Showing posts with label Jeffrey Sachs. Show all posts
A Lesson in Persuasion at the World Economic Forum

Persuasion is a key ingredient to success. It’s true whether you're a hollywood screen writer, corporate employee, or international diplomat. In each case, your objective is to influence your audience, your boss, or your enemy or ally to feel or act a certain way. Refugee Run, a one-hour simulation of terrifying refugee life at this year’s World Economic Forum, persuades in a way that is unique and particularly effective.
As we've previously written in this blog, Refugee Run places Forum delegates in the environment and mindset of what it’s like to be a refugee – bare tents, crying women, warring gunshots, barking soldiers, dark silence, and frightening unpredictability. We partook in the experience and realized that it was more intense and jolting than expected. Kudos to Refugee Run for re-creating such an experience so powerfully. But beyond the Run's ability to re-create an experience is its ability to influence the "rulers of the universe" who go through it.
The Run inspired Richard Branson to take over Mia Farrow's hunger strike in 2009. It compelled COO of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg, to reach out to strategic business partners to explore more ways to help. And it's rumored that, at this year's Forum, it compelled Jeffrey Sachs, in concert with UN Global Impact, to bring the Refugee Run to their Leaders Summit in June 2010, a summit that, according to UN Global Impact Executive Director, Georg Kell, will host 1,000 international CEOs.
At the World Economic Forum, an environment in which who is saying something is sometimes more persuasive than what is being said, Refugee Run bucks the trend altogether in how the message is communicated – through experience, not simply discussion or Powerpoint presentation. It's a lesson in persuasion that we can all learn from and is applicable to numerous contexts, whether that context is solving the world's most pressing challenges or dealing with a problematic boss at work.
Business Meets Goodwill at the World Economic Forum
That is: Supply Chain Management. It might sound scary (that's many times what business jargon does: scares us) but it’s actually quite basic.
It starts with a simple question: How do we get aid from the Have’s to the Have Not’s? It’s best to use an example – let’s use the AIDS epidemic in Africa. On the one side, pharmaceutical companies make drugs to combat AIDS. On the other side, millions of Africans are infected with AIDS with no access to the right drugs. How do the right drugs get to the people who need it? Then, we identify what the supply is – either a product or service – in this case, pharmaceutical drugs. (We could even talk about people (that is, doctors) in the recent case of Haiti). Next, we break down, into discrete pieces, the points through which the supply is taken: (1) Pharmaceutical company, (2) Shipping company, (3) Port, (4) Village, (5) Individual. That is our “supply chain.” (The supply chain can look quite different than this – and get complicated pretty fast – depending on context). Finally, we determine how we get from one chain to the next, which is usually a question of who. Who is responsible for moving supply along the chain? The answer, in a lot of successful cases, is “Private-public partnerships.”
In the case of AIDS in Africa, for the most part, big US pharmaceutical companies (#1) have been responsible (sometimes with US government help) for committing a certain amount of drugs to ship (#2) to the appropriate African port (#3). At that point, the private companies’ expertise typcially ends. Another group must pick it up from there. NGO’s (sometimes with UN help), with their local expertise, are typically the best to distribute aid once it’s “on the ground.” From the port, they transport it to the right villages (#4), then get it to the right people (#5).
As a stark reminder of the importance of the supply chain as well as organizations’ roles along it, Jeffrey Sachs, at an intimate panel discussion, recanted that ten years ago, pharmaceutical companies started to realize that their drugs just sat in boxes at major African ports. They weren’t reaching those in need because there was no infrastructure in place to get the drugs to villages. Many died as a result. Some on the panel (which consisted of the CEO of Manpower, Executive Director of UN Global Compact, Deputy Chairman of KPMG, and President of Global Hand) nodded as Sachs mentioned that it was at Davos, that same year, that “Big Pharma” highlighted this challenge. They connected with the UN and international NGOs to link the last few supply chains together, ultimately ensuring that the drugs reached those in need.
It’s exciting to see business and humanitarian causes work handed-in-hand, not just “on the ground,” but also in concept. Transferring knowledge from one sphere to make the other better (in this case, the framework of supply chain management) is one of the World Economic Forum's biggest strengths. Where else do the "rulers of the universe" gather, in such quality and quantity, with so much focus and thought dedicated to combatting some of the world's greatest challenges? We have our criticisms of the World Economic Forum (many do), but it's worth highlighting the great good it serves as well.
T. Boone Pickens: Economics is Boring
“You know what an economist is, don’t you? An economist is someone who didn’t have the personality to be a CPA.” T. Boone Pickens, clearly known more for his folksy charm than intellectual prowess, took pleasure in poking fun at economists at the World Business Forum last week. Perhaps that explains why The Popped Kernel, in our last two posts, uncharacteristically made no effort to personalize economists Paul Krugman and Jeffrey Sachs.(Updated below on 11/10/09)
As posted in the comments below, we learned more from and about T. Boone than just his teasing humor.
He quit his job at 26 yrs old with no alternate plan. After complaining about his job, his wife told him to leave it. The day he did, he came home early to his wife asking, "Why are you home so early?" He said, "I quit today." His wife shot back, "Why'd you do that?"
He believes the U.S. should be awarded oil contracts in Iraq, not China (as has been done). His argument is simple: Americans lost over 4,000 lives in Iraq, not China.
He's an environmentalist, albeit not admittedly. While he did acknowledge a friendship with Al Gore rooted in the cause, his driving force is rooted more in national security - to reduce (if not eliminate) America's dependence on oil from hostile regimes. He started the Pickens Plan to influence a fundamental shift in US energy policy - source power from natural gas and renewable energy, not oil. He happens to be heavily invested in natural gas and increasingly in renewable energy.
He believes he's more powerful today than ever before, not because of his wealth but his following (driven primarily online). 1.6 million people have signed onto his Pickens Plan. As he put it, with money he could see anybody in Congress but nothing would happen; with money and 1.6 million supporters he can see anybody on the Hill and now he's a force to be reckoned with. Members of Congress now ask him if he can mobilize his "army."
You may be wondering what the heck that "T" stands for. Well, wonder no more. It stands for... wait for it ... Thomas.
And remember those Swift Boat ads? The ones that "swift boated" the Kerry presidential campaign in 2004 (and augmented the American political vernacular in the process)? T. Boone funded them.
T. Boone Pickens is a complex man. It's difficult to label him, but if anything could describe him, perhaps it's quite simply "self-interested."
What do you think? Are you a fan of T. Boone? The man? The plan? Let us know. Comment below. Or write us at thepoppedkernel@gmail.com.
Jeffrey Sachs: Political Perspective from an Economist
Jeffrey Sachs, Economics professor at Columbia University has made a name for himself as a prognosticator and translator of the very thing that has captured America’s attention for over a year: the economy. But it wasn’t his economic perspective that surprised us last Tuesday at the World Business Forum – it was his clear and direct indictment of money in politics that did.Sachs went so far as to describe the US as fascist. Without actually using the “F” word, he declared that until the US government stops making law (or lack thereof) at the behest and on behalf of corporations in the financial services and healthcare industries, we won’t be living in the democracy we think we do.
For a well-respected, widely accepted, and quite influential economist to go into the lion’s den and poke it in the eye, things must have gotten – and must still be – pretty bad.
Specific highlights include:
The market for mortgage-backed securities on Wall Street went from $0 to $62 trillion in less than a decade. That’s roughly the size of the entire world economy – and no part of that market was regulated.
Both the Clinton and Bush administrations, as well as the Fed, kept regulators out of that market. Insurance giants like AIG made matters worse when they started insuring these investments against default, with no capital backing. They didn’t need to because regulators weren’t telling them to. Jeffrey called it “pure irresponsibility.”
Here's what the “pure irresponsibility” looked like (in everyday terms): A company like AIG told investors, “Give me $2, and in exchange, if you’re $100 mortgage-backed security defaults or is deemed worthless, we’ll give you that $100.” AIG did this with effectively no money in their bank account (i.e., no capital backing) to actually pay the $100. When mortgage-back securities were deemed worthless because nobody knew which ones contained toxic sub-prime mortgages, investors who purchased them started defaulting on their $100 and went to AIG for their lost money. But AIG didn’t have the money. So Joe Blow taxpayer had to pay. While illegal in other contexts, this activity wasn’t illegal here because there was no regulation.
Sachs rhetorically asked the audience “Why do you think regulators were kept out (of it)?” then turned his speech into surprising territory by answering, “This is about money and power.”
Making a broader point about money in politics now, he brought healthcare into the conversation. “Why do you think we’re no longer talking about The Public Option in the Healthcare debate…. Let me tell you: it wasn’t the townhalls over the summer…. Debates in public are sadly a side show. The real issues are being decided in the back rooms where campaign contributions and vesting interests and lobbying will set parameters on healthcare and the financial system.”
“We do not have a basic change of money in politics yet.” Sachs was clearly calling for one.
World Business Forum: Countdown
Hi Kernels. Are you ready to pop? Just two more days until the 2009 World Business Forum. The headliners this year are impressive. Be sure to check in for real-time insight and inspiration from: