Can business solutions truly solve social problems? How have figures like Stacey Asher, Justin Rosenstein, and Emmett Carson navigated the tension between business success and social impact? Does the rise of thought leadership over public intellectualism signal an avoidance of systemic issues? What does philanthropy look like in a world dominated by MarketWorld ideologies?

Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World

Hilary Cohen, a senior at Georgetown University, faced a dilemma in 2014: how to change the world. With a background steeped in both business and public service, she juggled career paths—management consulting, non-profits, or becoming a rabbi. Influenced by aristocratic teachings and the rise of social enterprise, she grappled with the belief that business skills were essential for social change. 

Growing up in a wealthy, engaged family in Houston, Cohen was groomed for success, yet drawn to politics and public service from a young age. At Georgetown, she was inspired by Aristotle’s "Nicomachean Ethics," which challenged her to seek a purpose beyond material wealth and led her towards a philosophy major.

Her college years coincided with movements highlighting inequality, such as Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter, and the influence of Pope Francis and economist Thomas Piketty. These movements shaped her desire to be an agent of positive change, amidst the backdrop of a society grappling with growing economic disparities. Cohen’s peers at Georgetown were similarly focused on making a difference, often through the lens of market capitalism and social innovation.

Despite her aspirations, Cohen was drawn into the corporate world, interning at Goldman Sachs and eventually joining McKinsey & Company. She was influenced by the pervasive belief that business training was a prerequisite for effective social impact. This perspective was reinforced by campus culture, which valued internships and corporate recruitment, and by programs like the Baker Scholars and the Beeck Center for Social Impact & Innovation, which promoted business as a force for good.

Cohen’s experience at McKinsey revealed the discrepancy between the idealistic promises of making a difference and the reality of corporate work. She found herself questioning the effectiveness of business methodologies in addressing social issues. Even as she worked on projects like advising President Obama on civic engagement, she doubted the ability of corporate solutions to truly address systemic problems.

Ultimately, Cohen left McKinsey for the Obama Foundation, still torn between the prestige of the corporate world and her desire to make meaningful change. Her journey highlights the tension between market-driven approaches to social change and the need for systemic reform. It illustrates the complex landscape young idealists navigate, often caught between the allure of corporate success and the pursuit of genuine societal impact.

Can Business Skills Really Drive Social Change?

Stacey Asher, a former New York hedge fund worker, moved to Texas and started a charity, Portfolios with Purpose. She was inspired by a visit to a Tanzanian orphanage, where she witnessed children walking miles for meals, prompting her to seek ways to help. 

Instead of addressing systemic issues like tax dodging by hedge funds or harmful financial practices, Asher opted for a win-win solution: a fantasy sports-style platform where stock market success funds charity. This reflects the MarketWorld belief that business solutions can solve social problems without systemic change.

Justin Rosenstein, a Silicon Valley tech star, co-founded Asana, believing work collaboration software could improve the world. He saw tech as a way to do good while making money, embracing the win-win ideology. However, this overlooks societal issues like wage stagnation despite productivity growth, highlighting a disconnect between business solutions and real-world needs.

Emmett Carson, leading the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, learned to use softer language like "fairness" instead of "social justice" to engage wealthy donors. He realized entrepreneurs preferred solutions that celebrated their success and involvement, avoiding systemic critiques.

Jane Leibrock joined Even, a start-up aiming to stabilize volatile incomes for working-class Americans through an app. While the app offered a solution, it didn't address root causes like erratic employment and stagnant wages. Vinod Khosla, an investor in Even, acknowledged the need for systemic redistribution, recognizing that business solutions often fall short in addressing broader societal issues.

These stories illustrate the allure and limitations of win-win solutions, which often prioritize business interests over systemic change, raising questions about their effectiveness in addressing deep-rooted social problems.

MarketWorld Ideals: Can Business-Driven Solutions Bridge Social Gaps?

One November, Stacey Asher and Greg Ferenstein, along with thousands of MarketWorld citizens, embarked on a Norwegian cruise ship headed for the Bahamas. This wasn't an ordinary cruise; it was Summit at Sea, a four-day event celebrating the idea of changing the world through business. Entrepreneurs, financiers, artists, and yoga teachers gathered to discuss missions like “improving the lives of others” while growing their businesses. 

Onboard were representatives from AOL, Apple, Google, Uber, and more, including billionaires and millionaires who believed that their success could spur societal change. Blair Miller, who worked at the intersection of business and social good, captured the sentiment: "If I can influence how business is done, I can change the lives of millions."

One notable speaker was venture capitalist Shervin Pishevar, who had invested early in Airbnb and Uber. He was seen as both a kingmaker and a rebel, advocating for life-extending technology. Pishevar argued that his power wasn’t about money but about love and moments of character, sharing his belief in the inevitability of longer, healthier lives due to genetic research.

Yet, this cruise wasn’t all harmonious. Pishevar and others maintained a rebel image, casting themselves against corrupt systems like labor unions and regulations. This perspective was evident when Pishevar spoke of fighting against the "taxi cartels" and described protests as war zones, portraying venture capitalists as champions of the little guy. This narrative of rebels against the establishment was a common theme among Silicon Valley elites.

However, this self-image of rebellion clashed with the reality of their immense power. Judges in lawsuits against Uber and Lyft highlighted this by comparing their control over drivers to the surveillance in Foucault’s Panopticon. These companies claimed to be mere platforms, yet exerted significant power over their workers, revealing a denial of their true influence.

As inequality widened, these tech giants often framed their actions as inevitable progress, masking their power and responsibility. People like Pishevar saw themselves as underdogs, despite their wealth and influence. This mindset was echoed by Snowden, who called for safe spaces for experimentation, contrasting the entrepreneurs' desire for rule-free zones that ultimately benefit the powerful.

At a contrasting event, the platform cooperativism movement offered a different vision for technology. Advocating for democratically owned digital platforms, this movement challenged the dominance of companies like Uber and Airbnb. Speakers like Trebor Scholz and Brendan Martin argued for a shift from an extractive economy to one based on mutualism and cooperativism, aiming to truly change the world by redistributing power and ownership to the masses.

In essence, while MarketWorld celebrated business as a force for good, a growing awareness and critique emerged, highlighting the need for genuine, inclusive change that addresses the root causes of inequality.

Is Summit at Sea the Ultimate Gathering for World-Changing Entrepreneurs or Just a Power Play?

In October 2011, Amy Cuddy, a Harvard social psychologist, ventured beyond academia to speak at PopTech, a conference aimed at sharing big ideas. Cuddy's research focused on power dynamics, discrimination, and prejudice, but rather than discussing systemic issues, her talk centered on "power posing," a concept suggesting that adopting confident body postures can boost self-confidence. 

This approach, offering individual empowerment without challenging systemic power, resonated with the MarketWorld audience—composed of influential elites seeking optimistic, actionable solutions.

This dynamic, wherein thinkers like Cuddy are celebrated for offering palatable ideas rather than confronting root causes, reflects a broader trend in the landscape of ideas. Daniel Drezner, in his book "The Ideas Industry," contrasts the fading role of public intellectuals—critics who challenge power—with the rise of thought leaders who focus on transformative, yet non-threatening ideas.

The shift from critical discourse to thought leadership is fueled by factors like rising inequality and the allure of MarketWorld platforms, where thinkers are encouraged to present ideas that align with the interests of the powerful. This environment fosters the prevalence of concepts that emphasize personal change and resilience over systemic reform, often sidelining deeper critiques in favor of solutions that are easier to digest and implement.

Cuddy's rise exemplifies this trend. Her TED talk on power poses became wildly popular, though it faced criticism from academia. Despite this, the public's embrace of her ideas reflects a desire for accessible, individual-focused change, often at the expense of addressing systemic issues.

The growing dominance of thought leadership over public intellectualism raises questions about the integrity of the marketplace of ideas. While thought leaders like Cuddy navigate these waters, balancing their research and public personas, the broader implications suggest a society increasingly inclined toward superficial solutions that maintain the status quo rather than challenging deeper inequities.

Amy Cuddy's 'Power Posing' and the Rise of Thought Leaders in the Ideas Industry

In a world dominated by market-driven solutions, George Soros stood as a maverick. Despite his immense wealth, Soros focused his philanthropy on justice and democracy, rather than the profit-oriented causes that often capture the attention of the elite. His Open Society Foundations aimed to create societies where governments are accountable and open to criticism. 

Yet, as the win-win philosophy of social change gained traction, Soros recognized the need to adapt. The younger generation, including a young Roma woman, sought entrepreneurship over rights, signaling a cultural shift.

This led to the creation of the Economic Advancement Program in 2016, a blend of economic development and social justice, embracing the win-win language to merge profit with progress. Soros appointed Sean Hinton, a consultant with a unique background in ethnomusicology and Mongolian culture, to lead this initiative. Hinton's journey from the arts to McKinsey and Goldman Sachs had taught him both humility and the business protocols that often sidelined traditional problem-solving methods.

In a Manhattan conference room, Hinton convened a group of market-oriented experts to discuss justice and equality. The meeting, filled with corporate jargon and PowerPoint slides, highlighted the disconnect between business solutions and the nuanced realities of social issues. The focus on optimization and efficiency often ignored the human elements of these challenges.

Hinton, aware of the limitations of business protocols in addressing social issues, sought advice from Michael Porter, a Harvard Business School professor. Porter critiqued the narrow focus on shareholder value and optimization, noting how these practices had alienated businesses from their communities and overlooked the well-being of workers.

Hinton realized the need for a new approach. He pondered how to integrate diverse voices, including those directly affected by social challenges, into decision-making processes. Inspired by his Bahá’í faith, which values universal participation, Hinton considered unconventional ideas like including ordinary people on advisory boards and moving away from reliance on PowerPoint presentations.

As Hinton navigated his role, he grappled with the tension between the protocols he mastered and the values he held dear. In a world where business solutions often overshadow deeper social understanding, his journey illustrated the need for a blend of rigor and empathy in solving the world's most pressing issues.

Can Soros's Approach to Philanthropy Bridge the Gap Between Profit and Justice?

Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation, found himself in a tough spot as he prepared to address private equity executives at KKR. Known for his sharp critique of inequality, Walker had written a provocative letter blaming wealthy elites for the very issues they sought to ameliorate through philanthropy. The letter, titled "Toward a New Gospel of Wealth," questioned the traditional view of philanthropy that Andrew Carnegie had famously championed in his 1889 essay. 

Carnegie had argued that extreme wealth accumulation was an inevitable byproduct of progress, and that the wealthy should later give back to society. Walker, however, challenged this notion, advocating for a focus on how wealth was made, not just how it was given away.

Walker’s own journey from poverty to prominence was a testament to systemic interventions like Head Start and supportive teachers. His experiences underscored the need for systemic change rather than reliance on philanthropy alone. Despite his successful climb into the upper echelons of society, Walker remained acutely aware of the barriers that still existed for people from backgrounds like his own.

At various points, Walker’s life intersected with other powerful figures in philanthropy, including the Sackler family, whose wealth derived from Purdue Pharma and the controversial marketing of OxyContin. The opioid crisis, exacerbated by aggressive marketing practices, highlighted the dark side of wealth accumulation and the ethical complexities of philanthropy.

Walker’s letter and his new gospel called for a reevaluation of the role of philanthropy and the responsibilities of the wealthy. He urged a shift from merely giving back to addressing the root causes of inequality, which often involved the very systems that allowed the wealthy to flourish. This message was challenging for many in MarketWorld, where generosity often served as a shield against scrutiny and a means to avoid deeper systemic change.

Despite the pushback, Walker continued to engage with the wealthy, aiming to leverage his position to foster a conversation about justice and systemic reform. His efforts reflected a broader tension in philanthropy: the struggle to balance generosity with a commitment to genuine social change.

Darren Walker's Gospel: Rethinking Philanthropy in the Shadow of Carnegie

In September 2016, a gathering of influential globalists took place at the Clinton Global Initiative during UN Week in New York. This event, often likened to a family reunion for the globalists, was a hub for philanthropists, social innovators, and impact investors, all seeking solutions to global issues. However, as the world became increasingly skeptical of elites solving public problems in private gatherings, this group faced mounting criticism.

Bill Clinton, once a scandal-ridden president, had reinvented himself as a global philanthropist. After leaving office in 2001, he ventured into global philanthropy, creating the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in 2005. CGI aimed to bring together world leaders and corporations to commit to tangible projects for global good. Clinton's initiative grew in influence, shifting the focus of UN Week from the United Nations to corporate-sponsored, world-changing gatherings.

Clinton believed in partnerships and commitments as the key to societal betterment, bringing together entrepreneurs, philanthropists, and political leaders. However, as CGI meetings inspired thousands of commitments, questions arose about the true motives of attendees, with critics suggesting that philanthropy often served self-serving ends.

The rise of populist anger globally was partly blamed on the perception that elites prioritized private interests over public needs. Clinton and his fellow globalists faced criticism for not fully addressing the public's growing discontent and mistrust. As political upheavals like Brexit and Trump's election unfolded, the globalists struggled to understand why their win-win philosophy was being rejected.

Clinton's vision of solving public problems through private means, while innovative, was seen as undermining democracy. Critics argued that private initiatives crowded out public solutions, diminishing the role of government and collective action. Despite these criticisms, Clinton continued to champion partnerships between government, corporations, and NGOs as the path forward.

In the end, Clinton's legacy was marked by both impressive accomplishments in global philanthropy and a failure to address the systemic issues fueling populist anger. The challenge remained to find a balance between private initiative and public accountability, ensuring that all voices are heard in shaping the future.

Did Clinton's Global Philanthropy Fuel Populist Anger or Foster Real Change?

Many young idealists, despite their aspirations to drive positive change, often find themselves drawn into business sectors due to the belief that business skills are crucial for social reform. However, the reality of corporate work can sometimes contradict these idealistic goals, revealing the limitations of business methodologies in addressing deeper systemic issues.

There’s a noticeable trend where business and social good are often seen as compatible, with many initiatives promoting market-driven solutions to societal problems. However, these approaches sometimes prioritize business interests over genuine systemic change, which can be problematic. The allure of win-win solutions is strong, but they frequently fall short of addressing the root causes of inequality and other social issues.

Additionally, the rise of thought leaders over traditional public intellectuals has shifted the focus toward more palatable, individual-centered solutions rather than challenging systemic power structures. This dynamic can dilute the impact of critical discourse, leaving deeper societal critiques by the wayside in favor of more market-friendly ideas.

It’s also interesting to see how philanthropic efforts are evolving. There's a growing awareness of the need to address how wealth is accumulated and its impact on society, rather than just focusing on charitable giving. This shift calls for a more critical examination of the systems that allow for vast wealth disparities and the ethical complexities involved in philanthropy.

In the broader context, the role of global elites in solving public problems through private means has come under scrutiny. While private initiatives can lead to significant accomplishments, they can also overshadow public solutions, potentially undermining democracy and collective action. The challenge lies in balancing private innovation with public accountability to ensure inclusive and equitable societal progress.

Home

Trending Books

News & Mags

Relax

Curated

Collections

Key Ideas & Notes

Insights

Highlights & Bookmarks

Listening History

Improve your Career, Health & Life with 15min insights from 9000+ non-fiction books

Key Ideas

#1