present. And this too is a good word for urban Christians; for it is precisely because there are so many people we could touch and so many meaningful ways in which we could touch them that we must make time to simply be at Jesus’ feet, to make narrower and shallower our focus until it is simply Him and now.

I must say that I am challenged on both sides of this twofold message from Luke. Like the religious man, I seek to narrow my definition of who I must serve, and do what is minimally required to be considered decent. And like Martha, I busy myself with so many responsibilities and so many worries that I miss the chance to be with Jesus when He is present. I’m glad I read both of these stories this morning, gladder still that I was able to make a connection between the two, gladder even more that Jesus strengthens us to love broadly and deeply, and glad most of all that Jesus asks of us to simply be with him in the here and now.

ANOTHER REASON THAT LIVING IN A CITY IS GOOD

My love of National Geographic, my business approach to life, my innate Taiwanese frugality, and my perspective on urban Christianity have collided on today’s topic: savings to my pocket and to the environment because I live in a city and walk everywhere. Consider, if you will, the following regular commutes I have each week, in comparison to similar commutes if I lived in the suburbs, in terms of my outlay of time and money and in terms of natural resources and pollution (if you’re really nerdy, you must know that I estimated 30MPH and $2/gallon of gas):

5 trips per week to work:
· me in the city = 5 minutes one way = 43 hours/year + no gas = $0
· me in the suburbs = 30 minutes one way = 260 hours/year + 390 gallons of gas = $780

church on Sunday morning:
· me in the city = 8 minutes one way = 14 hours/year + no gas = $0
· me in the suburbs = 20 minutes one way = 35 hours/year + 52 gallons of gas = $104

Bible study on Wednesday morning:
· me in the city = 6 minutes one way = 10 hours/year + no gas = $0
· me in the suburbs = 20 minutes one way = 35 hours/year + 52 gallons of gas = $104

Prayer meeting on alternate Monday evenings:
· me in the city = 3 minutes one way = 5 hours/year + no gas = $0
· me in the suburbs = 20 minutes one way = 17 hours/year + 26 gallons of gas = $52

2 trips per week to school:
· me in the city = 12 minutes one way = 42 hours/year + no gas = $0
· me in the suburbs = 20 minutes one way = 69 hours/year + 52 gallons of gas = $104

1-2 urban runs + 3-4 at-home workouts per week vs. 5 trips to the gym/track:
· me in the city = 0 minutes one way = 0 hours/year + no gas = $0
· me in the suburbs = 20 minutes one way = 173 hours/year + 260 gallons of gas = $520

an average of 2 business or personal trips downtown via public transportation vs. car:
· me in the city = 15 minutes one way = 52 hours/year + no gas + 208 tokens = $270
· me in the suburbs = 15 minutes one way = 52 hours/year + 52 gallons of gas + 104 parking fees @ $3 each = $416

So let’s add this all up for a typical year:
· me in the city = 166 hours + no gas + 208 tokens = $270
· me in the suburbs = 641 hours + 884 gallons of gas + 104 parking fees = $2080

So living in the city means 166 more hours of outdoor exercise, 475 more hours to myself, and $1810 more in my pocket. It also means 884 less gallons of gas consumed, 641 hours less worth of pollution belching out of my car, 641 hours less wear and tear on my car, 641 hours of one less car clogging up the roads and 641 hours less of me crammed inside my car. So many benefits on so many levels. City 1, Burbs 0.

WHAT I LEARNED IN LITTLE LEAGUES

I played Little League baseball from age 5 to 12. In addition to giving me a love for baseball and a short-lived nickname – “Flea,” because I was small but could jump really high to catch the ball – the experience taught me that there’s more to baseball, and to life, than winning and losing. It sounded corny even then, and it sounds even cornier now, but good sportsmanship and good times are much more important than winning a stupid game.

Many years later, it is occurring to me that a “win at all costs” mentality is at the root of many of our worst failures. The atrocities in Abu Ghraib, the scandals and Tyco and Enron, and the NYPD’s intimidation of minorities in the 1990’s in the pursuit of lowering crime are three recent examples of what can go wrong when a narrow end is pursued without regard to questionable means.

Do the ends justify the means? Since Machiavelli, people have been asking that question. You might be surprised that I think the ends do justify the means. But my caveat is that you have to make sure you’re considering all the ends. In the war on terror, Abu Ghraib should have been about extracting information from prisoners but also the perception of the US in the Islamic world. CEO’s at Tyco and Enron are held to account for quarterly earnings, but also for the long-term health and reputation of their firms. And NYPD’s job is not only to lower crime but to uphold the integrity of the badge.

I could have told you this in T-ball: you want to win the game, but you also want to have fun and play fair. The problem isn’t that ends don’t justify the means, but that the ends are being defined too narrowly.

MY WIFE CHIMES IN

My wife was so worked up about the Terri Schiavo situation that when I got home from the grocery store, she asked me if I could help her call our congressperson. We decided instead to send him an email. I’ve enclosed it below.

***

I am writing regarding the bill that is to be signed in Congress allowing the feeding tube for Terri Schiavo to be reinserted while awaiting the federal court appeal from her parents. While I can not imagine the immense sorrow and pain her parents must be feeling, I can also not fathom that our government would step into this situation so personally, immediately, and blatantly. This bill, reinserting the tube is unconstitutional at best. I wish for a world that is peaceful, supports life, and honors what is good, but I believe those things CANNOT come at the price of infringement on privacy and basic constitutional rights. Please set aside the emotion of the moment, which personally I think is the media's fault in part, and do not allow this bill to pass. It sets a dangerous precedent. Thank you for your time and consideration.

A LIST OF LISTS

As you tell from recent blogs, I like to make lists of people: who has influenced me and what personality types are my closest relationships have been posting topics this month. This is how I think: in categories, or to use a favorite word of mine, “buckets.”

And so to take my list-making to unprecedented levels of geekiness, I present to you a list of lists: a recounting of people lists I currently keep in my handheld computer.

• people who have helped my wife and me in our adoption process
• people I go to for professional development advice
• people I call in case of various emergencies
• people I would give cabinet positions to if I was the president
• people I would consider to be my closest friends
• people I pray for regularly
• people whose blogs I read
• people who I like to bounce my urban Christian musings off of
• people I turn to for advice and support in my marriage
• people whose careers I respect and who I want to learn from
• people whose careers I want to help develop

If you’re wondering why I keep such lists, it’s because I have a terrible memory and so I use them to remind myself of who’s important to me in different facets of life. (A lot of people say I have a great memory, but it’s a façade; without my PDA, I can’t remember a darn thing. So there.) You might think this cold or inauthentic, but you’re not me. For you, this might be cold or inauthentic; for me, this is the height of valuing people and as authentic as I can get.

I AM AN AMALGAM

I think a lot at work about how to best influence my students and staff in positive ways. Lately, that’s had me thinking about who’s influenced me. I’m realizing that who I am is a composite of all of these great people I’ve had the pleasure and privilege of crossing paths with in my life. Like the major theme of “It’s a Wonderful Life,” if any of them had not taken the time to influence me, I’d be less of person.

For example, from my parents I learned how to work hard and do things the right way, how to plan ahead when it comes to time and money, and how to live a balanced and honest life. I gained from them an appreciation of nature through our National Geographic magazine subscription and hiking trips, an appreciation of body through good eating and regular exercise, and an appreciation for culture through piano lessons and concert symphonies.

I have my cousin Geoff and my childhood nextdoor neighbor Jack to thank for my love of baseball. My childhood friend Alex got me into math puzzles, while another childhood friend Peter got me into wordplay. My high school freshman English teacher Ms. Weisend helped coax me out of my shyness in order to develop my leadership skills, and my Future Business Leaders of America advisor Mr. Longinetti helped me cultivate my love for business.

My good friends Yung and Ben took turns inviting me to church during my teen years and continue to serve as an example of how to be a good Christian. My very first pastor was so patient with me as I stumbled around in my new faith like a bull in a China shop; if there is any patience in me towards young Christians, I learned it from Pastor Lo.

My InterVarsity Christian Fellowship staff member Dave became a role model for me in Christian leadership by his example and his work with me. Time and space do not permit me to list all of the wonderful Christian brothers and sisters I socialized with in college, each of whom I still seek to emulate in some shape or form. I have learned from my boss Della how to sell and how to inspire, and from my former pastor George how to love and how to listen.

I believe that when you choose to marry someone, you are deciding that whoever you become and whoever they become, you are going to let that person be the #1 influence in your life, and you are committing to be the #1 influence in their life. And that has been the case with Amy and me. From her I have been introduced to the world of mothers and babies (her first nursing job) and abused girls (her second). I have learned a little of how Jesus must have loved people when He was on this earth. And in all the ways we are different, we’ve learned to meet halfway and I have to say now that halfway is better for me than the extreme that I used to be.

This blog is hopelessly obscure and self-absorbed, but it has been fun for me. I only hope that others who know me, upon reflecting on their own amalgamated life, will consider me a positive influence in demonstrating something good they sought to emulate, in helping them discover something good about themselves I helped them blossom in. Happy is the Christian whose life is lived for others in this way.

A LESSON ON PERSONAL FINANCES

My entrepreneurship students and I are in the midst of a unit on personal development. When I asked them what topics they wanted to cover, a few of them volunteered, “personal finances.” I happily obliged, as it is a topic of utmost importance in my opinion.

I drew for them a chart on the whiteboard, with money as the y axis and age as the x axis. Stretching to the right were ages representing various stages of life: 0, 18, 22, 65, and 90. I grabbed a black pen and asked for their help in drawing their income at various ages. The line crept at practically zero until 22, when they anticipated they would be out of college and starting to make money. I had to redraw the line from 22 to 65 several times, as they kept wanting it to be steeper and steeper (i.e. making more and more money as they got older). At 65, I asked what happened next. They correctly remembered our discussion a few weeks back on Social Security and dropped the black line down from its peak but not all the way to zero, assuming that Social Security would exist in the year 2055 and that therefore they would derive some income from that source.

Next, I took a red pen and asked for their help in drawing their expenses at various ages. Again, the line crept at practically zero, but at age 18 things started to deviate from the black line. I sternly reminded them that they were all going to college, and consequently made the red line jump up considerably at age 18 and then go flat until age 22. From ages 22 to 65, I drew an upward sloping line that was lower than the black line. I told them retirement expenses usually end up being about 75% of what you were spending just before retirement, and drew the red line from ages 65 to 90 accordingly.

This is where things got interesting. I asked them where black was above red, i.e. you are spending less than you are bringing in. They pointed to ages 22 to 65. I asked them where black was below red, i.e. you are spending more than you are bringing in. They pointed to ages 18 to 22 and ages 65 to 90. I asked them what you could do when you are bringing in more than you are spending. They said you could save it for later. I called that pushing it into the future. I asked them what you could do when you are bringing in less than you are spending. They said you could borrow and pay it back later. I called that pulling it from the future.

We talked about how pulling money from the future makes sense when what you’re pulling it for helps you to have more money in the future (i.e. school loans for college, which by the way have low interest rates). We talked about how it doesn’t make sense when what you’re pulling it for doesn’t help you to have more money in the future (i.e. credit card debt for profligate living, which by the way has high interest rates). We talked about how it is important to push money into the future and not just spend anything extra in the present because you’ll need that money to pay for your retirement and to pay for your children’s college education. Next thing you know, class was over and that was the end of our personal finances discussion. Next class, we’ll have to move on to other topics, but I hope this one on personal finances sunk in.

A BALANCE OF TEMPERAMENTS

You may be familiar with the Myers-Briggs personality test. It places you somewhere on four continuums: I for introverted (internal) or E for extroverted (external), N for intuitive (future-oriented) or S for sensing (present-oriented), T for thinking (rational) or F for feeling (emotional), and J for judging (get it done) or P for perceiving (leave it loose). For example, I am an INTJ: introverted, intuitive, thinking, and judging.

There are sixteen different Myers-Briggs personality types, which sort quite neatly into four sets of four. NT’s are known as Rationals, NF’s are Idealists, SJ’s are Traditionalists, and SP’s are Experiencers. Last night, I was on Keirsey.com, which talks at length about Myers-Briggs, and I read a remarkable article on personality types and the hit HBO show, “Sex and the City.” SATC is a favorite for my wife and me, and so we’ve probably watched over 80% of the episodes over the series’ ten-year run.

Keirsey.com pointed out that the show’s four main characters are archetypes of the four main personality temperaments. Carrie is the starry-eyed idealist, dreaming of possibilities and longing for authentic relationships. Miranda is the hard-nosed rational, calculating everything in her life from her law career to her dating life. Charlotte is the consummate traditionalist, ever prim and proper about clothing, décor, and romance. And of course, Samantha is ever the Experiencer, delighting in the moment without regard for what’s next in life. The website argues that the show’s success and the main characters’ chemistry is a direct result of their differences, blending together and leading to all sorts of adventure, spark, and meaning.

This astute observation made me wonder about the temperamental balance in my own life. Am I surrounding myself with people like me, or am I being shaped and sharpened by those who are different? I was happy to discover that the four temperaments are well-represented in my life. I am the Rational and certainly gravitate towards other Rationals. But my wife is a Guardian, my boss is an Idealist, and my accountability partner is an Experiencer. As I consider my larger circle of relationships, it will be interesting to see the distribution of my friends and family members into these four buckets. It may not be interesting enough for an HBO show, but it will be interesting nonetheless.

EVIDENCE OF EVIDENCE

In class yesterday, we discussed President Bush’s performance measurement tools, which are used to offer some sort of quantitative way of assessing how government programs are doing, and which ones should be kept and which ones cut. The tool itself is pretty blunt, and it isn’t hard to see why many D’s are accusing the Bushies of a) manipulating the results to bash programs they already knew they were going to cut, b) manipulating the results to exalt programs they already knew they were going to keep, and c) ignoring the results when it doesn’t suit them.

But the exciting thing isn’t how great the performance measurement tool is, but that it’s been put out there at all. Pessimistically, I wonder aloud when governments go through the motions of an evidence-based analysis, only to make decisions based solely on political considerations: we have to fund this program because it’s backed by someone who we owe a favor to, we should cut this program because it’ll make our core constituencies happy, etc. I’ve seen this happen at the federal, state, and city level.

And so it is nice to counterbalance that pessimism with an optimism that when evidence-based decision-making is introduced, no matter how blunt the tool, it can only sharpen and improve the policy-making process. Producers of data and analysis on both sides of the aisle will pile on with their findings, and over time the conversation will yield a better result than one that is more subjective in nature. As my professor would point out, this process will be no less political, but at least it is evidence-based.

The recognition of stat geeks like Billy Beane in baseball and the popularity of science-based shows like CSI are indication that there is a growing societal acceptance of evidence as a way of determining what is the right course of action. This is in direct contrast to previous generations in which scouts promoted athletes who simply looked the part even if the stats didn’t show that they were good players, or cops arrested bad guys by using their gut and their fists. Politicians may continue to employ political devices to make decisions, but once you let the evidence-based approach out of the bag, it’s hard to put it back in; future policymakers will have no choice but to at least consider the evidence, if not be healthily and fairly constrained by it.