Hacking Happiness (21 page)

Digital Checks and Balances—LinkedIn’s “Volunteer Experience and Causes”

“What happens when someone ticks off ten causes they don’t care about?” According to Nicole Williams, connection director at LinkedIn, the social community compensates using its system of checks and balances . . . “So if you say
you’re involved and you’re not, people will call you out. Influence almost holds you accountable.”

A problem for many people is the notion of touting or flaunting their volunteer experiences, who may find it cheesy and insincere. Williams urges those people to reconsider. “The more you put out there, the more that people will want to volunteer as well.”

New research from LinkedIn shows that one out of every five hiring managers in the U.S. hired a candidate because of her volunteer work experience. Giving back can be the determining factor between two similar candidates.

A person can volunteer for organizations that reflect their overall passions as a way to get experience for a future career. “Volunteering used to only be about give, give, give,” says Williams. “Now it’s more cyclical—people are thinking about where they can contribute that’s also in the best interest of their careers, so they don’t get burned out.”

Checks and balances aren’t just about accountability. LinkedIn demonstrates the idea of shared value for an individual, a model for users to leverage their volunteerism for the greater good and for their own personal good.

Constructive Competition—Recyclebank and Rewards

“Influence needs to shape up and be better defined,” says Samantha Skey, chief revenue officer for Recyclebank, an organization that rewards their 3.3 million members for taking environmental action with deals from more than three thousand businesses.

“How much does online influence impact real-world action?” asks Skey. “Is the credibility someone earns for social action online a true representation of what they do in the real world? Correlating action to intent is something we’re working on measuring.”

Recyclebank measures using its “Eco-IQ” score, which
identifies and helps change mainstream awareness around various environmental issues. Eco-IQ lets Recyclebank en-gage with a mainstream audience that may not otherwise address sustainability from an angle of environmental concern. Eco-IQ encourages peer recognition for affecting positive change in one’s everyday lifestyle. “We’re starting to see interest from individuals in promoting their own actions and the good they’re doing, because they enjoy the pat on the back that comes from being an ‘Ambassador of Green.’”

Some might fear that the reward incentive clouds a person’s genuine motives. But in the case of Recyclebank, the “friends justify the means”—the message needs to reach the masses, and celebratory dynamics work better than threats. Evolving your Eco-IQ in public means shared value for everyone involved.

Positive Profiling—The Evolution of “Klout Style”

“If you work for a certain cause, it’s easy for us to see the rest of your identity. So people would notice the difference between a guy who volunteered once versus someone who is really passionate . . . on an ongoing basis,” says Joe Fernandez, founder of Klout.

Fernandez said there weren’t immediate plans for a “Klout for Good” score per se, but the service’s existing “Klout Style” feature has the potential to include a social good metric. For instance, two people have Klout scores of fifty. One influences primarily via sharing links, so Klout calls him a curator. The other user influences via talking, so she’s a conversationalist. “I can definitely see expanding that to identify the type of person who is super responsible and cares about the greater good.”

In this way, people perceived by the social community as bringing positive change could more overtly receive shared
value of their own. Therefore, the notion of “social access” described above may not be as hypothetical as it seems.

Evolved Capitalism: IBM and the Inevitability of Shared Value

“You can’t construct a carefully shaped public image which is out of synch with who you actually are,” says Mike Wing, VP of IBM’s strategic and executive communication [department]. Seen as the father of IBM’s Smarter Planet campaign, Wing is an expert on the “Internet of Things” and posits about the future of influence, when social good will become hyper-digital and location-based.

“Data ubiquity and potential transparency will take the qualities of what people are seeing in social media several powers higher,” he predicts, “and we will increasingly be making judgments based more on behavior than self-presentation.”

The prediction may seem dystopian, but it’s simply an evolution of our current digital existence. And as Wing points out, the bigger picture for the digital revolution will see emerging markets participating in the global arena. The two to three billion people who are now digitally connected is indicative of the fact that we’ve moved from a fat-tail world to a long-tail world.

In other words, the evolution of CSR via shared value is more than inevitable—it’s almost passé. “CSR is a function of a previous paradigm,” notes Wing. “In this context, there’s no sensible way you can talk about . . . the distinction between pure wealth creation and pure philanthropy.”

Accountability-Based Influence as the CSR Metric for Individuals

While a person’s actions can be perceived in a myriad of ways, various metrics from multiple sources aggregate that
person’s digital persona. The projects described above provide shared value for individuals and the world around them as participants increase their accountability-based influence. By encouraging the notion of ABI as a metric, people will increase their positive actions.

The moral imperative to do good has been directed to-ward corporations. Why not adopt their evolved idea of shared value and change the world, for good?
³

From Takers to Givers

Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success
provides an intriguing example of how the idea of shared value applies to interpersonal relationships. The book was written by Adam Grant, the youngest tenured professor at Wharton University, who describes how in professional interactions most people operate as either takers, matchers, or givers. Takers brazenly seek their own gain, while givers sacrifice their needs, many times to their own professional detriment. The majority of employees are matchers, people who feel it’s important to maintain an equilibrium with colleagues in terms of social capital.

I interviewed Grant to discuss how his work reflected a shared-value mind-set. He pointed out that “productivity and profitability don’t have to come at the expense of supporting other people. You can succeed in ways that lift people up as opposed to cutting them down.”
⁴
I asked him to elaborate on this idea, having succumbed to my giver personality where others have taken advantage of my nature at work.

People think being helpful and being generous means never advocating for your own interests. Givers often will sacrifice all of their time for others, making sure they’re always available. It’s obvious that this type of behavior pushed to
the extreme isn’t sustainable. You can’t succeed if you never advocate for your own interests. How to deal with this situation is to pick an interest that aligns with that of a colleague—then your time spent advocating on an issue helps advance your shared goals.
⁵

I also asked Grant about the future of Hacking H(app)iness at work. I wondered how digital tools and affective sensors would apply to the giver/taker/matcher model. In response to the idea that our meetings in the future may have digital facilitators that will indicate when someone has dominated a conversation, Grant noted that “in those situations a lot of people experience something social psychologist James Pennebaker calls ‘the Joy of Talking.’ Most of us find that communicating our thoughts to others is a purely enjoyable learning experience and it’s hard to give other people the floor.”

It can be difficult to realize when we’re being takers and dominating a conversation. Digital tools will be helpful reminders in the future to let others contribute to conversations where they might normally remain reticent. The unique ideas provided by people who normally remain silent will increase a company’s bottom line. Shared value for interpersonal relationships will create as much benefit as it does for a company’s physical supply chain.

The Balance of Well-Being

Intrinsic happiness isn’t based on a momentary increase of mood. It comes from spending time with family, or practicing a craft that takes time to develop, like learning an instrument. Shared value functions in a similar fashion. While short-term gains bring temporary satisfaction, they can’t sustain an organization over the long haul. Part of Hacking H(app)iness is understanding when established mind-sets aren’t working so you can begin benefiting from new ideas that will bring great profit to your life.

  12  

FROM CONSUMER TO CREATOR

Along with economists, politicians, business reporters, and advocacy groups, we habitually describe our fellow humans as
consumers
. Of course, that term makes sense when applied to people wolfing down food and drink, but lately it has been extended to virtually every area of our lives . . . Until recently, just about everyone accepted this insidious new moniker, perhaps not even noticing when the term
consumer
began to push aside references to ourselves as
citizens
or simply
men and women
.
¹

ANDREW BENETT

Y
OU’RE A CONSUMER.
You, the reader. I’ve worked hard to establish a relationship with you, quoting smart people and pouring my heart out in this book. I’ve tried to point out that your actions, your words, and your essence are reflected in a digital context that will define you like never before in the future.

But fuck it. You’re a consumer, I’m a consumer, we’re all just consumers. That word is a lot easier to deal with than all this technology bullshit. I’m not even a real futurist. I talk about stuff that already exists and project a few years in the future. So I’m a pres-entist, or a speculativist.

So let’s stick with words and ideas we’ve become used to. I’m a consumer and so are you. Right? I don’t need to argue this point. We’re consumers.

For instance, we both know you’re only invested in this book
until something new comes along you want to consume. That probably happens every five seconds or so. And I’m only interested in you long enough to buy my book. Right? If I have good quotes on the jacket liner, a sexy title, and some pithy language, maybe I get lucky and you choose to consume my bit of philosophy versus buying four lattes. That’s the logic of consuming, right? Comparison and choice with an onus to purchase. A
mandate
.

Yes, let’s be clear: The word
consumer
comes with a mandate. You buy something. It’s not a choice. Don’t say the word ever again and think it’s innocuous. Understand its ramifications, its deeper meanings. And realize it’s being used to
define
you. The fact that you’re a man, woman, old, young, live in Seattle versus Oslo, worship in a church or temple—those facts are secondary. First—
first
—you’re defined as a consumer.

Consume.

Put the word in your mouth and say it slowly. It starts with a hard
C
sound, which gives it verbal power from the get-go. Then the combined
N
and
M
sounds add a lascivious undertone, an almost sexual allure that says, “You’re worth this.” And although it’s not pronounced, the word
me
makes up the end of the word.

Say the word out loud now. Say it to your son or daughter. Look at your mom, point your finger, and say, “You’re a consumer.” At Starbucks with a friend, point at their coffee and say, “What did you choose to consume? Did you want to consume some more with me? Maybe next week we can come back here and do some consuming together.”

Go ahead and say I’m overreacting. “It’s just a term applied to people when speaking in the context of what we buy,” you say. You think? Or do you think the term has shaped
why
we buy in the first place?

Of course it has. In its modern context, “consumer” is a core economic term. Someone produces something, and you consume it. This relationship implies that we’re reliant on someone else to
define us. Apparently we can’t execute a core part of who we are until we’re given the chance to
consume
something somebody else has
produced
.

Just reflect on the word for a minute. That’s all I’m asking. Put the word
consumer
in your brain, take a deep breath, and let it sit there for a while. Now pretend you’re looking in a mirror. How does the word
consumer
fit in that scenario? Is that the word that comes to mind when you look in your own eyes and ask, “Who am I?”

Words have power. They represent measures that have been defined by others. Using a word leads to implied acceptance of the word, which leads to forgetting how the word originated in the first place.