About this 5-Man-club. I have serious split personality issue here. I am not ambigious, i am not on fence, nothing vague about it - i am pro both sides simultaneously. I think the 5 Men in the club are probably best 5 Men i could have picked myself. Maybe i would have selected 1 or 2 other Men but just because there are several other worthy candidates, not that there is anything wrong with them. They all have proven their understanding of innovation, vision and foresight with successful startups and investments. Nothing speaks as loudly as results.
And i firmly agree that this committe is wrong. Not only because there are no women (BTW i believe women who we are thinking about as possible members there, would faltly refuse if anyone would offer them the position because of gender) but I think if anything, this committee is perhaps too predictable and too homogenious. Its Createst Hits of our ecosystem here. But createst hits are usually already heard thousands of times, there is no surprise any more. I dont know if it is possible for 5 very innovative persons to be homogenious but i am not sure how far out of the box they can think before their experiences born of their own successes start shaping their thoughts.
So how to fix it? Replace whole bunch? But its like saying that "you are not good enough any more". And this is wrong, because these guys have still lot to give. Switch around few names? But who? And as there are then only couple available spots, should we go with gender quota to make sure we are not back in same place after change? Just adding more people risks making this committee non-functional. We all know that from some level, in too big groups some people feel that they dont get enough attention and lose interest at all - and we dont need that.
So what about - lets make 2 committees - one of usual suspects and one of "other people". Lets make essay competition and select some pupil/student with wildly imaginative mind. Tech visionary, sociology PhD, ex politician without party loyalty strangling him/her, backpacker fresh back from traveling the globe - whatever the types are, they have to add new angle to the group. And then lets ask both groups to work for set period of time and ask them to introduce their ideas. I would be very interested to see what comes out from there.
The official approach seems to be: the committee will have more members to bring diversity... and then we are falling into the hole you mention -- it might well make it non-functional.
And we have not touched on the idea that committees, in general, are created to bury things rather than to create something new (see Yes, Minister).
About this 5-Man-club. I have serious split personality issue here. I am not ambigious, i am not on fence, nothing vague about it - i am pro both sides simultaneously. I think the 5 Men in the club are probably best 5 Men i could have picked myself. Maybe i would have selected 1 or 2 other Men but just because there are several other worthy candidates, not that there is anything wrong with them. They all have proven their understanding of innovation, vision and foresight with successful startups and investments. Nothing speaks as loudly as results.
And i firmly agree that this committe is wrong. Not only because there are no women (BTW i believe women who we are thinking about as possible members there, would faltly refuse if anyone would offer them the position because of gender) but I think if anything, this committee is perhaps too predictable and too homogenious. Its Createst Hits of our ecosystem here. But createst hits are usually already heard thousands of times, there is no surprise any more. I dont know if it is possible for 5 very innovative persons to be homogenious but i am not sure how far out of the box they can think before their experiences born of their own successes start shaping their thoughts.
So how to fix it? Replace whole bunch? But its like saying that "you are not good enough any more". And this is wrong, because these guys have still lot to give. Switch around few names? But who? And as there are then only couple available spots, should we go with gender quota to make sure we are not back in same place after change? Just adding more people risks making this committee non-functional. We all know that from some level, in too big groups some people feel that they dont get enough attention and lose interest at all - and we dont need that.
So what about - lets make 2 committees - one of usual suspects and one of "other people". Lets make essay competition and select some pupil/student with wildly imaginative mind. Tech visionary, sociology PhD, ex politician without party loyalty strangling him/her, backpacker fresh back from traveling the globe - whatever the types are, they have to add new angle to the group. And then lets ask both groups to work for set period of time and ask them to introduce their ideas. I would be very interested to see what comes out from there.
The official approach seems to be: the committee will have more members to bring diversity... and then we are falling into the hole you mention -- it might well make it non-functional.
And we have not touched on the idea that committees, in general, are created to bury things rather than to create something new (see Yes, Minister).