Aaron Miller

Aaron Miller

Provo, UT
Business Is Mostly Cooperation

Business Is Mostly Cooperation

Competition is just part of the story

Aaron Miller

I’ve taught business ethics now for 14 years, and I’m surprised over and over by just how disproportionately business students value competition. To be sure, they’re not dummies. They know they’re headed into a competitive market that will demand value from them. But what they often fail to see is that their ability to cooperate will determine their success far more than their ability to compete.

If this sounds strange, consider your typical workday. Look at where the vast majority of your time and money are spent.

Every day you work at your job, you trust that your employer will pay you and they trust that you will do the work you’re hired to do. You and your coworkers rely on the same trust in each other, counting on each other to reach your goals. Fundamentally, these are cooperative activities, not competitive ones.

“That’s just teamwork,” you might reply. But cooperation extends well beyond teams. Retailers cooperate with manufacturers. Customers cooperate with sellers. If you track the time and money spent by companies, you quickly see that companies are essentially massive cooperative endeavors.

Photo by Randy Fath on Unsplash

Even innovation, which competition encourages, is a primarily cooperative endeavor. The myth of the lone inventor belies the reality of teams of co-innovators. And innovation isn’t constrained to teams within companies. Today, supply chains have dozens of participants that all contribute to new technologies becoming possible.

What does all this mean? It means that a free market rewards cooperation. The individuals and companies who succeed tend to excel in how they get along with others to pursue shared goals.

Competition mostly just creates incentives. Cooperation is what actually creates value.


Seeing Good at Work

Financial insecurity keeps women trapped in abusive relationships. FreeFromprovides domestic abuse survivors with training, legal resources, and small grants to help them establish financial independence. Their programs are comprehensive, ranging from individual solutions to advocating policy change. Their work was recently highlighted in the New York Times.

Their model scales by training service providers in their curriculum, so that more women can get the needed financial skills. Meanwhile, their grant program, Safety Fund, was just started last year and has already distributed micro-grants to over 1,100 survivors.

Promotional Stuff

My new podcast launches in just a couple of weeks! This first season is 12 episodes with people who will teach you all about having more impact and meaning in your work and life.

Speaking of cooperation, all the experts say that a coordinated launch—where people listen, rate, and subscribe all together—boosts a new podcast more than anything else. I hope I can count on you to help out. You’ll be hearing more from me soon.

And can I just say, this first season is going to be really great. 😁

The Dangers of Philanthropy

The Dangers of Philanthropy

Last week, we looked at the important role that philanthropy plays in a vibrant economy. It recycles wealth, creating new opportunity. But philanthropy’s economic power is only part of the story.

Massive philanthropy, after all, comes from massive wealth—and the power that comes with it frequently scares the public. Even back in Rockefeller’s days, the country aligned itself against his effort to create a foundation. That distrust of wealth continues today. Philanthropic villains still get regular coverage, like the Koch brothers by the left, and for the right, George Soros.

In his book, Just Giving, Stanford sociology professor Rob Reich makes a case that large-scale philanthropy poses a risk to democracy itself. Are the concerns justified? Perhaps.

There are two dangers we need to see more clearly.

Perpetual and Unaccountable

Andrew Carnegie famously noted in The Gospel of Wealth, “The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced,” illustrating that wealth locked away is wealth put to waste. Yet today, most private foundations spend an average just above 5% of their total assets. Because their investment returns are consistently higher than their grant making, this spending level allows them to survive in perpetuity at the cost of accomplishing far less. Perhaps Carnegie might have called a foundation that never even dies similarly disgraceful.

How does foundation frugality affect democracy? As Reich points out, private foundations also lack a great deal of accountability. Certainly they must act within the boundaries set by the tax code, but they don’t have any other market mechanisms to ensure the beneficial use of their resources. Companies of equivalent size have customers to hold them to account. A private foundation has no customers, nor any stakeholders other than the ones they choose for themselves.

And like wealth generally in the US, foundation wealth is concentrating to a smaller number of foundations. So as foundations continue to aggregate wealth and the power that comes with it, they wield even greater power over issues of public policy, like education, crime, and the environment. A community with fewer resources than a large foundation might find itself with little recourse other than hoping for benevolence and wisdom from a board of directors.

Professionalized Decay

Another philanthropy expert and critic, Bill Schambra, has noted that professional philanthropy, the kind characterized by the largest foundations, comes with a poisoned promise: The public need only provide their support, and the professionals can do the rest.

The danger here is that democracy is rooted in people feeling empowered to solve their own problems. I’m tempted to quote at length from a compelling speech Schambra gave on the subject, but I will cut to the chase. After describing the messy, but essential nature of communities crafting solutions, Schambra says:

Furthermore, and more important, by employing experts to undertake the tasks of democratic government, we’ve relieved citizens of the need to engage with each other and to work out their differences in their own messy and amateurish ways.

That can only spell the end of democratic self-governance.

So the other democratic danger in big philanthropy is to our self-efficacy, which we lose by handing our problems over to the experts. Certainly we should involve them and listen to them, but we should be putting our own hands and minds to work on these problems, not just the ones offered—as helpful as they are—by Bill and Melinda Gates.

What can be done about these dangers? Schambra’s advice resonates here:

There is nothing quite like seeing citizens coming into the first realization of their own agency, and living into their ability to control their own lives.

American civil society has over the centuries been the arena within which everyday citizens come to realize their own democratic agency, no matter how marginal, neglected, or oppressed they may otherwise have been in this imperfect democracy of ours.

It is no one else’s job to solve the problems around us. We can turn to others for help, but it’s our own work to do.

Seeing Good at Work

Turning traditional philanthropy on its head, The Philanthropic Ventures Foundation empowers communities through innovative grants that are designed to be small, simple, and fast. The founder, Bill Somerville, pioneered this “grassroots philanthropy” (also the title of his book) by simply taking faxed, one-page applications from teachers looking to better serve their students.

If you want to learn more about their work, I encourage you to watch this fantastic TEDx talk by Somerville. It’s one of my favorites.

Promotional Stuff

That talk by Bill Somerville was delivered at TEDxBYU. This year’s event is entirely online, with incredible speakers filmed in remarkable locations. It runs tonight and tomorrow night, so be sure to get tickets right away. Find out more at:

www.TEDxBYU.com

Why Philanthropy Matters

Why Philanthropy Matters

The secret superpower of a thriving economy

Have you ever wondered why the United States—and specifically Silicon Valley—became the epicenter of the Information Age? Why of all places did this become the home to Google, Intel, HP, Apple, Facebook, and so many others?

I’m sure you have some ideas, but I doubt philanthropy is one of them. And so I strongly recommend you read Why Philanthropy Matters by Zoltan Acs. It’s one of my favorite books. Acs makes the compelling case that philanthropy is the secret superpower of American capitalism.

As for Silicon Valley, the pivotal moment of its destiny takes us back to 1885. Leland and Jane Stanford became incredibly wealthy from Leland’s ownership in multiple railroad companies. (He presided over the famous Golden Spike ceremony that joined the east and west segments of the Transcontinental Railroad.) Their wealth reached a peak of around $50 million, or $1.3 billion in today’s dollars, even if it was earned in the same questionable ways as the other robber barons of his time.

But in 1884, the couple’s only son died from typhoid fever at just 15 years-old. It was in their heartbreak that they made a decision that reverberated for decades to come. Declaring that “the children of California shall be our children,” Leland and Jane dedicated nearly half their wealth and over 8,000 acres to found Stanford University.

In the US, we’re accustomed to seeing huge philanthropic gifts like this, but they are hardly the norm in world history. In fact, the US economy is remarkably unique this way: marked by entrepreneurs of middling origins (Leland’s father was a farmer and Jane’s a merchant) who go on to incredible wealth and then historically large philanthropy. From Carnegie’s libraries to Gates’ health and education funding, this has been a distinctive feature of the American economy.

Nearly every major tech company today—along with their jobs, wealth, and products—traces its origin in whole or in part to that single philanthropic act by the Stanfords. Hewlett and Packard attended there, as did the Google founders, Page and Brin. Of course, this doesn’t even begin to contemplate all of the doctors, researchers, educators, and other professionals who started there.

This story can be told over and over with other schools, too, and extends well beyond the elite universities to state schools, HBCUs, and even community colleges that have opened more doors to opportunity than we can count. Although there are legitimate criticisms of education philanthropy, there’s little doubt that its impact on the whole has been immense.

And this is just one area among many that philanthropy in the US has fueled over the years. Professor Acs makes the case difficult to refute. Libraries, community centers, hospitals, and parks all enjoy philanthropic funding along with tax dollars. But for a history of massive philanthropy, the United States today would be a fraction of its size and vibrancy. And our future will likely depend on it in just the same way, a point that Acs notes with concern.

(Next week we’ll look at the other side of this issue, and the argument that modern philanthropy could threaten the very things that make the US healthy and strong.)


Seeing Good at Work

The more opportunity we can create for everyone, the better off we all are. WeThrive works with low-income youth in grades 7–10 to train them in entrepreneurship and leadership, setting them up with life skills that lead to better futures for themselves and their communities. The program scales by training teachers and administrators in the curriculum.

Beginning with a pilot in 2010, WeThrive has since grown to reach over 2,000 kids per year in cities across the US. The students who participate get experience starting real businesses earning real money. 81% of kids who participate continue with their ventures after completing the program.

Promotional Stuff

If you’re on Twitter, consider following me there. I use Twitter to draw attention to good ideas and current issues related to having an impact on the world.I didn’t need a reason to love donuts any more than I already do, but now they’re out there saving lives. ♥️ 🍩 @krispykreme But seriously, this is great #csr.fortune.com/2021/03/22/kri…Krispy Kreme will offer free doughnuts—all year long—to people with COVID-19 vaccination cardsBring your vaccination card to any location for a free Original Glazed through the end of the year—and you can redeem the offer as often as you’d like.

50 Words for Snow

50 Words for Snow

Problems differ more than we say

Winter’s nearing its end, and many parts of the US are getting what might be their last snowstorms. You’ve probably heard that the Inuit have 50 different words for “snow.” As you might guess, though, the truth is more complicated than that.

First, it depends on which language you mean. According to the Alaskan Native Languages Archive, there are two main language groups in this part of the world. One is the Aleut language, otherwise known as Unangan. The other branch is Inuit-Yupik, which has about a dozen varieties still in use today.

Even if you just pick one of those languages, counting the words for snow still gets messy. It depends on what you mean by “word”. You see, these languages have many root words that mean snow, but then they add on extensions to get more specific about the kind of snow involved.

For example, the word qanik means “fallen snow”. But if we add to it, we can get the word qanittak, which means “freshly fallen snow”. This is a simple example, but we can go much further. We could use the word sitilluqaaq for example, which means “a recently formed hard drift of snow after a storm”. “50 words for snow” doesn’t even get us started.

The nature of the Inuit-Yupik-Unangan languages is that you can craft such a vast variety of “words” for snow that we’d never find an end to them. We need a different way of thinking about language itself to get started in the right direction.

This all relates to another quirk in the way we talk about the problems facing the world. We call food insecurity “a problem.” The same goes for human trafficking, illiteracy, and any number of other challenges. Each one is “a problem.” But this language doesn’t reflect reality.

For example, we call access to clean water a “problem,” as though everyone without clean water is in the same situation. But getting clean water to people in Malawi, Darfur, Dhaka, or Flint requires very different solutions. Most notably, the solutions that worked in one place, like Flint, wouldn’t work in any of these other places.

“Problem” lacks nuance and context, and so then does our understanding of things like clean water, human trafficking, illiteracy, an so on. What we could really use is a language like Inuit, where we have a word like “clean-water-for-people-with-dilapidated-municipal-water-systems-in-urban-US-settings”. Or, “clean-water-for-people-where-water-sources-are-targeted-in-armed-conflict.” Absent the language for it, we at least need the clearer thinking that language like this provides.

What problems are you lumping together? How are they different in a way that matters?

(Edit: The previous version of this article used the word “Eskimo” to collectively refer to these languages because the sources I relied on did the same. But a kind reader helped me learn that this term is unacceptable because of its colonial origin. The native people of the region prefer the terms from their own languages, such as “Inuit.”)

Seeing Good at Work

Inuit communities over hundreds of years developed complex expertise that’s enabled them to live in extreme environments. Climate change has made their home one of the fastest-changing parts of the planet, threatening the survival of the Inuit way of life. To make matters worse, Inuit children are one of the fastest growing demographics in Canada yet have the fewest educational resources.

Shelly Elverum is bridging the Inuit and Western worlds through collaborative scientific research projects in a model called ScIQ, where the local youth take key roles in research design and data collection. This gives them an opportunity to grow academically while promoting and preserving centuries of traditional knowledge. Ikaarvik, a leading ScIQ program, has received funding from a wide range of environmental research groups.

Promotional Stuff

The topic this week is a perfect chance to introduce you to The Ballard Brief, a publication that specializes in just the kind of nuance that’s needed to better understand social problems. Published by BYU’s Ballard Center for Social Impact, The Ballard Brief offers short, but thorough briefings on a wide variety of social issues.

In each briefing, you’ll find explanations about problems around the world and current and emerging practices that we’re using today to try and solve these problems. Each briefing is rigorously researched and offers additional resources where you can learn more. Its library of topics is growing quickly.

NEWSLETTER

Sign up to get How to Help delivered to your inbox.

Subscribe to get newsletter posts and be notified with every new podcast episode!

Great! Please check your inbox and click the confirmation link.
Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.