Regina Saphier: Futuristically Speaking

Regina Saphier: Futuristically Speaking

From robot-like human workers to human-like working robots…

I want my readers to know that my support for an Unconditional Basic Income does not come without a million questions regarding our human future. So, below, partly in response to a thoughtful comment that I received via WordPress upon publishing my Unconditional Basic Income post, I crafted this post here, contemplating our near and our distant futures, virtual currencies and the ever more obvious obsoleteness of human work as we know it. In this quick essay I am going to move back-and-forth between our near and our distant futures, and will be listing the related questions and issues. Nothing is black and white in that future.

Your (the commenter’s) points are perfectly valid. We have to keep thinking about how the UBI (the Unconditional Basic Income) could work in different countries and what the related issues are, including (digital) currencies. However, let’s state that we are talking about the basics and dignity. Scarcity (or rarity as you put it) won’t be an issue when it comes to basics when technologies (robots, nanotechnology, biotechnology, machines and algorithms in general) permit humanity to produce those basics for everyone alive virtually for free, and with minimal human input.

What is hard to answer is this: When most people are no longer needed in the long run to work, what is going to motivate most people to make an effort for anything, to become anything, or to do anything? Because today in developed countries approximately 40% of people work for money (are employed), the rest either are unemployed, married or are children (these people are dependent), or used to work for money (used to be employed or used to be married to someone who used to work) and are now getting a pension. For me it is not even the feasibility of the UBI… and not even people’s abilities that brings up question marks.

Am I naive?

The other day I have been watching a film and there were young and old people playing bingo during a church community event in the US… And I stopped to ask: Is this the future of most people with no intellectual challenges and a basic income? Am I naive to think that most people could enjoy intellectual challenges? To me it is natural to ask questions and come up with possible answers or to tell stories… I even believe that a MOOC based high quality mass education online will make more people creative and smart, and that will lead to better answers and better solutions. I believe that everyone who is cognitively appropriately functional (believe it or not: the majority of humanity) is able to learn to read and write and engage in intellectually and artistically productive activities and learning. People are not born stupid. People are kept in the dark by lack of education or by bad education. This will gradually change as quality education will be available to everyone for free. It is already happening. The best example is Coursera.

Are consumers contributing anything?

But what about those who don’t want to do anything? Or what about those who are smart, not necessarily artistic or expressive but unnecessary as workers in the economic cycle in the future? Is their only contribution being a consumer? Is that a contribution? If VAT is used as the source of UBI in that case even that is a possibility. There are people like this even today. These people spend other people’s money. But what about people like this by the billions? This is the very distant future, not our future. Yet we should keep thinking about this. What happens to these people? You mentioned acting in good faith… Are these people even capable of acting in good faith or are these individuals only mindless spenders? In that yet to be built future what does it mean to act in good faith? There are many questions to be asked and to be answered.

A new kind of economics

Futuristically speaking, in the near future, possibly in our personal future, when (and where) there is no shortage of basic goods that are necessary for a good life, and when the sharing economy is generally accepted, traditional currency has less value and exchange of skills, knowledge and creative abilities might become more interesting and a digital, virtual currency is perfect for measuring that exchange. I believe that bitcoin is interesting beyond its simple monetary features… it is interesting because it is able to directly encapsulate your intellectual performance into the virtual shape of a digital currency. Add UBI to this mix in digital currency and you have the basic components of a new kind of economics.

The Missing Temple of Human Dignity

Social media presence, our peer reviewed work, our online education, our influence on others, our good standing in the virtual public space will be a major part of our valuation in the future. Imagine if I could promote my blog with my digital UBI and my readers could click to send me extra bitcoins or some other virtual currency that could help me pay for my food, my electricity, my travels… Peer content rewarded directly by peer consumers of my intellectual input. No paypal, no bank transfer, just direct virtual reward for valued efforts. A digital barter. It only leaves the virtual space in the form of me being able to switch on the light and my laptop… or I could have a wish list online and people could purchase necessities in exchange for my intellectual input. I am posting quality blogs, readers learn, and people can send me “bits” of a new plant… “bits” of a pillow… a coupon for shoes… pay a portion of my electricity bill along with many other readers… things that I listed as needed. This is global micro crowdfunding, if you like. And everyone is fine. Unconditional Basic Dignity… as you put it… I believe in that too. It should be part of the basic community “hygiene”. I don’t need money, I need to turn my intellectual input into goods and services to live with dignity. I believe today the financial system and the religious establishment are the temples of money, and there is no temple of human dignity.

While people keep criticizing an Unconditional Basic Income as the perceived “lazy maker” of this century, there are others who find it bizarre that free work effort is taken for granted. I find the acceptance of free work without any return outrageous when someone does not have the financial basics to be able to work without financial compensation. I stopped my TED volunteer activities because I felt I was giving more to this small country that speaks Hungarian than I was gaining with my quality work within this society… the process made me feel used after a while, so I stopped (and also because of the grotesque decisions made by an overpaid TED employee a few years ago).

Asking people to work for free is exploitation when people have no income

Recently I outlined an idea for TED for example in my “Weapons of Mass Construction” blog note to make it possible for TED Open Translation Project volunteers (translators and reviewers) to earn money for their translations when they need income (because many do need and don’t have income). There are people who can afford to donate money and to donate work efforts to TED, but others “donate” work efforts while jobless and without independent income. And in some countries there is no limit to free work that people expect you to do. Samasource helps multinationals to “donate paid work” to poor countries! TED could also be a channel of “paid work donation”. It is unfair in my opinion that people work for TED for free while having no independent income of their own. It is exploitation in a way. Not the same when someone has an income or an estate, lives well and works for free as a hobby. Some people translate TED talks because their abilities are not used by their own communities and these people still want to remain intellectually active, want to learn and improve. These are often highly capable, diligent and jobless people. Their joblessness is a structural problem of the job markets, and has nothing to do with personal ability or inability to work. (Soon by the way there will no longer be a need for human translation… note: speech transcription can now be done by computers with very little human intervention…) There is volunteer inequality in this process that nobody appears to address. If all people had an Unconditional Basic Income, even this volunteer inequality would not exist.

Many people sadly assume that if you work you earn an income and that this is the only way and that it is always true. Less people are able to imagine that if you have an income then you will work on things that matter based on your initiative and your diligence (based on inner motivation). We are up against the limitations of human imagination and experiences, NOT against economics. It is not economics that defines us. We are the ones creating and defining economics with our collective imagination.

By 2050 only less than 10% of the human translators will be necessary

Again, the need for volunteer translators and paid translators might not exist in ten years at all… Let’s say that compared to 1950, in 2050 only less than 10% of the human translators will be necessary, but only to review machine transcripts and translations. What goals can you give people when intellectual challenges like a translation or article writing will be gone and most translator activities will be gone too, along with their income… Let’s say that everyone would have an independent income (UBI) and could decide what to do. But what do you do, when your abilities are no longer needed to sustain you, your loved ones, your community, production and in an extreme case: human culture? So, what I am saying is that not only will you not need to work for money, but most of us won’t be needed for work to sustain humanity. Over 90% of human beings might be without a paid job by 2050. It is a possibility. So, what will we be doing with billions of Coursera and MOOC educated citizens with no jobs? And there will be new technologies for high quality mass education by that date… and those technologies will require less and less human input.

Back to the near future

If our social media presence would carry our social and intellectual value as well, we could benefit from virtual currencies on top of our UBI via peer reward for our community efforts in the virtual space and in the so called “real world” too. I am fine with that. But what is your goal to realize during your lifetime if you no longer have to work for money… and if you no longer have to go to an office where other people work too? You won’t find any job advertisements connected to an income… in a possible future. How will you be part of a community? Remember, in the past we used to work on land, on farms, only later did people end up in factories… and now we envision a future without a central workplace. I can handle my freedom… How about you? Is it possible that less than 10% of humanity is enough to create the conditions of full social wellbeing? Do you start focusing on your family? Bringing up happy children? But for what? To make them unemployed smart people who paint marvelously and write brilliantly in a world where machines are able to paint and write just as well? Or could it be that losing interest in our lives on Earth is the natural trigger for a new goal…? Could it be that it is how people start feeling motivated to leave this planet for ever and populate other planets? Could this be the natural process if we manage to migrate before destroying ourselves on this planet? I hope that we don’t end up in an Idiocracy… just because we don’t need to face the challenges of sustaining human life and culture as we used to. I want to believe in an optimum case scenario at least in the near future. Remember: We make any of those futures and we must adapt! Those better be humanistic and well planned futures.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Regina Saphier: Unconditional Basic Income

I am connecting imaginary and virtual “boxes” in my subconscious and I am adding my cognitive capacity, experience and knowledge. That mix is intuition in my opinion. I am not “thinking outside the box”, I am “working with a complex and flexible matrix of virtual boxes or sets”. This is “Regina’s 4X Method”. ūüėČ Yes, I just made this up, but it is true. (Regina Saphier: My 4X Method)
Regina SAPHIER: Unconditional Basic Income (exclusive infographic by K√°roly Ferk√≥ R√ďZSA)

Regina SAPHIER: Unconditional Basic Income (exclusive infographic by K√°roly Ferk√≥ R√ďZSA)

Regina Saphier: Unconditional Basic Income
Please, give one answer before you read my UBI blog post:

Most people think that income should be work based. At the same time most people don’t feel annoyed by most work being done for free? In fact the majority of work is voluntary and unpaid. Most income today is NOT work based, rather it is transferred income (eg.: redistributed tax money or family support). I believe it is a huge mistake to assume that income should be directly work related in developed countries. By redistributing the available funds (parts of the national budget), we could provide people with an Unconditional Basic Income or UBI if we created a smart plan in Hungary. Our Gross National Income (GNI) per capita per year is only around 9000 Euros, on the border line between developing and developed countries. (I feel that GNI is highly relevant here, this is why I am introducing this term in my essay.) That means we can work with 750 Euros per month per capita (9000 Euros divided by 12 months), and we should not give more to one person. However, anything below 500 Euros would not be a Basic Income that permits people to aim to join the middle class. Keep that in mind. And don’t worry, most people would still work, because people usually want more, it is human nature. So, we would not run out of consumers paying VAT, we would still have entrepreneurs building companies and employing people who when earning more (beyond the UBI) would also spend more and pay taxes. The money cycle would be faster and not slower, because people could try new things, and more citizens would start small businesses. In turn our per capita GNI would increase, and the UBI could be gradually increased.

Gross National Income World Bank

Gross National Income (GNI) in US dollars per capita per year (source: World Bank)

Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) was mentioned during the last election in Hungary (“Felt√©tel N√©lk√ľli Alapj√∂vedelem”) and many people assumed that it was a new thing. No it is not a new idea, and no it was not invented in Hungary. I have been preparing a blog post about UBI for a while (meaning I let my subconscious work on it on its own), long before it was used in the election (by the way Thomas Paine proposed it first, over 200 years ago in the US), and now it is time for me to publish my random musings regarding UBI. I am a strong supporter of UBI, by the way. The key idea of UBI is that everyone, from small baby to old lady would get UBI even when not working, and work permits people to earn beyond the UBI. Here is what I think (I am trying to be clear to everyone so I am working with examples to explain how I see the idea).

The End of Tenure¬†“Paralysis”: Extended, More Efficient Intellectual Competition

Imagine the US where tenure is a university professor’s dream. You get tenure and you are set for life. Now compared to the millions studying via Coursera globally for free, there are only a handful of tenured professors. When you have tenure, you can theoretically do “whatever” you want as long as your work fits the academic framework and criteria, so you are intellectually free to create, nobody can kick you out. This unfortunately often leads to loss of creativity, because you have to compete less. When you review negative arguments against Unconditional Basic Income, it is often stated by naysayers that giving everyone a basic living allowance for a dignified life without having to work would make them universally lazy. Others say that UBI would make us all more creative. Now the fact is that some tenured professors become prolific researchers, writers and teachers. Others however get lazy. Let’s see the psychology of this problem. The first type who remains diligent has inner motivation and gets into flow via intellectual accomplishments. For that person work is fun, a source of mental wellbeing. The safety of tenure makes them even more creative. Those people who get lazy after becoming tenured probably never had inner motivation, external incentives were pushing them toward tenure, like family expectations, peer competition, fame, or prestige… These people stop producing quality, original work when tenure “hits” them, because their work was not fulfilling emotionally. This does not mean that these people are inherently unable to enjoy work, it only means that they are doing the wrong kind of work (often for the wrong kind of reason).

What is the major difference between tenured professors and people getting Unconditional Basic Income?

The competition does not go away when you get UBI! Let’s imagine why this would result in revolution even in Academia… We live in the age of citizen science. You can discover galaxies from your couch online while on UBI. You can publish in open source online journals. You can also study astronomy for free via Coursera. Now you see if you discover 365 new galaxies during your “innerly motivated, constantly learning, self starter” lifetime as a citizen scientist while living on UBI and a tenured professor only discovers 36.5 galaxies during his or her lifetime, that gets noticed after a while on a high level. So, UBI would bring back competition even in the tenured professor’s life when his or her motivational source is external or these people would be able to change careers by requesting UBI and leaving their unfulfilling academic jobs. Right now many tenured professors feel that they invested so much time and effort into their tenure that they are unable to quit. UBI would give them the freedom to try something else. This would be good for everyone involved due to completely flexible professional mobility.

The Immigrant in New York, The Intellectual in Budapest

An immigrant in New York often has no choices. He or she emigrated from his or her country because in the country of origin there were no opportunities and the atmosphere was suffocating. People who need to integrate into a new culture most of the time have no choices, must do anything that looks doable for money. Not ideal. A person who does not emigrate from the same country and lives in internal exile has enormous financial difficulties while attempting to produce intellectual work on a global level. What if both had Unconditional Basic Income? None of these diligent and enterprising people would have to endure major humiliation, stress and could have choices and options. Imagine the amazing creativity that would follow! (Again, if you wish to become rich, you would still have to work.)

Many would not have to emigrate in the first place and when not emigrating these people could keep focusing on dignified intellectual and social activities. Would not have to hide in their own homes because of the crippling financial vacuum. It is draining when people keep asking what you do, and how you earn money… This is what defines you: your income generating work and your income itself. Unfortunately, not your knowledge, not your humanity, not what you can do, not what you are able to create. If you have fantastic education and no job, you are nobody. If you have a job, but no work based income, you are again nobody. If you have a job and income, but no title and status, you are nobody, no matter how smart, intelligent and productive you are in some other way. This is a terrible mentality. People will judge you, and not know that two third of work in societies is unpaid, and the majority of people don’t live on directly work related income, rather receive transfer income from the state or their own families.

People Have Different Needs

Some argue, that people have different needs and abilities. I agree. Others say let’s leave everyone alone the very same way instead of supporting most people the same way, because they believe in the free market that governs itself. I believe that free markets see profits only. But who is focusing on the social elements, on well being, on justice? In my opinion the Earth belongs to all of us, and the results of our efforts should not end up in a select few people’s bank accounts. Redistribution is the only morally acceptable choice and it must be expected of the super rich for the health of all communities.

People do have different needs, but people also have different levels of network complexity around them, different cognitive abilities, different cultures, different levels of health, different family and educational backgrounds, different creative abilities and so on. Leaving people alone in a market economy disregards the importance and impact of where the individual is within the local and the global social network. Different emotional, cognitive, social, financial needs and levels are part of the issue. One writer made fun of the new Maslow pyramid, where wifi is the most fundamental need. Of course food, water, shelter and safety are most important. But what if I told you that you can not provide these to millions of people without digital access to digital global microwork on an individual level? See? I hate to witness when white academic males argue from their limited and well served point of view (tenured thinking with no tenure in Hungary). Your reality is not my reality. I keep improving and writing even without a penny of employment related income. To me this is normal. I wish from time to time that I had UBI, because I could have more options with my creativity. If you are against UBI, you wish I did not have options. I wish you too had the option to move on from your isolated academic world for example … UBI would be marvelously useful for people with bubble thinking too.

Homelessness and UBI

Homeless people could rent a room and could purchase food and basic services… No more homelessness, no more begging, no more slave like conditions, no more public health crisis from this source. I think this speaks for itself.

The Economy

The problem is: Hungary does not have the economy, the oil, the service or IT industry that could possibly support an optimal basic income to every citizen to lift them up into the middle class. We would not be able to provide 300 000 Ft for every citizen every month (approximately 1000 Euros when I publish this blog post). It is also true that Hungary is not a huge country, and does not have over 300 million citizens creating a strong market economy like the US, neither are we wealthy Switzerland with a high-tech economy and a small population of 8 million. No. We are a small market with a language nobody else speaks on Earth, we are poor in EU terms, we have no oil or gas like Norway (the little gas we have should stay where it is to protect the environment), and there are 10 million citizens (of which approximately 500 000 expats live abroad in more developed countries).

Thomas Paine (by Laurent Dabos)

Getting Creative with UBI

Therefore I believe that the solution should be planned on an EU level, in combination with many other solutions (free online education via Coursera, global online digital work and the like). I would argue that we need an “opt in” Unconditional Basic Income in Hungary and I would combine it with tax free startup opportunities and tax free online global digital work opportunities. I would add Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) to the mix for free quality higher education. If you can make a living online you might not opt into the UBI program or you might transfer your UBI to someone else. If you are able to start a global business you would only take UBI as long as you don’t generate a good income. Make UBI need based, voluntary and bureaucracy free. I mean, if I had to fill in a form online stating my name, gender, age, location, education level, and volunteer activities, I could get an algorithm tell me how much UBI I could get and the software could ask me: Do you feel the personal need at this time to opt into the UBI program? And if I hit YES, I would start getting the monthly UBI, no other questions asked. However when I have a well paying job, I personally would like to have the independent option to either stop the payment on my own, or transfer my portion to a given person I wish to support. Alternatively unclaimed UBI could accumulate for each person as a saving, and it could be inherited from family members, or it could be invested safely. Richer people could divert payment based on perceived need to others. However, I would limit that personal transfer on both sides. I could only transfer my portion to 10 other people, and I could only receive transfer from only 10 people (this could help start a high profile NGO with other people, by redistributing UBI). Non-profits could also get UBI transfer payments from individuals to support the staffing of a worthy NGO.

Looking at the UBI from an EU Point of View

From an EU point of view, spending money on people’s UBI and supporting online global work and startups makes more sense than pumping senselessly spent EU development money into a country of paralyzed citizens (paralyzed by the stress of systems change, corruption, joblessness, and a hopeless “elite”). If richer countries don’t want the economic crisis fuelled nationalism to spread from poor EU countries, an EU level UBI would be enormously liberating and healing. I am telling you, Hungary and its citizens were punished on three different occasions during the last 70 years: after WW II, during communism, and recently during the misguided system change (that did not really change the system).

Capitalism only works on a large market among ideal circumstances. So, either be a large country, or be part of a large market (like the EU). Small markets isolated by language barriers, with limited exportable goods and services don’t work well unless there is a special income source, like oil. Even in rich Scandinavia the film industry only works by combining the resources and the audiences of each Scandinavian country. Hungary does not have that kind of cooperation with its neighboring countries because culturally these countries don’t identify with one another and their languages are very different. Teaching people English and teaching them how to make money globally makes more sense than forcing them to cooperate with geographical neighbors.

Should we be Optimistic about UBI?

There is a book on optimism bias (look up the TED talk if you have no time for the book). People tend to be unrealistically optimistic about personal risks or success. If people had realistic assessments of their real outcomes, most would never start families or businesses. They tend to see large scale, long term changes in darker color (I think). This is why people are afraid of social changes and innovation, like UBI. I am optimistic when I look at the digital opportunities that this new era brings on a large scale.

It was possible to provide hundreds of millions of people globally with many free digital services in such a short time… within 10-15 years… (like Google, Gmail, G+, Facebook, LinkedIn, Coursera, edX, TED and so on). Therefore it must be possible to provide livelihood, housing, clothing, education, even work, etc… When community resources are available, access to these services does not depend on your employment, nor on your personal income. These community resources are Unconditional Basic Services if you like. These services are financed the same way as UBI should be financed. I think we are already in the process. Leila’s Samasource is an excellent example of the economic spillover impact of digital businesses. Samasource provides digital microwork to people in Africa and the US.

So, would you prefer to live in a Kibbutz? Or would you prefer to get Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) and live anywhere you like? Anywhere… and I mean wherever you like… That might be possible in the very distant future, but not today, at least not in Hungary. Let’s take UBI to the global level in the distant future. Especially interesting now that we know: Hungarian expats are sending home hundreds of millions of USD per year… I believe that UBI would open up new opportunities for people who are doing meaningless jobs to sustain themselves day in and day out. You might find that it would slow migration. Existential fear or lack of opportunities are very limiting, and people migrate to overcome those limitations. We need more social mobility locally and probably less economic migration. People could learn online, draw, sing, teach, dance, write, start small business, work online, cooperate with others, build community resources, volunteer, use open source templates and systems, and stop worrying about sustaining their families and having to save them from poverty (because even your kids and your partner would get UBI). People could start using indiegogo, kickstarter, Patreon, Elance, oDesk, Amazon and similar services to earn money.

There is this educational story… the boss is asking: Ok, I should train these people, but what if someone is leaving after I invest in his or her development? Can I afford that? And his advisor says: Can you afford not to train people? Obviously, if you want a better outcome, you need to train your people, you must invest in people.

The same is true for UBI in my humble opinion. Would you rather have the lazy ones work for you for your money directly, with no results, or would you prefer to have them stay at home but not be without any income? You could hire those who are willing to work in spite of their UBI. In my opinion more people could figure out their own strengths and place in the world, and become more productive and satisfied. And add the aforementioned optimism bias. Imagine: no worries, you have UBI, more freedom, social mobility, opportunity to grow and optimism, while you can afford the internet or to travel to the big city to find a job (and have the money to travel home when there is no job for you). This plan looks good to me. Perhaps even the one who looked really lazy in one position could learn freely and be brilliant at something else, somewhere else.

So, how much?

I strongly disagree with the 50 000 Ft UBI level that one political party proposed in Hungary. 50 000 might be enough for an uneducated older person (who never travels) in a village with a small garden where produce is available at home and where a well is used to water vegetables and fruits, and where people are bartering goods and services, but this is subsistence level. Unless you move city dwelling intellectuals to villages, you have to calculate with at least 150 000 Fts (approximately 500 Euros today) for the highly educated, because rent is high, utilities and food cost a lot in the capital (where most of them live). You also want that intellectual to go out and see people if possible. If you can not afford to sit in a tea house with people, to go see a theater play, or occasionally eat out, you become completely isolated.

National and EU based Unconditional Basic Income (NUBI and UBIE)

Since VAT would be an ideal source of UBI, we need people to go out and spend, as well as we need people to pay UBI taxes when they have excess income beyond the UBI. Therefore differentiation is critical in a poor country, where education levels and living expenses are very different within the population, and where the state budget is very limited. Plus, I believe it is morally wrong to give UBI to the super rich unless someone for some reason suddenly does not have any income. For example due to family bankruptcy… it is possible to have a large estate and suddenly be without any cash after a major illness (or illnesses) in the family for example… if your estate does not sell and you have no cash flow and no savings, you are in huge trouble… so you should get UBI. However, if someone has 1 billion in the bank, why give them 150 000 Fts per months? No need for that.

On average I would say 100 000 Ft UBI should be spent on one adult. This is doable even within the Hungarian economy. What is not doable is an EU living standard. For that there should be an EU UBI Extension Fund on an EU level for each country introducing the National UBI (or NUBI). Remember the GNI? The Gross National Income per capita per year is limiting the possibilities in Hungary below 750 Euros per month in my opinion… and I also wrote that UBI should be above 500 Euros to support the entry into the middle class.¬†So, let’s say, you get exactly 150 000 Fts NUBI (from your country) and another 150 000 Fts of UBIE (from the EU), if you are a highly educated middle aged person who does a lot of volunteer work in the community. You can also work for money and earn even more, or you can spend all your time volunteering, studying, or you can write, teach, whatever you like.

Update (September 08. 2016):

On the first link there is a UBI chart and in the article there is a link to an interactive UBI calculator chart (the second link below) that was published in 2016.

Basic income calculator shows policy’s feasibility

The original and interactive The Economist chart (with the full list of countries analysed):

Universal basic income in the OECD

The interactive calculator chart (originally created and published by The Economist Data Team) calculates with a 4 500 USD UBI per year for each Hungarian citizen at least and it also makes state budget predictions for the UBI at higher amounts. This UBI range supports my calculations in my 2014 UBI blog, the one that you are reading right now (and does not support the much lower Hungarian civic suggestions regarding the local UBI). 4 500 USD would be just a bit over 100 000 Ft per citizen per month today.


I believe that the UBI idea needs to be planned and introduced on an EU (UBIE) level while considering and incorporating the National UBI plans or programs. There is a UBIE initiative in the EU, but I don’t know the details of their proposal. It could even consolidate nationalism, via a narrative that aims to support people who wish to move back to their country of origin. Give them UBIE+NUBI (calculated based on citizenship and education levels) and those people will go home. It is even possible that people with high UBI (from richer countries with high NUBI) would migrate to low NUBI countries within the EU because their purchasing power would permit them a more fulfilling lifestyle there. This would stop emigration in poorer countries and would perhaps start a new kind of economic migration from west to east, plus add cultural development and understanding to the mix.

The UBI could be transferred anywhere within the EU, automatically. If you live in Paris, but you have a hungarian citizenship, you get your NUBI from Hungary in Paris, as well as your UBIE from the EU. If you are french and you live at Lake Balaton, you get your french NUBI in Hungary, as well as your UBIE from the EU. Both sums are adjusted to your citizenship and are extended with the UBIE from the EU. It might be interesting to give incentives for moving home to a less advantaged country, or for migrating from a more advantaged one to a less advantaged one. I would not permit the automatic, central, mass transfer of the UBIE beyond the EU, and I would also limit the central transfer of the NUBI to the specific country unless the EU citizen has an address in another EU country… but if you get it in Budapest and travel to Australia and spend it there, that is your call. The restriction really makes a difference because it’s ok if a few thousand spend it overseas, but it is not ok, if hundreds of thousands do that automatically. We want to finance wellbeing within the EU with our funds. (Of course all of this is just brainstorming and up for discussion.)

I know that pension funds are being drained by the ageing population, and middle aged people of today might not have any pension at all 20-30 years from now. However, when you have the choice of working meaningfully or getting your UBI no matter how old you are, no matter where you are in the EU, in a more productive and more relaxed society UBI would eliminate the pension tension too. Millions of people get stuck in positions because they fear to lose the job, and so lose the pension and the benefits. If you could forget about this fear, would you not start your own business or do freelance work even at 50? Of course you would. And how about free online learning? That is also possible. When you think of wealthy families you take it for granted that their offspring are rich too, because they are part of the family. When you think of UBI think of your country as an extended tribal family. If the “national tribal community” has the means, the only morally acceptable way to go is to redistribute the family wealth in a smart way. Even if yours is not the richest country, it is indeed located in the EU and has more economic power than most countries in Africa.

When I see the argument that people should not get UBI because it would mean nobody would do the horrible jobs… I get really angry… because this kind of thinking hides this kind of attitude: An elitist jerk is sitting in his comfortable chair and thinks, “lets keep people dependent and needy so that somebody would do the shitty jobs that …”… well, that the elitist jerk would never do even for a lot of money… This is the slave keeper attitude. Let’s keep them poor and uneducated… Horrible attitude, in my humble opinion! Here is the thing: let machines do those low level jobs. Let technology companies solve the problem of automatic waste collection (already possible) and selection for example. And let the poor learn and live with dignity (yes those people are able to learn and deserve dignity).

The Community is Supporting and Respecting You, and so In Return it is Only Natural to Support and Respect the Community

Giving people an Unconditional Basic Income does NOT take away their basic need for self worth, the motivation to serve or to lead, to create, to grow, or to go places! Crippling poverty, an economy waiting to be reinvented, a corrupt and superficial elite waiting to be replaced are the things that limit lives, NOT an Unconditional Basic Income! Create the conditions, the education, the culture for community service. Send the message that yes, now you do not have to struggle, but every job that is necessary (and that can not yet be done by technology alone) must be done by people and work it out. It is a matter of cooperation, communication, planning and a sense of community. The community is supporting and respecting you, and so in return it is only natural to support and respect the community.

UBI and Abuse Prevention

Before I close my UBI essay, here is a key idea that is very close to my heart. Children and abused women need independent income and savings and UBI would give them just that. In Hungary thousands of children are experiencing hunger. Others have to put up with abuse and have nowhere to go. Many children and women run away to escape family abuse only to find themselves prostituted because they have no income. UBI would eliminate a lot of suffering and dependency. And many abusive men might just feel less workplace and family pressure and many would never ever reach the point of losing it in the first place… if those men had UBI. The abuser is often the one being abused by someone else, for example by the employer. UBI based independence would bring the opposite of unhealthy dependency and laziness. It would lead to healthy independence, cooperation, actions, innovation and creativity.

Use this on Facebook to Demonstrate YOUR Support for UBI

Use this on Facebook to Demonstrate YOUR Support for UBI


Soon (and it is already happening) technology is going to replace so many jobs and produce so much profit that you won’t be able to afford not to give the jobless billions an Unconditional Basic Income to avoid major uprising. Machines, robots, computer algorithms will do more and more of the jobs, even the ones that were considered highly human, like writing (there are articles on the web right now that were written by an algorithm), driving (there are self driving cars being successfully tested on roads), teaching (one professor teaching over 100 000 people via Coursera globally is now a reality), caretaking (there are robots in Japan that lift people up from the floor), medical evaluation (there are algorithms being developed for this purpose), and things like that. Trust me, once even the male intellectual middle class starts to notice the end of work and work based income as we know it, UBI will become very popular. Because we need to survive on something, and we need to do something with our brains, while somehow being part of society. The process is not possible without labor and income innovation. Here is another blog post by me introducing Samasource and global microwork. And here is another post by me about online learning, MOOCs and Coursera.

If you think that having financial safety reduces creative urges, just ask well to do teenagers doing free online translations, or voluntarily participating in community efforts. Yes, true, there are lazy rich teens too, but the problem is never the fulfillment of their basic needs. Rather it is the lack of family and teacher attention, lack of culture and lack of healthy community (that destroys their motivation). When we start giving people UBI, we need to start community building and education for a healthier, more responsible society as well. We need new attitudes with the new opportunities. We need people to pay taxes, to learn and remain active.

Today there are already new attitudes, that created the sharing economy, good games, crowdfunding, Massive Open Online Courses for free on the Ivy League level globally, 3D printing, personal fabrication, automation, robotics, artificial intelligence, big data, social networks, social media, peer content, citizen science, online jobs… we are in the middle of social and economic change already. We need to research and plan how individual human existence can be continuously financed in this “future in the making” that we never experienced before as a species. The answer is Unconditional Basic Income. The “how” is country and budget dependent. The key question is not: Should we introduce it? The key questions are: How and when to introduce this new form of income? And of course if you want to earn more money, you can and should work beyond getting your Unconditional Basic Income. So, the motivation to get ahead is still there. Healthy competition is good for the economy. UBI is good for society. Income security is good for the individual, but we need to build Unconditional Basic Culture to provide people with meaning. If you don’t have to work, you can still live a meaningful life if you are able to set intelligent goals and reach them.¬†

Note: There is another poll below. Please, be so kind and answer my UBI related questions (this one is multiple choice and I want to see how readers think after having read my blog post). Thank you for reading and adding your opinion below.

Written by Regina Saphier

Related articles


Enhanced by Zemanta

Regina Saphier: Redefining Success and The Elite

Tom Perkins wrote something really misguided and misleading, used the wrong comparison between two totally unrelated historic/social events (racial genocide in Europe decades ago and anger against the rich, “the 1%” in the US today can not be compared) and his reputation was destroyed in his early 80s recently. He had to go on television and apologise, but even that appearance did not do much good.

Why is this interesting?

It is interesting, because one of the key investors of Coursera is Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Perkins was one of the original founders of this famous venture capital (VC) company. Coursera is the startup that provides high quality free university courses globally to anyone who likes to learn, and the social entrepreneurship company I have been blogging about from the early days. As I was listening to Perkins and reading the comments, I felt I had things to say in relation to the situation, so I developed my comments into a blog.

Demonizing any group is wrong (that is a social psychology issue), as is bragging about your super expensive watch while you are being questioned in front of millions of people by Emily Chang about your previous bad judgement that probably ruined your reputation at the end of your life (that could be a mental health issue if you are not really known as an idiot, but rather as a talented business man, even if obviously arrogant and living in a bubble… still, unusually reckless behavior could be Alzheimer’s over 80… things just become a bit confusing… you even pick the wrong words… if that is the case, we need to look at this differently…). Whatever the truth, Perkins displayed low levels of emotional maturity twice in a very short period of time. There must be some reason for that, but we just don’t know what it is…

Should KPCB drop the “P”?

So, apart from the possibility that this man is perhaps ill or immature at 80… should we from now on say that instead of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (or “KPCB”) it is rather “KCB” that gave millions of dollars in venture capital to Coursera to educate the “99%” of society for free (that includes the middle class and people living in poverty too), and not only in the US, but globally (even in developing countries)!? How in Tom Perkins’s mind is that a sign of problems at the VC firm he created in the past? In his anger that KPCB distanced itself from him, his controversial ideas and word choices, he referred to his own negative opinion regarding KPCB’s contemporary management during the interview. I would say, at least the Coursera investment was definitely a good decision.

I know there are many issues we could examine (internal issues at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, income inequality in the US, technology making people jobless all over the world, expensive housing, low quality of education, etc.), but to me Coursera is the shining example of financially smart and socially conscious decisions made by investors, mostly by people of the “1%”, providing high quality, free courses to anyone who is willing to learn. That is the best kind of business: everyone has a chance to win something! I believe we are going to see more and more such VC decisions especially as Coursera becomes more successful, not “only” in terms of attracting millions of students and millions of venture dollars, but also in terms of profitability. It is possible to make money and do good at the same time. The most successful and the most creative groups in society are those who make these ventures possible, be it the investors, the founders, their smart teams, and those people who embrace and utilize the services of such companies.

Still, joblessness, quality of life, and income inequality, even total lack of income, and so individual vulnerabilities have yet to be addressed on Earth. We need unconditional basic income, because people are being made jobless by technologies, and when you have a jobless and increasingly educated majority with no income and a rich minority facing each other, that can lead to terrible social tension. But it is also the increasing level of education that makes it possible for the educated middle class to use well structured arguments and intellect based advocacy instead of violence. We must create the solutions together.

Who knows, for many the Google Helpouts service could be a solution, a way of international job creation. For others it could be the vibrant startup culture all over the world. There are and will be many ideas and solutions, as more and more enlightened business people and venture capitalists will be looking for business solutions that are also good for societies (in their own best interest). Let’s keep an open mind and keep thinking about and working on these solutions. Let’s focus on the things that move us all to a higher (and optimally reachable) ground where people understand each other better. Some need to move financially, some intellectually, some emotionally, some morally…

There are people who think that nations were created by “the 100%”, others think it was all done by the “1%”. Both are wrong.

Perkins originally (and admittedly) does not come from “the 1%”, he worked his way into that heterogenous group. This can only happen if someone has an “appropriate” personality mix, often containing arrogance, egotism, lack of deep empathy for individuals, and the most financially successful are the charming sociopaths interested in money and things (not people, nor the community). These individuals are so interested in fitting in as rich, that they spend a life compensating and that impacts their fragile self image further. The unconscious goal in their minds (no matter what they say) is to insulate themselves from the old self and the origins of the old self, and the social strata that self comes from. (Note: Not all of them are like this, but most forget where they come from and fail to see that, due to changed reference points, like new friends with new values.)

As science, academia and education was optimized mostly for male Asperger’s (idea, data and systems oriented people), so was business optimized for male Sociopathology (money, dominance and material success oriented people), and sometimes vice versa. (Note: Asperger’s is a problematic term, covering a very diverse group of people who are not neurotypical. Some “Aspies” are people and feelings oriented, especially women Aspies. Approximately 25-30% of Aspies are female.) Just as an interesting side note, today I came up with the formula for the stereotypical scientist:¬†OCD¬†+ Aspergers + Very High Levels of Cognitive Intelligence + Preference for Rigid and Safe Academic Institutions + Lack of Social Skills (beyond academia) = Scientist.¬†I am talking about past norms and tendencies. Lately, I am noticing some changes. However, women are still less likely to make it in academia and in the business world. If you make it, you probably are part of the smaller female Aspie group with idea orientation (but you probably don’t know or don’t care). Until systems are “male optimized”, societies (including men and women) will suffer from the lack of female leadership.

Also, it is important to mention that “the 100%” is not 100% productive on an individual level. Some are phenomenally creative, but most people don’t produce anything and are bored out of their minds on their repetitive jobs, mostly “created” by the superficially money oriented sociopaths (and the conformists who follow them) who are often bored aboard their yachts. Creativity (my definition for this blog: originality that produces something fundamentally new and useful on a large scale) is unfortunately much less valued as you might like to think. Business and academia are more related to scale, money, low cost of labor and replicas, and less related to true creativity.

What might change the old school attitudes and structure is the global network of people on the Internet. Kickstarter, Indiegogo, LinkedIn, Google Helpouts, WordPress, Coursera, growing telecom networks, the startup and the open source culture, all these and more technologies and services will make it possible for almost 100% of societies to collaborate more and have more equal access to knowledge, networks, information, services, markets, funds and opportunities, be it academic or business related, or something else. It is also important to mention that social media and the availability and accessibility of telecommunications technologies make it possible for women to make a much more noticeable business and academic impact.

Self-made Men

Controversy can happen to anyone, it is the seriousness that matters. For example, even if today’s TED was recreated by the new management, it was still originally created by Mr. Wurman, who is also a newcomer among rich Americans (not that I am familiar with his exact financial situation but he lives well, even if not as rich as Perkins…), so it could be that he is part of the “5%” or the “10%”. Still, a true self-made man. Some people like him, some don’t. He is not a listening type on a personal level, but he is a listening type when it comes to ideas, even if his ADD prevents him from paying attention for long. His curious mind created the foundations of TED. I respect his initial input. He made the best move when he sold TED. His critical remarks of the contemporary TED Conferences a few years ago resulted in the breakdown of communications between him and the team. Still, today he is planning to attend TED conferences again. You can make communication related mistakes, it happens, and later you can aim to repair your relationships. Also, Richard remembers where he comes from. He in fact told me that he comes from a very poor background and he is a first generation degree holder. While he remained personally accessible, his money and networks created a kind of bubble around him. Again, this happens when your reference network changes. His most wonderful feature? His ongoing willingness to learn. He will be 79 during the spring of 2014.

Perkins has a much more serious problem. He offended people on an entirely different level and he lives in his own isolated world (he looks kind of unhappy). Still, don’t forget that KPCB would not be around without his skills, abilities, motivations, personality and personality disorders. I wish I could still respect his initial input… I know he is not involved with KPCB any more (this is not a recent development), but he used to be. I would not be surprised if the VC company dropped his name… but what happens if 10 years from now it turns out that Perkins did indeed have Alzheimer’s at the time of the controversy? During the interview with Emily Chang he did not appear to be consistent, his reactions were sometimes even childish. Is this his usual behavior? I don’t know. If it is, how was he able to become so successful? And if this is a successful man in America, what is wrong with the definition of success?

A new definition of the “elite” and “success” among the 1%

We need more “self-made” women to change the reference points of today’s leadership networks. While¬†I am likely to question the 50-50 gender composition in leadership in the short run, generally 20-40% appears possible to me in the long run, especially when quotas are used. ¬†Let us redefine the meaning of success together.

You can keep your ego, just do not let it harm others.¬†If you can not live without the word “elite“, I am telling you, only these people should be considered as members of the true elite (independent of their financial situation): working, learning, investing, doing business in order to make the world a better place for as many people as possible on your own level. This should also be the definition of success among the “1%”. You can call me an idealist all you want, because after all we need ideals and possibly constructive ones.



More blogs by Regina Saphier:


Saphier Regina: A NŇĎk meg a “Startup” √Āpol√°s MŇĪv√©szete

For English speakers I have a self made audio behind the English title here (38 mins 36 secs): Women and the Art of Startup Maintenance  This is my first podcast, so please be patient with me. If something is unclear, have a quick look at the Hungarian text for names, titles, images and links for example. I used the free resources of The Internet Archive in San Francisco, in the US to offer you an online streaming opportunity.

Saphier Regina: A NŇĎk meg a “Startup” √Āpol√°s MŇĪv√©szete


Magyar BillentyŇĪt Ragadtam¬†‚Üí¬†Az egyetlen ember, akinek k√©t Nobel-t adtak, k√©t k√ľl√∂n szakter√ľleten: Marie¬†‚Üí¬†N√©h√°ny Gondolat a Tesztoszteronr√≥l¬†‚Üí¬†A ‚ÄúGazella‚ÄĚ Program N√©gy Nyertese¬†(anyagi helyzet√ľk, honlapjaik, √©s a nŇĎk helyzete a c√©gek felsŇĎ vezetŇĎi r√©teg√©ben)¬†‚Üí Prezi, Szellemi TŇĎke, V√°ndorl√°s √©s Szexizmus¬†‚Üí¬†Daphne Startup-ja: Coursera¬†‚Üí¬†Sheryl √©s a MalŇĎr¬†‚Üí¬†Mire J√≥ a Szakemberek V√°ndorl√°sa?¬†‚Üí¬†P√©ter √©s a F√©rfi √Ėn√©rdek¬†‚Üí¬†Kigoly√≥zott NŇĎk¬†‚Üí¬†Vezet√©s, C√©gek, NŇĎk, Inkub√°torok √©s Gyors√≠t√≥k¬†‚Üí¬†Relev√°ns cikkek

Magyar BillentyŇĪt Ragadtam

√Čvek √≥ta nem √≠rtam magyarul blogot (a TED √©s Coursera blogjaimat rendszeresen angolul √≠rom, mert a c√©lk√∂z√∂ns√©gem glob√°lis), de most a t√©ma megk√∂veteli, hogy magyarul fogalmazzam meg a gondolataimat (j√≥ lenne, ha minden magyar tudna angolul, de sajnos nem ez a helyzet). Nagy cirkusz van a “Szil√≠cium V√∂lgyben”,¬†Vivek Wadhwa Silicon Valley’s Anti-Social Network”¬†c√≠mmel a Twitter CEO-j√°val folytatott nyilv√°nos online vit√°j√°r√≥l √≠rt. A l√©nyeg az, hogy az egyik f√©rfi (Vivek), azzal v√°dolja a m√°sik f√©rfit (Dick Costolo-t), hogy annak nem √©rdeke, hogy t√∂bb nŇĎ legyen “A V√∂lgy” c√©geinek felsŇĎ vezetŇĎi k√∂z√∂tt, √©s azt √°ll√≠tja, hogy ez t√°rsadalom-, piac √©s profit (teh√°t befektetŇĎ) ellenes hozz√°√°ll√°s. Igaza van, de √©n k√∂zben azt is l√°tom, hogy k√©t becsv√°gy√≥ pasi a nŇĎkrŇĎl vit√°zik, a nŇĎk feje felett, mik√∂zben val√≥j√°ban mindkettŇĎ azzal van elfoglalva, hogy nekik mindenk√©ppen j√≥ legyen. Vivek pl. el akarja adni a t√©m√°ba v√°g√≥ k√∂nyv√©t, vil√°gos, hogy nekimegy egy j√≥l l√°that√≥ CEO-nak, aki k√ľl√∂nben gyan√≠that√≥an val√≥ban egy h√≠m-soviniszta, elitista, “harvardista”, “v√∂lgyista”, feh√©r f√©rfi. Nagyot n√©zn√©nk, ha pl. indiai nŇĎ lenne, aki mondjuk nem a Harvardra j√°rt. M√©g nagyon sok dolga akad a kisebbs√©gek √©s a nŇĎk, illetve a nem pof√°tlan (√©rtsd, nem √∂nzŇĎ, nem erŇĎszakos, hanem empatikus, √∂nvizsg√°latra k√©pes) f√©rfiak √©rdekeit v√©dŇĎ, a t√°rsadalom sokf√©les√©g√©nek fontoss√°ga mellett √©rvelŇĎ csendes √©s hangos csoportoknak.

Az egyetlen ember, akinek k√©t Nobel-t adtak, k√©t k√ľl√∂n szakter√ľleten: Marie

Azoknak, akik szerint a nŇĎk m√°sodrendŇĪ emberek √©s csak arra j√≥k, hogy gyereket sz√ľljenek, itt egy kis info: A Nobel D√≠j-at eddig csak n√©gy embernek √≠t√©lt√©k meg k√©tszer, de k√∂z√∂tt√ľk is¬†csak egy ember volt, aki k√©t tudom√°nyter√ľleten is megkapta: egy nŇĎ!¬†P√°r √©ve olvastam¬†Maria Salomea SkŇāodowska-Curie¬†egyik √©letrajz√°t, amelyiket l√°nya, a 2007-ben, 102 √©ves kor√°ban elhunyt √ļjs√°g√≠r√≥ √©s zongoramŇĪv√©sz, √ąve Denise Curie Labouisse¬†√≠rt.

English: Marie Curie (born Maria Salomea SkŇāod...Az a r√©sz k√ľl√∂n√∂sen megmaradt bennem, hogy Marie reggel rendszeresen feltette fŇĎni a levest, √©s otthagyta a l√°ngon, elment otthonr√≥l, hogy a laborat√≥rium√°ban dolgozhasson a f√©rj√©vel… rem√©lte, hogy nem √©g le a h√°zuk, √©s lesz eb√©d. Pierre Curie, Marie f√©rje soha nem tett fel levest, nem sz√ľlt k√©t gyereket, √©s “csak” egy Nobelt kapott, mielŇĎtt egy lovaskocsi hal√°lra g√°zolta.¬†√Črdekes k√©rd√©s, hogy mi lett volna, ha nem Marie-nak (a szorgalmas, rendk√≠v√ľl tehets√©ges, √©s k√©ts√©gtelen√ľl mazochista lengyel bev√°ndorl√≥nak) kell feltennie a levest, √©s ha nem lett volna elv√°r√°s vagy t√°rsadalmi k√©nyszer, hogy feles√©g √©s anya legyen. Lehet, hogy h√°rom Nobel D√≠jat kapott volna? (Marie az elsŇĎ Nobelt m√©g f√©rj√©vel k√∂z√∂sen, de a m√°sodik Noble-t m√°r √©vekkel a f√©rje hal√°la ut√°n kapta, √∂n√°ll√≥an.) Mellesleg a m√°sik l√°nyuk, Ir√®ne Joliot-Curie is Nobel d√≠jas lett (a f√©rj√©vel k√∂z√∂sen). Persze a nŇĎknek nem a Nobel a c√©l. A nŇĎknek az a c√©l, hogy egyenrang√ļ emberi l√©nyekk√©nt kezelj√©k ŇĎket a f√©rfiak.

Néhány Gondolat a Tesztoszteronról

Hogy ne csak a levegŇĎbe besz√©lj√ľnk f√©rfiakr√≥l √©s nŇĎkrŇĎl, szerintem √©rdemes egy pillant√°st vetni az egyik legfontosabb hormonra, az egyik olyan t√©nyezŇĎre, ami nagyon is megk√ľl√∂nb√∂zteti a nŇĎket √©s a f√©rfiakat. Egy k√©rd√©s: Tudta-e az olvas√≥, hogy az agresszi√≥ √©s a¬†norm√°lis motiv√°ci√≥ (nem egyetlen, de az)¬†egyik legfontosabb alaphormonja a tesztoszteron? Ezt lehet, hogy tudta. Azt azonban kevesebben tudj√°k, hogy a v√©rben, teh√°t a sz√©rumban tal√°lhat√≥ norm√°l tesztoszteron intervallumok eset√©ben az “eg√©szs√©ges” nŇĎk √©s az “eg√©szs√©ges” f√©rfiak laborleletein nincs a k√©t “norm√°l” halmaznak metszete: a nŇĎkn√©l a norm√°l intervallum felsŇĎ (!) hat√°ra valahol 2 nmol/L alatt van (ez a nŇĎknek, a saj√°t komplex hormon√°lis profiljuk alapj√°n, m√°s egy√©b hormonokkal kar√∂ltve, el√©g a norm√°lis motiv√°ci√≥ f√∂nntart√°s√°hoz, de nem v√©letlen, hogy kev√©sb√© hajlamosak az agresszi√≥ra), m√≠g a f√©rfiak eset√©ben az als√≥ norm√°l √©rt√©k kb. 10 nmol/L felett kezdŇĎdik, √©s 30 nmol/L k√∂r√ľl van a f√©rfiak eg√©szs√©ges felsŇĎ hat√°r√©rt√©ke. Teh√°t az “elf√©rfiasod√≥” nŇĎk √©s az “elnŇĎiesedŇĎ” f√©rfiak valahol 2 nmol/L √©s 10 nmol/L k√∂z√∂tt szinte k√ľl√∂n gender, avagy t√°rsadalmi nemi halmazokat k√©peznek (√©s ŇĎk speci√°lis diszkriminat√≠v, korl√°tolt viselked√©sekkel tal√°lj√°k magukat szemben). √Črdekess√©g: ha egy nŇĎnek tesztoszteront adnak, elt√°rgyiasul a szexualit√°sa √©s agressz√≠vabb lesz, m√≠g ha egy f√©rfinak annyira leesik a tesztoszteron szintje, hogy m√°r a norm√°lis nŇĎi szintet k√∂zel√≠ti, akkor teljesen motiv√°latlan √©s apatikus lesz (m√≠g megk√∂zel√≠tŇĎleg hasonl√≥an alacsony tesztoszteron szinttel egy nŇĎ teljesen norm√°lis √©s stabil √©rzelmi √°llapotban lenne, alkotna, sportolna, √©ln√© az √©let√©t).

Ugyanakkor a kiemelkedŇĎ intellektu√°lis k√©pess√©geket m√©rŇĎ teszteknek bizony van k√∂z√∂s halmaza az eg√©szs√©ges nŇĎk √©s f√©rfiak eset√©ben. A nŇĎk oktat√°s√°nak elterjed√©se m√°ra oda vezetett, hogy a nŇĎk intelligencia szint √°tlaga imm√°r meghaladja a f√©rfiak√©t. Az is k√∂ztudott, hogy a mostani fiatalok m√©rhetŇĎ intelligencia h√°nyadosa, a fejlett t√°rsadalmakban meghaladja sz√ľleik √©s nagysz√ľleik intelligencia h√°nyados√°t (mik√∂zben az USA-ban, egyelŇĎre felder√≠tetlen okb√≥l a f√©rfiak √°tlagos tesztoszteron szintje folyamatosan cs√∂kken… k√©pzelj√ľk el a kev√©sb√© intelligens, de agressz√≠vebb ap√°k, √©s l√©nyegesen intelligensebb, de sokkal passz√≠vabb fiaik interakci√≥it…).¬†Ennek ellen√©re a primit√≠vebb, zsigeribb alapokon nyugv√≥ t√°rsadalmakban (ma m√©g szinte mind ilyen a F√∂ld√∂n) m√©gis ink√°bb a f√©rfiak jutnak vezetŇĎ szerepekhez (b√°r a nŇĎk fokozatosan egyre t√∂bb vezetŇĎ poz√≠ci√≥t t√∂ltenek be, tal√°n mert k√∂nnyebben √©rtenek sz√≥t a kev√©sb√© agressz√≠v, de intelligens f√©rfiakkal). A nŇĎket nem az teszi alkalmasabb√° egyes dolgokra, hogy helybŇĎl jobbak valamiben, hanem meglehet p√©ld√°ul az, hogy sokszor tiszt√°bban k√©pesek gondolkodni, m√°sokra is gondolnak, hajlamosabbak az egy√ľtt√©rz√©sre m√°sokkal, √©s kev√©sb√© hajlamosak vakmerŇĎen d√∂nteni, mivel p√©ld√°ul¬†kevesebb a tesztoszteron a szervezet√ľkben (term√©szetesen m√©g sz√°mtalan meghat√°roz√≥ k√ľl√∂nbs√©g van, de ez a hormon hihetetlen m√©rt√©kben befoly√°solja az agy mŇĪk√∂d√©s√©t √©s a szem√©lyis√©get).¬†

Nem biztos, hogy a ma elŇĎszeretettel mutogatott felsŇĎ vezetŇĎ nŇĎk ide√°lis p√©ld√°k arra, hogy milyen is egy nŇĎ, ha vezet. Amint egy intelligens nŇĎ elkezd a f√©rfiak tesztoszteronban igen gazdag k√∂zeg√©ben a vezetŇĎ szerepek√©rt “harcolni”, azt tapasztalja, hogy az agresszi√≥√©rt felelŇĎs extra hormon mennyis√©g lend√ľletet √©s √∂nbizalmat ad√≥, g√°tl√°sold√≥, individualiz√°l√≥, “praktikusan” emp√°tia cs√∂kkentŇĎ hat√°sa mell√© a f√©rfiaknak el√©g kevesebb √©sz √©s tud√°s is, hogy elŇĎrejussanak. T√©ny, hogy vannak agressz√≠v nŇĎk, de pl. a fizikai agresszi√≥ sokkal gyakoribb a f√©rfiak k√∂r√©ben. Ehhez adjuk m√©g hozz√° a megr√∂gz√∂tt rossz t√°rsadalmi beidegzŇĎd√©seket, melyek szerint a nŇĎk fogj√°k be a sz√°jukat, mert tudatlanok, nem el√©g okosak, √©s nem el√©g r√°termettek (az a legszomor√ļbb, amikor ezt m√©g a nŇĎk is elhiszik). A f√©rfiak nem az√©rt t√∂ltenek be t√∂bb vezetŇĎ poz√≠ci√≥t, mert okosabbak, hanem mert agressz√≠vabbak √©s kev√©sb√© “zavarja” ŇĎket m√°s emberek √©rzelmi vil√°ga… ha nem √©rzed, hogy beler√ļgt√°l valakibe, akkor nem zavar a halad√°sban, hogy helytelen√ľl viselkedt√©l (√©rtsd: kev√©sb√© empatikusan).

B√°r nekem nem tetszik, amikor egy nŇĎ anyagi √©rdekbŇĎl beh√°zasodik egy gazdag f√©rfi vagyon√°ba, de ha jobban belegondolunk, lehet, hogy m√©g manaps√°g is: sok nŇĎnek ez az egyetlen es√©lye, hogy ŇĎ √©s a gyerekei jobb t√°rsadalmi helyzetbe ker√ľljenek. Meglehet, hogy egy kev√©sb√© f√©rfijog√ļ t√°rsadalomban ezek a nŇĎk is ink√°bb az √∂n√°ll√≥s√°got v√°lasztan√°k, de most erre m√©g nincs meg a lehetŇĎs√©g√ľk, mert m√©g az “elit” is zsigeri szinten vez√©relt, nem √©sszel √©l. Al√°bb majd mutatok egy sz√©p p√©ld√°t arra, hogy milyen egy okos nŇĎ √©s egy okos f√©rfi egyenrang√ļ √©s produkt√≠v h√°zass√°ga (b√°r hozz√° kell tennem, hogy a feles√©g, arcvon√°sai alapj√°n a magasabb norm√°l tesztoszteron szintŇĪ nŇĎk k√∂z√© tartozik… az arc, az √°ll, a szem√∂ld√∂k, az arccsont, sokat el√°rulnak egy f√©rfi √©s egy nŇĎ hormon√°lis ar√°nyair√≥l).

A siker titka, a j√∂vŇĎben, hogy a f√©rfiakat meg kell tan√≠tani agresszi√≥juk kord√°ban tart√°s√°ra, a nŇĎket pedig meg kell tan√≠tani arra, hogy hogyan legyenek asszert√≠vebbek. Mivel a tehets√©ges f√©rfiaknak ott van a zsigeri agresszi√≥ (ennek van eg√©szs√©ges √©s szalonk√©pes m√©rt√©ke) √©s az √©sz, a tehets√©ges nŇĎknek is kell valami az √©sz mell√©, √©s eset√ľkben ez csak egy tanult, agresszivit√°st p√≥tl√≥ t√°rsas magatart√°s lehet: az asszertivit√°s avagy a tanult √∂n√©rv√©nyes√≠t√©si k√©pess√©g¬†(ez azokra a f√©rfiakra is vonatkozik, akiknek sz√©rum tesztoszteron szintje a norm√°l f√©rfi tesztoszteron sk√°la als√≥ √©rt√©kei k√∂r√ľl sz√≥r√≥dnak statisztikailag… b√°r t√©ny, hogy van, aki tesztoszteront szed, hogy hat√°rozottabb, agressz√≠vabb, b√°trabb, potensebb, motiv√°ltabb, vid√°mabb, sov√°nyabb √©s fittebb legyen… teh√°t, hogy megfeleljen a v√©lt vagy val√≥s t√°rsadalmi elv√°r√°soknak… de van, hogy el√©g ha a D vitamin szintj√©t teszik helyre, √©s azonnal megemelkedik a tesztoszteron szintje is).

Ha egy nŇĎ egymaga, t√°rsadalmi r√©tegv√°lt√°ssal, a t√°rsadalom kev√©sb√© kedvezm√©nyezett r√©szeibŇĎl, beh√°zasod√°s n√©lk√ľl akar elŇĎrejutni szakmailag, pl. az √ľzleti √©letben, komoly stressz √©ri a szervezet√©t, ha nem √©lhet szem√©lyis√©ge √©s biol√≥gi√°ja r√° jellemzŇĎ von√°saival, √©s ha fel kell vennie bizonyos “f√©rfiasnak” √≠t√©lt viselked√©sform√°kat (term√©szetesen errŇĎl is hosszan lehetne elm√©lkedni, hogy mi is az a f√©rfias √©s nŇĎies). Sz√≥ szerint belebetegedhet a r√° alapvetŇĎen nem jellemzŇĎ viselked√©sbe. Ma m√°r a fejlett t√°rsadalmakban t√∂bb nŇĎ hal bele s√ļlyos (a torz√≠t√≥ √©letforma miatt kialakul√≥) sz√≠vbetegs√©gekbe, mint f√©rfi. Sok nŇĎ ma f√©rfiasnak aposztrof√°lt betegs√©gekbe hal bele, amilyen a sz√≠vroham, √©s sokkal nagyobb es√©llyel halnak bele, mint egy f√©rfi, mert az orvosok ritk√°bban felt√©telezik egyelŇĎre, hogy egy nŇĎnek sz√≠vrohama lehet. Azt√°n ott van az a szomor√ļ √∂sszef√ľgg√©s is, hogy a nagyon nagy stresszel j√°r√≥ munkak√∂r√∂k hat√°s√°ra (melyek nem √∂nmagukban, hanem az egyenlŇĎtlen k√∂zegben nyomaszt√≥ak), a nŇĎk magasabb tesztoszteron szintje elŇĎseg√≠theti pl. a mellr√°k kialakul√°s√°t is. Csak az√©rt taglaltam ezt a t√©m√°t, hogy legyen n√©mi tartalma az olyan fogalmaknak, mint elnŇĎiesed√©s, elf√©rfiasod√°s, agresszi√≥, √©s motiv√°ci√≥. A h√°tt√©rben ott vannak a kognit√≠v, hormon√°lis, biol√≥giai, fiziol√≥giai, k√©miai, genetikai, neurol√≥giai √©s a “microbiome” √°ltal meghat√°rozott folyamatok. Nem elvont, hanem nagyon is egzaktan m√©rhetŇĎ t√©nyezŇĎk vannak a h√°tt√©rben, a m√©lyen hat√≥ t√°rsadalmi t√©nyezŇĎk mellett. Konkr√©t tesztoszteron hat√°ssal kapcsolatos √©letszerŇĪ emberi t√∂rt√©neteket ezen a linken hallhat a kedves olvas√≥, a This American Life 2002-ben k√©sz√ľlt mŇĪsor√°ban, angolul. Nagyon √©rdekes!

Mindek√∂zben¬†Magyarorsz√°gon a NIH (Nemzeti Innov√°ci√≥s Hivatal) √°ltal ki√≠rt “akkredit√°lt technol√≥giai inkub√°tor” (avagy a Gazella) p√°ly√°zat n√©gy nyertes c√©g√©t megvizsg√°lva azt tal√°ltam, hogy hivatalosan, a k√∂zz√©tett c√©gadatok alapj√°n csak az egyik c√©g igazgat√≥s√°g√°ban szerepel egyetlen egy nŇĎ.

A “Gazella” Program N√©gy Nyertese (anyagi helyzet√ľk, honlapjaik, √©s a nŇĎk helyzete a c√©gek felsŇĎ vezetŇĎi r√©teg√©ben)

Szandrocha Kamilla (√ľgyvezetŇĎ partner) CEIS, (igazgat√≥s√°gi tag) Aquincum Technol√≥giai Inkub√°tor Zrt.

ő쬆Aquincum Technol√≥giai Inkub√°tor Zrt. (Bejegyezve: 2013/09/25)

NŇĎ a felsŇĎ vezet√©sben (4/1 avagy 25%): Szandrocha Kamilla, igazgat√≥s√°gi tag, egy√ľttes d√∂nt√©sre jogosult az igazgat√≥s√°g m√°sik h√°rom tagj√°val, akik:¬†Duda ErnŇĎ,¬†Lepp Gyula, √©s¬†V√°rkonyi Attila Mikl√≥s… Amikor nemr√©g r√°k√©rdeztem, Duda ErnŇĎ nagyon pozit√≠van nyilatkozott a h√∂lgy szellemi k√©pess√©geirŇĎl, nem az√©rt tagja az igazgat√≥s√°gnak, mert K√≥ka J√°nos feles√©ge, hanem mert tehets√©ges.¬†EgyelŇĎre nincs honlapjuk, ami meglepŇĎ, viszont rendelkeznek a p√°ly√°zathoz sz√ľks√©ges 40 milli√≥ Ft-os jegyzett tŇĎk√©vel, a nyilv√°nos c√©gadatok alapj√°n. R√©szv√©nyesek:¬†Alder VagyonkezelŇĎ Zrt., Central European Investment Services Tan√°csad√≥ Kft. (Szandrocha Kamilla c√©ge), FastVentures Zrt. (melyben az egyszem√©lyes r√©szv√©nyt√°rsas√°g tulajdonos√°nak h√ļga, V√°rkonyi EnikŇĎ, egy√ľttes k√©pviseleti jogk√∂rrel rendelkezik, ami √∂rvendetes, ha t√©nyleges befoly√°ssal b√≠r), Graphisoft Park IngatlanfejlesztŇĎ Kft. (ennek egyetlen tagja, nem meglepŇĎ m√≥don a Boj√°r G√°bor f√©le, hatalmas tŇĎkeerŇĎvel rendelkezŇϬ†Graphisoft Park SE IngatlanfejlesztŇĎ Eur√≥pai R√©szv√©nyt√°rsas√°g, melynek k√©pviselŇĎi k√∂z√∂tt sajnos egyetlen nŇĎt sem tal√°lunk), √©s a Qualinnova Consulting Kft.

ő쬆Digital Factory Zrt.¬†(Bejegyezve: 2013/09/06)

NŇĎ nincs a c√©gben, √©s hivatalosan Valner Szabolcs az egyetlen r√©szv√©nyes, illetve az egyetlen k√©pviselŇĎ (pillanatnyilag). Rem√©lj√ľk, hogy hamarosan legal√°bb egy nŇĎi r√©szv√©nyes √©s/vagy CEO lesz a c√©gben (ahogy Amerik√°ban mondjuk, emiatt “ne tartsd vissza a l√©legzetedet”). Valner √ļr a technol√≥giai ter√ľleten t√©vesen a “meritokr√°ci√°t” v√©li felfedezni a f√©rfiak szakter√ľleti dominanci√°ja m√∂g√∂tt. Azt vallja, hogy gyŇĎzz√∂n a “jobbik”, mert hiszen szerinte az es√©lyek egyenlŇĎek, √©s k√©ptelen bel√°tni, a nŇĎknek igenis extra biztat√°s √©s mentor√°l√°s kell, hogy egy√°ltal√°n gondolni merjenek arra, hogy IT c√©get ind√≠tsanak. A cikkekkel, melyeket l√°t√≥k√∂r√©nek SOS bŇĎv√≠t√©se √©rdek√©ben k√ľldtem, semmit sem tudott kezdeni… mit √©rdekli ŇĎt, hiszen ŇĎ f√©rfi, √©s neki minden √ļgy j√≥, ahogy van. R√°ad√°sul mindez, szerinte, nem rajta m√ļlik, pedig bizony imm√°r rajta is m√ļlik. Fel kellene nŇĎni a felelŇĎss√©ghez!¬†A c√©g rendelkezik a p√°ly√°zathoz sz√ľks√©ges 40 milli√≥ Ft-os jegyzett tŇĎk√©vel, a nyilv√°nos c√©gadatok alapj√°n.¬†

ő쬆ACME Labs Zrt. (Bejegyezve: 2013/09/20)

NŇĎ a felsŇĎ vezet√©sben a honlap szerint:¬†Farkas-Tolnai Krisztina M√°ria¬†CFO, feltehetŇĎen a CEO feles√©ge… saj√°t jog√°n, a c√©g √∂n√°ll√≥ k√©pviselet√©re a hivatalos c√©gadatok alapj√°n nem jogosult, de az amerikai¬†CTO¬†k√©zbes√≠t√©si megb√≠zottja. Rem√©lj√ľk, hogy hamarosan az okiratba is beker√ľl, √∂n√°ll√≥ d√∂nt√©si jogk√∂rŇĪ CFO-k√©nt, mert √ļgy tŇĪnik, a k√©pess√©gei megvannak ehhez. A c√©g a blog √≠r√°s√°nak napjaiban m√©g nem rendelkezett a p√°ly√°zathoz sz√ľks√©ges 40 milli√≥ Ft-os jegyzett tŇĎk√©vel, legal√°bbis a nyilv√°nos c√©gadatok szerint.¬†

ő쬆iCatapult Technol√≥giai √©s √úzletfejleszt√©si Zrt. (Bejegyezve: 2012/12/19)

NŇĎ a felsŇĎ vezet√©sben a honlap szerint: Tak√°cs Zsuzsanna COO, de a c√©g k√©pviselet√©re a hivatalos c√©gadatok alapj√°n nem jogosult, a k√∂zz√©tett c√©gadatok k√∂z√∂tt nem is szerepel a neve. A h√∂lgy kor√°bban executive secretary volt, LinkedIn profilja alapj√°n nem tudunk meg t√∂bbet. Rem√©lj√ľk, hogy ez a helyzet hamarosan v√°ltozik.¬†A¬†c√©g a blog √≠r√°s√°nak napjaiban m√©g nem rendelkezett a p√°ly√°zathoz sz√ľks√©ges 40 milli√≥ Ft-os jegyzett tŇĎk√©vel, legal√°bbis a nyilv√°nos c√©gadatok szerint.¬†

K√©rd√©s, hogy p√©ld√°ul √Ārvai P√©ter, a Prezi CEO-ja √©s a “Gazella” zsŇĪri egyik tagja mennyire l√°tja √°t, hogy k√ľl√∂n√∂sen a social media kor√°ban, nŇĎk is kellenek az IT felsŇĎvezetŇĎk szintj√©n (tal√°n annyiban m√°s ŇĎ, mint a t√∂bbi f√©rfi CEO a kaliforniai v√∂lgyben √©s itthon, hogy Sv√©dorsz√°gban sz√ľletett √©s cseperedett fel… esetleg hamarabb bel√°tja, hogy mit kell tennie). Egy tehets√©ges nŇĎ, ha megfesz√ľl sem k√©pes a h√ľlye elŇĎ√≠t√©leteket legyŇĎzni, ha nincs r√°juk k√ľl√∂n felk√©sz√≠tve, illetve ha nincs r√©sze hozz√°√©rtŇĎ t√°mogat√°sban, pl. a felvil√°gosultabb f√©rfiak r√©sz√©rŇĎl (√©s az √°tt√∂r√©st egyed√ľl egy nŇĎtŇĎl nem is lehet elv√°rni, sok nŇĎnek kell demonstr√°lnia, hogy k√©pes valamire, √©s jogosan v√°rja el, hogy szakmailag, emberileg √©s anyagilag megbecs√ľlj√©k… √©s azt is tudjuk, hogy itthon √°ltal√°ban a f√©rfiak munk√°j√°t sem becs√ľlik meg).

Prezi Logo

Prezi, Szellemi TŇĎke, V√°ndorl√°s √©s Szexizmus

Az is k√©rd√©s, hogy a “boldoguljunk itthon” szlogen mennyire autentikus (a k√ľl√∂nben kiv√°l√≥ kataliz√°tor) √Ārvai P√©ter sz√°j√°b√≥l,

– mik√∂zben ŇĎ nem Magyarorsz√°gon sz√ľletett (val√≥j√°ban nem ebben a k√∂zegben l√©tezik, akkor sem, ha sokat van itt, ŇĎ sokkal ink√°bb glob√°lis karakter, igazi v√©rbeli kozmopolita), √©s

– mik√∂zben a Prezi alkalmazottai igen nagy sz√°mban k√ľlf√∂ldiek, akik Budapestre j√∂ttek a Prezi miatt (ami k√ľl√∂nben nagyon j√≥, mert fontos a nemzetk√∂zi mozg√°s, √©s helyes, hogy sok k√∂z√∂tt√ľk a nŇĎ), √©s

– amikor a Kft. √©s m√°s “magyar” startup-ok nem l√©tezhetnek a San Francisco-ban vagy m√°s amerikai v√°rosban tal√°lhat√≥ irod√°juk √©s c√©g√ľk n√©lk√ľl (mert az amerikai befektetŇĎk elv√°rj√°k, hogy ott is jelen legyenek)… √©s

ha m√©g ott is h√≠m-soviniszt√°k a CEO-k… mi lehet ugyeb√°r itthon…!?

Gyors elemz√©s ut√°n vil√°gosan l√°tszik, hogy a Kft. egy relat√≠ve kis tŇĎk√©jŇĪ c√©g az amerikai Prezi Inc.-hez k√©pest (m√©g akkor is, ha az eredm√©nykimutat√°suk alapj√°n az √©rt√©kes√≠t√©s nett√≥ √°rbev√©tele 2012-ben: 1 333 378 000 Ft volt, √©s ezt gyan√≠that√≥an bŇĎven meghaladja majd a 2013-as nett√≥ √°rbev√©tel). A 2011-ben 14 milli√≥ doll√°r tŇĎk√©vel ell√°tott amerikai c√©g, amely ma m√°r a kb. 50 milli√≥ Ft t√∂rzstŇĎk√©jŇĪ Kft. tulajdonosa, 2013 m√°sodik negyed√©v√©ben 26 milli√≥ felhaszn√°l√≥t sz√°ml√°lt (√©s ez a sz√°m √°ll√≠t√≥lag havonta t√∂bb mint 1 milli√≥val nŇĎ). ¬†A k√©t fŇĎ felhaszn√°l√≥i csomag √°ra √©vente 59 √©s 159 doll√°r. Ha ennek a k√©t d√≠jnak az √°tlag√°t veszem, √©s mondjuk azt felt√©telezem, hogy csak a user-ek t√∂bb mint fele fizet rendszeresen (teh√°t v√©lhetŇĎleg, sŇĎt rem√©lhetŇĎleg alulbecs√ľl√∂m az √∂sszeget), akkor is doll√°r milli√°rdokra r√ļg√≥ √∂sszeg folyik be az amerikai c√©gbe, m√°r most: a befektetett kock√°zati tŇĎke t√∂bbsz√∂r√∂se, doll√°rban, mik√∂zben a c√©l minimum 200 milli√≥ user.¬†(Ezek term√©szetesen csak az √©n spekul√°ci√≥im, bel√ľlrŇĎl lehet, hogy teljesen m√°sk√©nt n√©znek ki a p√©nzmozg√°sok…) Sajnos, feltehetŇĎleg ennek az √∂sszegnek kis r√©sze sziv√°rog Magyarorsz√°gra, r√°ad√°sul a Kft. alkalmazottai sokkal olcs√≥bbak, mint az amerikai alkalmazottak (lehet rajtuk “sp√≥rolni”, m√©g akkor is, ha a Kft. alkalmazottait rendesen megfizetik a hazai viszonyokhoz k√©pest, mert a szem√©lyi jellegŇĪ r√°ford√≠t√°s 2012-ben: 941 387 000 Ft volt). Sajn√°latos, hogy a magyar √©s az amerikai c√©g legfelsŇĎbb (a c√©gek hivatalos, publik√°lt regisztr√°ci√≥s dokumentumaiba bejegyzett) vezetŇĎi egytŇĎl egyig, kiz√°r√≥lag f√©rfiak (az alap√≠t√≥k, a legfelsŇĎ vezetŇĎk √©s az igazgat√≥s√°g minden egyes tagja f√©rfi). Nem el√©g a nŇĎket programoz√≥k√©nt √©s menedzserk√©nt alkalmazni. M√°r a kezdet kezdet√©n is sz√ľks√©g lett volna nŇĎkre, az alap√≠t√°skor.¬†Nem v√©letlen, szer√©ny v√©lem√©nyem szerint, hogy pl.¬†a Kft. hazai CSR (t√°rsadalmi felelŇĎss√©g) projektje m√©ltatlan a Prezi Inc. √°rbev√©tel√©hez. Sokat dobna a c√©g meg√≠t√©l√©s√©n, az avatott ember szem√©ben, ha gyorsan felvenn√©nek egyInternational Head of Corporate Consciousness“-t (ezt ebben a pillanatban tal√°ltam ki, mert a CSR elcs√©pelt √©s ki√ľresedett fogalom), √©s lehetŇĎleg egy nŇĎt kell v√°lasztani, aki √©rti a dolg√°t √©s ismeri a k√ľl√∂nb√∂zŇĎ k√∂zegeket, melyekben a Prezi mozog. Az elsŇĎ felsŇĎ vezetŇĎ nŇĎ poz√≠ci√≥ja a Prezi-n√©l lehetne mondjuk ez: “Chief Social Consciousness Officer” avagy r√∂viden: “CSCO“.

L√°ttam az egyik PR filmet: a Prezi alkalmazottai egyszerre vettek r√©szt csapat√©p√≠t√©sben √©s √∂nk√©ntes programban, amikor egy roma telepen szeg√©ny emberek h√°zait tatarozt√°k. ElŇĎsz√∂r is, a rom√°k is be tudj√°k √©p√≠teni az ablakokat, nem 5 √©ves gyerekek. M√°sodszor, k√©ptelen vagyok elfelejteni a h√≥ban h√ļzg√°lt belt√©ri, f√∂ldeletlen, nem v√≠z√°ll√≥ hosszabb√≠t√≥t… ami √©letvesz√©lyes. Munkav√©delembŇĎl 1-es. Harmadszor tal√°n egy tech c√©gnek jobb √∂tlete is lehetne, mint egy ilyen el√©gg√© gyermeteg √©s nagyon low tech program. Olyan nemzetk√∂zi, t√°rsadalmi, oktat√°si, technol√≥giai programra van sz√ľks√©g, amely ezeknek az embereknek nemcsak rem√©nyt, hanem fejlŇĎd√©si, kit√∂r√©si √©s √∂nfenntart√°si es√©lyt ad. Ez lehetne a Prezi Inc. f√©le “Moonshot”… hiszen a Google[x] k√∂vetendŇĎ p√©lda. (Instead of “shooting yourself into the foot” with low tech PR, go for a “Moonshot” in social and educational terms with the available technology, money and intellect that you have.) √Ėtletem annyi, mint a tenger.

Hadd emeljem ki ezt: ha sz√°momra term√©szetes, hogy √Ārvai P√©ter √©s a Prezi t√°mogatj√°k a melegek t√°rsadalmi poz√≠ci√≥j√°t, akkor √Ārvai P√©ternek term√©szetes kell legyen, hogy √©n sz√≥t emelek a t√°rsadalmak fel√©nek egyenrang√ļs√°g√°val kapcsolatban, a legfelsŇĎ vezet√©sben is. Meleg f√©rfi c√©gvezetŇĎkbŇĎl nincs hi√°ny, nŇĎnemŇĪ c√©gvezetŇĎkbŇĎl hi√°ny van a legfelsŇĎ szinteken. Tess√©k m√°r √©szrevenni ezt az anom√°li√°t. A norv√©g tŇĎzsdei c√©gek igazgat√≥s√°g√°ban k√∂telezŇĎ a nŇĎk 40%-os reprezent√°ci√≥ja (√©s ezt egy konzervat√≠v f√©rfi politikus tette k√∂telezŇĎv√©). L√°ssuk be, az, hogy a legfelsŇĎ vezetŇĎk k√∂z√∂tt nem nagyon vannak nŇĎk, az sokszor a f√©rfiak k√©nyelm√©t hivatott szolg√°lni, csakhogy uraim a “f√©rfi k√©nyelem” a nŇĎk rov√°s√°ra, nem t√°rsadalmi szempont egy intelligens √©s felelŇĎss√©gteljes ember sz√°m√°ra, a 21. sz√°zadban. A Google Inc., b√°r nem norv√©g c√©g, hanem egy glob√°lis v√°llalat, mely a Szil√≠cium V√∂lgyben gy√∂keredzik, ennek ellen√©re igazgat√≥tan√°cs√°ban a nŇĎk ar√°nya imm√°r 30% (10/3).

Daphne Startup-ja: Coursera

Sz√°nd√©kosan keverem a szezont a fazonnal, tartson ki a kedves olvas√≥, a hazat√©r√©s lehetetlens√©ge egy tŇĎrŇĎl fakad azzal, hogy itthon a nŇĎket als√≥bbrendŇĪ l√©nyekk√©nt vagy d√≠szt√°rgyakk√©nt kezelik, √©s nagy√≠t√≥val kell keresni a nŇĎk √°ltal vezetett startup c√©geket. Hol vannak a magyar Daphne Koller-ek p√©ld√°ul? Ňź a Coursera fenomen√°lisan tehets√©ges t√°rs alap√≠t√≥ja, aki mellesleg mesters√©ges intelligencia kutat√°ssal foglalkozik, √©s csal√°dj√°ban imm√°r a harmadik olyan gener√°ci√≥t k√©pviseli, amelyik doktor√°tussal rendelkezik. √Črdekes, hogy a Courser√°t amerikai startupk√©nt ismeri a vil√°g (2012-ben alap√≠tott√°k az USA-ban), mik√∂zben mindk√©t alap√≠t√≥ja bev√°ndorl√≥, nem sz√ľletett amerikaiak. Daphne (aki egy MacArthur Fellow) Izraelben, Andrew Ng Angli√°ban sz√ľletett. Daphne kettŇĎs (izraeli √©s amerikai) √°llampolg√°r. A Coursera tartalomszolg√°ltat√≥i √©s felhaszn√°l√≥i oldalr√≥l, m√°r a m√°sodik √©v√©ben, val√≥j√°ban egy glob√°lis startup, hiszen a vil√°g legk√ľl√∂nb√∂zŇĎbb pontjain vannak a partner egyetemek √©s a professzorok. Di√°kjaik pedig k√ľl√∂n√∂sen glob√°lis t√∂meget alkotnak, online. Nyilv√°n az sem √°rtott a Coursera siker√©nek, hogy Daphne f√©rje, Dan Avida az OpusCapital IT c√©g√©p√≠t√©ssel √©s befektet√©ssel foglalkoz√≥ partnere. Ez a nŇĎ saj√°t jog√°n, szinte bizonyosan egy zseni, ennek ellen√©re, m√©g neki is j√≥l j√∂n, hogy a f√©rje befektet√©si tan√°csad√≥! Ha a f√©rje mondjuk festŇĎmŇĪv√©sz lenne, vagy Daphne nem lenne f√©rjn√©l, akkor lehet, hogy a Coursera nem lenne ennyire sikeres, pedig √°ll√≠tom, hogy a felsŇĎoktat√°st vil√°gm√©retekben forradalmas√≠t√≥ v√°llalkoz√°s (mindentŇĎl f√ľggetlen√ľl). Teh√°t ha a zseni √©s az idŇĎszerŇĪs√©g mellett nem lenne ott az √ľzleti tapasztalat, akkor nem lenne Coursera, pedig Daphne intellektu√°lis csal√°di h√°ttere kiv√°l√≥! M√©g neki is k√ľl√∂nleges t√°mogat√°sra van sz√ľks√©ge, hogy a brili√°ns t√°rsadalmi v√°llalkoz√°sa √°t√ľtŇĎ √©s meg√©rdemelt glob√°lis siker legyen. Ezt jegyezz√ľk meg! Tov√°bb√° a Coursera felsŇĎ vezetŇĎi megoszl√°sa az elsŇĎ pillanatt√≥l kezdve, eg√©szs√©ges m√≥don: 50-50%. Daphne egyelŇĎre nagy ritkas√°g a maga nem√©ben, √©s olyan k√∂r√ľlm√©nyeket kell teremteni, melyek k√∂z√∂tt a nŇĎk nincsenek f√©rjeikre √©s a f√©rfiakra szorulva, ha sikeresek akarnak lenni. EttŇĎl f√ľggetlen√ľl azt gondolom, hogy Daphne helyzete ide√°lis, √©s nincs azzal semmi baj, hogy a f√©rje k√©pes seg√≠teni neki, mivel ez a nŇĎ 100%-ban auton√≥m, kutat√≥, anya, v√°llalkoz√≥ √©s feles√©g. Ha a f√©rje f√©lt√©kenyen ŇĎrizn√© √©s elnyomn√°, akkor sem lenne Coursera. Ezt is jegyezz√ľk meg! Mindketten auton√≥m l√©nyek, √©s ebbŇĎl a fajta emberi kapcsolatb√≥l sz√ľletnek a legfantasztikusabb dolgok a vil√°gon.¬†(J√≥ lenne tudni, hogy Szandrocha Kamilla is ilyen helyzetben van.)


Daphne Koller (Coursera)

Aki ismeri a szakmai m√ļltamat, az tudja, hogy az egyik legfontosabb k√©rd√©s, mellyel tart√≥san foglalkoztam, az a hazat√©r√©s lehetŇĎs√©ge √©s lehetetlens√©ge. Biztos vagyok benne, hogy a k√ľlf√∂ld√∂n √©lŇĎ sz√°zezrek, akik a magyarorsz√°gi gazdas√°gi v√°ls√°g elŇĎl menek√ľltek el innen, boldogan hazaj√∂nn√©nek (hiszen, az emberek alapvetŇĎen nem szeretnek k√ľlf√∂ldiek, idegenek lenni egy m√°sik orsz√°gban, mert a vel√ľk szemben l√©tezŇĎ elŇĎ√≠t√©let igenis f√°jdalmas… persze ha sok p√©nzed van, ha munkahelyeket teremtesz, vagy hatalmas eredm√©nyeket √©rsz el, nem tekintenek “annyira” idegennek)… Ha re√°lis es√©ly√ľk lenne arra, hogy itt √©p √©sszel, eg√©szs√©gesen √©s m√©lt√≥s√°ggal boldoguljanak, visszat√©rn√©nek a sz√ľlŇĎf√∂ldj√ľkre (lesz idŇĎ, tal√°n, amikor ez m√°r teljesen l√©nyegtelen lesz, amikor az emberek a F√∂ldet tekintik majd Sz√ľlŇĎf√∂ldnek). 5-10 √©vvel ezelŇĎtt √©veket √°ldoztam erre a t√©mak√∂rre, √©s ma nem v√©letlen√ľl: teljes visszavonults√°gban √©lek. Ismerem a belsŇĎ emigr√°ci√≥s √°llapotot. Angolul az “Internal Exile” kapcs√°n “Internet Exile”-nak szoktam aposztrof√°lni a jelenlegi √©letform√°mat. Az egyik ok a visszavonults√°gra, hogy itthon a t√°rsadalom lehetŇĎs√©geihez k√©pest a legrosszabb term√©szetŇĪ, legkorl√°toltabb, √©s “begoly√≥zott” f√©rfi vezetŇĎk m√©rgezik a k√∂zeget (tisztelet a nagyon ritka kiv√©telnek). Ez a torz, h√≠m-soviniszta vezetŇĎi r√©teg is oka annak, hogy nagyon sokan elv√°ndorolnak innen, de t√©rj√ľnk vissza a nŇĎk probl√©m√°ihoz, melyek nemcsak a nŇĎk probl√©m√°i.

Sheryl √©s a MalŇĎr

Nemzetk√∂zileg, a vezet√©s, a gender k√©rd√©sek, √©s a technol√≥giai c√©gek t√©mak√∂r√©ben olvasottabb k√∂r√∂kben k√∂zismert az a kis story, hogy Sheryl Sandberg (a facebook COO-ja) nŇĎket motiv√°l√≥ “Lean In” k√∂nyv√©hez a kiad√≥ “√∂nk√©ntes”, azaz nem fizetett gyakornokot keresett, mik√∂zben a k√∂nyvben ugyeb√°r arr√≥l van sz√≥, hogy legyenek a nŇĎk akt√≠vak, meg es√©lyegyenlŇĎs√©g kell, meg ne f√©ljenek a t√°rgyal√≥asztaln√°l kinyitni a sz√°jukat (“Lean In”, azaz hajolj elŇĎre a t√°rgyal√≥ asztaln√°l, passz√≠v h√°tradŇĎl√©s helyett, √©s hallasd a hangodat, √©s ne √ľlj√©l kuk√°n az √©leted fontos pillanataiban), √©s k√∂vetelj√©k meg a munk√°juk anyagi megbecs√ľl√©s√©t… sz√≥val a k√∂nyv kiad√≥ja, mint kider√ľlt, nem fizetett “intern”-t keresett (nyilv√°nosan kereste, teh√°t meg sem fordult a fej√©ben, hogy szembe megy a k√∂nyv √ľzenet√©vel) a k√∂nyv szerkeszt√©si munk√°i sor√°n… Nagyon kellemetlen… mert ugye ingyen csak olyan ember k√©pes dolgozni, akinek van kellŇĎ anyagi h√°ttere √©s kapcsolatrendszere, ami ezt a v√°llal√°st lehetŇĎv√© teszi, √©s akkor ennyit az “es√©lyegyenlŇĎs√©grŇĎl”… meg az anyagi megbecs√ľl√©s “megk√∂vetel√©s√©rŇĎl”… az USA-ban… Nem is menn√©k bele, hogy itthon mi folyik… na de egy kicsit az√©rt belemegyek. Itt egy nŇĎ (vagy √©ppen egy f√©rfi, aki nem pof√°tlan, nem g√°tl√°stalan, hanem pl. szer√©ny, √©s nem dŇĎl orr√°n-sz√°j√°n a tesztoszteron) hi√°ba is k√∂veteln√© az anyagi megbecs√ľl√©st, mert alapj√°raton kihaszn√°lj√°k, kir√∂h√∂gik, √≠zl√©stelen megjegyz√©sekkel illetik, √ľvegplafon al√° szor√≠tj√°k, akad√°lyozz√°k, nem engedik inform√°ci√≥khoz, mert pl. nem j√°r s√∂r√∂zni, nem tr√°g√°r, nem r√©szegeskedik, nem drogozik vagy nem szereti a focit, vagy csak sim√°n egy auton√≥m l√©ny (jaj annak a magyar alkalmazottnak, aki auton√≥m). R√°ad√°sul sok nŇĎ (√©s sok f√©rfi) itt nem is tudja (mert nem volt alkalma ilyen t√©ren fejleszteni √∂nmag√°t), hogy meg kellene k√∂vetelnie a tiszteletet, sŇĎt term√©szetesnek veszik az alp√°ri hangnemet, a kiszolg√°ltatotts√°got, a minŇĎs√≠thetetlen st√≠lust, a r√∂hejes fizet√©st, vagy azt, hogy egy vasat sem fizetnek nekik, akkor sem, ha nagy tud√°ssal rendelkeznek √©s nyilv√°nval√≥an tehets√©gesek. “Megk√∂veteled a megbecs√ľl√©st? D√∂g√∂lj meg.” Ez a hazai alaphangulat. Ilyen k√∂r√ľlm√©nyek k√∂z√∂tt azt√°n kialakul a 22-es csapd√°ja, mert m√≥djuk sincs kellŇĎ ritmusban √©s temp√≥ban fejleszteni a felsŇĎ vezetŇĎi k√©szs√©geiket (most a nŇĎkrŇĎl besz√©lek, de folyamatosan tartsuk fejben a f√©rfiak igen n√©pes csoportj√°nak √©rdekeit is), mert es√©lyt sem kapnak, mert nincs tapasztalatuk, mert nem engedik ŇĎket a korm√°nyhoz… √©s ez √≠gy megy…

Mire Jó a Szakemberek Vándorlása?

Leading in a Complex World - Sheryl Sandberg

Leading in a Complex World – Sheryl Sandberg (Photo credit: World Economic Forum)

Ha valami√©rt hasznos lehet az, hogy most sz√°zezrek vannak k√©nyszerbŇĎl k√ľlf√∂ld√∂n, akkor p√©ld√°ul az √∂ntudatra √©bred√©s hasznos lehet. Lassan egy kritikus t√∂meg keletkezik, amelyiknek van v√©lem√©nye, √∂sszehasonl√≠t√°si alapja, meg√ļjul√≥ kult√ļr√°ja, friss√≠tett mor√°lis √©rz√©ke, halad√≥bb tud√°sa, mert belel√°t m√°s, sok tekintetben fejlettebb (sok tekintetben azonban szint√©n v√°ls√°gban l√©vŇĎ) t√°rsadalmak √©rt√©krendj√©be, mŇĪk√∂d√©s√©be, h√©tk√∂znapjaiba, politikai, szakmai √©s mag√°n√©let√©be. K√∂zben nemzetk√∂zi kapcsolatokra is szert tesznek. Tov√°bb√° ott vannak azok, akik az interneten kereszt√ľl folyamatosan √©rintkeznek a vil√°ggal, akkor is, ha fizikailag itthon vannak. Igaz, hogy Magyarorsz√°g a sok milli√≥ szeg√©ny orsz√°ga, de az is igaz, hogy van legal√°bb 1 milli√≥ ember, aki most temp√≥san friss√≠ti a vil√°gn√©zet√©t, a vil√°gl√°t√°s√°t, az √∂nk√©p√©t, √©s ennek pozit√≠v hat√°sa is lesz (nemcsak negat√≠v). Negat√≠v, hogy csal√°dok vannak sz√©tszak√≠tva, de pozit√≠v, hogy amikor a gyerek hazat√©r, sokkal t√°j√©kozottabb lesz. Negat√≠v, hogy a sz√ľlei ebbŇĎl nem √©rtenek majd semmit (hacsak k√∂zben szorgosan nem mŇĪvelt√©k magukat online), de pozit√≠v, hogy majd tal√°lkozhat magafajta emberekkel, egyre t√∂bbel, akiknek ugyancsak megv√°ltoztak az elv√°r√°saik √∂nmagukkal √©s a k√∂z√∂ss√©geikkel szemben. Igyekezz√ľnk hinni ebben, maradjunk optimist√°k. A social √©s digital media, a glob√°lis social network-ok pozit√≠v v√°ltoz√°sokat is hoznak.

P√©ter √©s a F√©rfi √Ėn√©rdek

Ha j√≥l eml√©kszem, a “P√©ter √©s a Farkas”-ban a fi√ļcska szembesz√°ll az agresszorral, hogy megv√©dje a t√∂bbieket (√©s persze √∂nmag√°t). Rem√©ltem, hogy √Ārvai P√©ter vil√°gosan l√°tja majd, hogy itthon milyen iszonyatos elmaradotts√°g van a t√°rsadalmi egyenlŇĎs√©g ter√©n (a nagy t√°rsadalmi szakad√©k, a minden szinten √©rz√©kelhetŇĎ t√°rsadalmi √©s anyagi egyenlŇĎtlens√©g a legm√©rgezŇĎbb dolog, az √≠t√©lkez√©s borzalmas attitŇĪdjeit erŇĎs√≠ti… a legmegbeteg√≠tŇĎbb nem fizikai jellegŇĪ emberi, t√°rsadalmi reakci√≥ a m√°sik ember fel√© az √≠t√©lkez√©s, kifejezetten megnyomor√≠t√≥ √©s hal√°los, mert sz√∂rnyŇĪ fiziol√≥giai stresszel j√°r, √©s a stressz genetikai szinten rombolja le az emberi szervezetet). Rem√©ltem, hogy okosan befoly√°solja majd pl. a “Gazella” (az akkredit√°lt technol√≥giai inkub√°tor p√°ly√°zatokr√≥l d√∂ntŇĎ) zsŇĪri kiv√°laszt√°si szempontjait. Lehet, hogy az egyik csapat, melyet egy √∂n√°ll√≥ v√°llalkoz√°si √©s startup tapasztalattal rendelkezŇĎ nŇĎ vezetett (saj√°t c√©ge is van), nem teljes√≠tette az √∂sszes kimondott vagy kimondatlan felt√©telt, de ennek ellen√©re √©rdemes lenne neki √©s a csapat√°nak is es√©lyt adni a j√∂vŇĎben. √Ėrvendetes, hogy a n√©gy nyertes egyik√©nek eln√∂ks√©g√©ben l√°that√≥an van egy nŇĎ, de biztosra vehetŇĎ, hogy a n√©gy nyertes felsŇĎ vezetŇĎi k√∂z√∂tt nem sok a nŇĎ (bele√©rtve a r√©szv√©nyes befektetŇĎ c√©gek vezetŇĎit is). Mi itt a probl√©ma? N√©zz√ľk.

Kigoly√≥zott NŇĎk

Vannak pl. azok a nŇĎk, akiknek kiv√©telesen siker√ľlt beverekedni, be√ľgyeskedni, beh√°zas√≠tani magukat a felsŇĎ vezetŇĎi szintre… ŇĎk gyakran elf√©rfiasodnak az alkalmazkod√°si k√©nyszer miatt (tisztelet a szerencs√©s kiv√©telnek, egy√ľtt√©rz√©sem a kev√©sb√© szerencs√©seknek), sŇĎt eleve ink√°bb az agressz√≠vabb, tesztoszteronban gazdagabb nŇĎk k√©pesek eljutni a legfelsŇĎ szintre, ŇĎk meg azt√°n nemhogy seg√≠ten√©nek m√°s nŇĎket, hanem ott ny√≠rj√°k a nŇĎnemŇĪ gyakornokokat, beosztottakat, k√∂z√©pvezetŇĎket, ahol csak lehet… hogy a saj√°t kiv√©teles, gyakran iszonyatos √°ldozatok √°r√°n kiv√≠vott helyzet√ľket v√©dj√©k. Azt hiszem, hogy “a fej√©tŇĎl bŇĪzlik a hal” ebben az esetben √≠gy is hangozhatna: Amilyen a felsŇĎ vezetŇĎi mag, olyan mentalit√°s√ļ a HR-es “gatekeeper” a c√©gn√©l (hiszen valaki ŇĎt is kiv√°lasztotta), √©s egy nŇĎ √©rdemeken alapul√≥, c√©gen bel√ľli elŇĎrehalad√°si es√©lye (a legfelsŇĎbb szintig) ford√≠tottan ar√°nyos a legfelsŇĎbb vezetŇĎk rangsor√°ban megsz√°ml√°lhat√≥ “goly√≥k” mennyis√©g√©vel, ha √©rti a kedves olvas√≥, hogy mit akarok mondani… (√°ltal√°ban es√©lytelen egy nŇĎ, hacsak saj√°t kezŇĪleg meg nem “sz√°molja” azokat a “goly√≥kat”, √©s gyan√≠that√≥an m√©g akkor is…). Ar√°nyaiban min√©l t√∂bb a “goly√≥”, ann√°l kisebb a nŇĎi es√©ly… Az ilyen c√©gekn√©l csak iszonyatos t√°rsadalmi √©s sajt√≥ nyom√°ssal lehet v√°ltoz√°sokat el√©rni.

Azt is l√°tni kell, hogy ugyan a Prezi-nek pl. volt a melegfelvonul√°son kamionja (√©s erre ŇĎk nagyon b√ľszk√©k, majd sz√©tveti ŇĎket a meleg b√ľszkes√©g), de nincs nŇĎnemŇĪ CEO-juk (errŇĎl sz√≥t sem ejtenek, mert nem √©rzik sz√ľks√©g√©t). √Ārvai P√©ternek nagyon fontos a homoszexualit√°sa √©s a melegek √ľgy√©nek k√©pviselete (meg√©rtem, a t√°rsadalmi kisebbs√©gek √©rdekei fontosak). Mindek√∂zben nem fontosak neki a nŇĎk… az emberis√©g fel√©nek √©rdek k√©pviselete? (Ezt nem √©rtem meg!) A Prezi vil√°gpiaci term√©k, sok milli√≥ felhaszn√°l√≥val. Ennek a t√∂megnek optim√°lis esetben a fele nŇĎ. Akkor a Prezi felsŇĎ vezetŇĎi csapat√°nak a fele mi√©rt nem √°ll nŇĎkbŇĎl? Magyarorsz√°gon hivatalosan n√©gy f√©rfi vezeti a c√©get, m√≠g az USA-ban legal√°bb h√©t f√©rfi (ebbŇĎl h√°rom a magyar c√©get is vezeti). Hol vannak a nŇĎnemŇĪ c√©gvezetŇĎk, √ľgyvezetŇĎk vagy igazgat√≥s√°gi tagok? Ha √©vente lenne “NŇĎket C√©gvezetŇĎnek” vagy “Le az √úvegplafonnal” vagy “NŇĎket az Igazgat√≥tan√°csba” felvonul√°s, akkor a Prezi-nek nem lenne “kamionja” az esem√©nyen… hiszen fura is lenne…

Teh√°t ilyen t√©ren a vil√°g szeme √Ārvai P√©ter-en √©s a “Gazella zsŇĪri” d√∂nt√©s√©n… volt… Tudom√°som szerint a p√°ly√°z√≥ csapatok 10%–√°t vezette nŇĎ… de persze (m√©g) nem l√°tok bele minden p√°ly√°z√≥ alap√≠t√≥ okirat√°ba (fŇĎleg a nyerteseket vizsg√°ltam). A ki√≠r√°sban nem volt kiz√°r√≥ felt√©tel a nemzetk√∂zi inkub√°ci√≥s tapasztalat hi√°nya, ennek ellen√©re az egyik elutas√≠tott csapatnak (egy startup-nak), akik √©ppen egy nŇĎ vezet√©s√©vel prezent√°ltak (volt benn√ľk b√°tors√°g, hogy √≠gy tegyenek), azt hozt√°k fel indokl√°sul, hogy nem tudnak nemzetk√∂zi inkub√°ci√≥s tapasztalatot felmutatni!? Nem √°ll√≠thatjuk, hogy Magyarorsz√°gon hemzsegn√©nek a kiv√°l√≥, sikeres √©s tapasztalt nemzetk√∂zi technol√≥giai inkub√°torok (a nyertesek k√∂z√ľl nem mindnek van direkt inkub√°ci√≥s tapasztalata, van, akinek “csup√°n” saj√°t v√°llalkoz√°si tapasztalata van), fŇĎleg nem hemzsegnek a nŇĎk √°ltal vezetett technol√≥giai startup-ok… Akkor honnan lenne √©s honnan lesz itt egy friss csapatnak, egy nŇĎ vezet√©s√©vel, nemzetk√∂zi startup inkub√°ci√≥s tapasztalata?

Ha van is p√°r (fŇĎleg) f√©rfiak √°ltal vezetett inkub√°tornak megk√∂zel√≠tŇĎleg az elv√°rthoz hasonl√≥ szakmai tapasztalata, k√©nytelenek lesz√ľnk levonni a k√∂vetkeztet√©st, hogy ez egy jellegzetesen hazai p√°ly√°zat volt, melyben m√°r l√©tezŇĎ, de eddig nem igaz√°n bizony√≠t√≥, vagy frissen, direkt a p√°ly√°zat miatt alakult inkub√°torok kapnak majd elŇĎre leosztott p√°ly√°zati p√©nzeket, fŇĎleg ha kor√°bban JEREMIE t√°mogat√°sban r√©szes√ľltek? (Tisztelet a kiv√©telnek.) P√°r h√≥napja hallottam az egyik (imm√°r) nyertest nyilatkozni a p√°ly√°zattal kapcsolatban, √©s az volt az √©rz√©sem, hogy ŇĎ m√°r biztosan tudja, hogy nyernek majd (s√ľt√∂tt belŇĎle az √∂nbizalom), de honlapjuk az m√©g nem volt (akkor m√©g hi√°ba kerestem)… √©s nyertek is, pedig nem voltak benne a JEREMIE programban… (v√©geredm√©nyben van rem√©ny azok sz√°m√°ra is, akik nem kaptak JEREMIE alap t√°mogat√°st, nem is egy ilyen p√°ly√°z√≥ lett sikeres). Honlapjuk m√°r van, de a csapatr√≥l nem tudunk meg semmit, hi√°ba is keress√ľk az arcokat. Rem√©lem, hogy sikeres lesz a startup inkub√°tor, amelyik maga is egy rizik√≥s startup (a Digital Factory egy “egyszem√©lyes r√©szv√©nyt√°rsas√°g”… elk√©pzelem az “egyszem√©lyes igazgat√≥s√°got”, amint Pasar√©ten, tŇĎlem √ļgy 15 percre l√°zasan keresi a c√©g√©be az embereket, a nappalij√°ban, a kanap√©n, a neten…).¬†Mindent √∂sszevetve, olyanok nyertek, akik rendelkeznek nemzetk√∂zi kapcsolatokkal √©s √ľzleti tapasztalatokkal.

A zsŇĪri saj√°tos, zsŇĪriz√©s k√∂zben bek√∂vetkezett sz√©thull√°s√°r√≥l most nem is ejten√©k sz√≥t… Ha az nem sz√°m√≠t, hogy a zsŇĪri tagjai nem ugyanazok voltak az elej√©n, mint a folyamat v√©g√©n… akkor mi sz√°m√≠t? √Ārvai¬†P√©ter lassan megismeri a hazai k√∂zeget, meglehetŇĎsen ki is mer√ľlt a zsŇĪriz√©s sor√°n. Meglehet, n√©h√°ny nŇĎnemŇĪ tulajdonos √©s CEO gyorsan finomhangolhatn√° a helyzet√©rt√©kel√©s√©t. Ha j√≥ k√©pess√©gŇĪ nŇĎnemŇĪ vezetŇĎt l√°tunk egy lelkes startup √©l√©n, akkor bizony pozit√≠van kell diszkrimin√°lni, hogy a h√°tr√°nyt, melyet a nŇĎk √°ltal vezetett (technol√≥giai) c√©gek hi√°nya jelent, gyorsabban lehessen lek√ľzdeni, k√ľl√∂n√∂sen egy elmaradott, egyenlŇĎtlen, paternalista t√°rsadalomban, amilyen a magyar. Nem azt kellett volna keresni, hogy mit nem tud felmutatni a kor√°bban eml√≠tett, jobb sorsra √©rdemes csapat, melyet egy nŇĎ vezetett, hanem azt kellett volna felt√°rni, hogy mivel rendelkeznek! Persze, meglehet, hogy ebben a k√∂rben m√©g nem l√°tszottak el√©g √≠g√©retesnek, de h√°tha a k√∂vetkezŇĎ k√∂rre kidombor√≠tj√°k a nemzetk√∂zi startup inkub√°ci√≥hoz sz√ľks√©ges tapasztalataikat, csapat szinten. Nekik k√ľl√∂nben m√°r szeptemberben megvolt a 40 milli√≥s jegyzett tŇĎk√©j√ľk, ami a nyertesek fel√©rŇĎl a mai napig nem mondhat√≥ el, a nyilv√°nos c√©gadatok alapj√°n.

Vezet√©s, C√©gek, NŇĎk, Inkub√°torok √©s Gyors√≠t√≥k

L√°ssuk mi t√∂rt√©nik 2014-ben. Valami mocorog a startup t√©m√°ban Magyarorsz√°gon, de sokkal t√∂bb inkub√°torra lesz sz√ľks√©g√ľnk, hogy n√©h√°ny sikeres “gyors√≠t√≥” ki tudjon emelkedni k√∂z√ľl√ľk, ak√°r k√©sŇĎbb felhaszn√°lva a t√∂bbi, kev√©sb√© sikeres inkub√°tor hasznos erŇĎforr√°sait, tehets√©ges szakembereit. T√©ny azonban, hogy k√©t √©v alatt kevesebb mint 200 milli√≥s inkub√°toronk√©nti t√°mogat√°sb√≥l, √©s inkub√°toronk√©nt egy tucat startup c√©gbŇĎl m√©g nem alakul ki nemzetk√∂zi kritikus t√∂meg, akkor sem, ha egy √©v m√ļlva m√°r nyolc inkub√°tor lesz. Az inkub√°torok mellett sz√ľks√©g lenne tov√°bb√° ad√≥kedvezm√©nyekre, j√°rul√©k kedvezm√©nyekre, vagy ad√≥ √©s j√°rul√©k mentess√©gre, mondjuk az elsŇĎ 3 √©vben (k√ľl√∂n√∂sen a kis startup-oknak), mert ha ilyesmire nincs m√≥d, akkor az √°llam csak az egyik zseb√©bŇĎl a m√°sikba rakja a p√©nzt, mik√∂zben m√©zesmadzagot r√°ngat az adrenalin t√ļlteng√©ses startup alap√≠t√≥k elŇĎtt, √©s nagyban n√∂veli a buk√°suk es√©ly√©t, mert az elsŇĎ perctŇĎl tartja a mark√°t. R√°ad√°sul, ha egy c√©g nem sikeres, akkor itthon nem tud gyorsan “kisz√°llni”, mert a megsz√ľntet√©s (√©s a mŇĪk√∂dtet√©s) egy agyr√©m (mik√∂zben az alap√≠t√°s gyorsan megy). √Čsszel kellene ezt csin√°lni. √Āt kellene gondolni a folyamat minden elem√©t, √©s a lehetŇĎ legnagyobb kedvezm√©nyeket kellene az ilyen c√©geknek biztos√≠tani, ha azt akarjuk, hogy 10 √©ven bel√ľl kih√ļzz√°k az orsz√°got a g√∂d√∂rbŇĎl. √Čs ezen bel√ľl mindenn√©l fontosabb a nŇĎk startup v√°llalkoz√≥kedv√©nek √©s siker√©nek t√°mogat√°sa, mert a t√°rsadalmi felelŇĎss√©gv√°llal√°s √©s az etikus business kulcsa az ŇĎ kez√ľkben van.

Sokszor k√©rdezik a t√°rsadalomtud√≥sokat √©s az √©rdekv√©dŇĎket, hogy mi√©rt kellene pozit√≠van diszkrimin√°lni a nŇĎket pl. a parlamentbejut√°skor, vagy a c√©gvezet√©s ter√©n. Azt az √°ls√°gos mondatot m√°r hallani sem b√≠rom, hogy “MitŇĎl lenn√©nek a nŇĎk m√©lt√≥bbak politikusnak vagy vezetŇĎnek, mint a f√©rfiak?”… Mik√∂zben mennyi, de mennyi m√©ltatlan f√©rfi parlamenti √©s felsŇĎ vezetŇĎi √°mokfut√°s√°t: teljesen mag√°t√≥l √©rtetŇĎdŇĎnek veszik. Nem a nŇĎk m√©lt√≥bbak a f√©rfiakn√°l vezetŇĎnek, hanem bizony a f√©rfiak nem m√©lt√≥bbak a nŇĎkn√©l. Ennek ellen√©re sokkal t√∂bb f√©rfi t√∂lthet be magas vezetŇĎi poz√≠ci√≥kat. Azt √©rdekes m√≥don senki sem k√©rdŇĎjelezi meg, hogy a gazdas√°gi fejlŇĎd√©s √©rdek√©ben egyes startup-oknak pozit√≠v diszkrimin√°ci√≥ra, avagy inkub√°ci√≥ra, tan√°csad√°sra, kiemelt b√°n√°sm√≥dra van sz√ľks√©g√ľk, hogy a nemzetk√∂zi piacok kih√≠v√°sai k√∂z√∂tt gyorsan megerŇĎs√∂dhessenek √©s sikeresek lehessenek, pedig semmi garancia sincs arra, hogy bev√°lnak. Azonban, ha ak√°r csak egy r√©sz√ľk is bev√°lik, akkor meg√©rte a befektet√©s! H√∂lgyeim √©s Uraim: √Čppen ugyan√≠gy a nŇĎket is, ha tetszik, vezetŇĎi inkub√°ci√≥ban kell r√©szes√≠teni, vezetŇĎi “gyors√≠t√≥” programok keret√©ben kell “√©rlelni” ŇĎket, √©s elŇĎrejut√°sukat kiemelten kell kezelni, t√°rsadalmaink eg√©szs√©ges l√©tez√©se, hovatov√°bb f√∂nnmarad√°sunk √©rdek√©ben. A nŇĎk √©s a f√©rfiak auton√≥m √©s torzul√°smentes egym√°s mellett l√©tez√©se √©s egy√ľttmŇĪk√∂d√©se az egyetlen mor√°lisan elfogadhat√≥ j√∂vŇĎk√©p, √©s ehhez mind a nŇĎk, mind pedig a f√©rfiak √∂nbizalm√°t, √∂ntudat√°t √©s tud√°s√°t meg kell erŇĎs√≠teni.

Relev√°ns cikkek, vide√≥k, r√°di√≥mŇĪsorok (az angol id√©zetekhez magyar ford√≠t√°st is r√∂gt√∂n√∂ztem):

Update: TechCrunch November 14, 2013: Online Presentation Startup Prezi Zooms To 30M Users And 96M Prezis, Hires Apple, Google, Flip Video Execs For Global Growth

Gender Equality Index: Hungary

This American Life: Testosterone (audio)

The Clueless White Bro Culture of Silicon Valley

Tech Scores on Forbes‚Äô 100 Most Powerful Women List…

23andMe’s Daring CEO On CBS: Anne Wojcicki

Anne Wojcicki

Looking For Rock Stars and Ninjas in All the Wrong Places

“Google figured out within its first 12 people that if they wanted to truly pull the best talent from wherever it could, diversity mattered on even its earliest team.”

A Google m√°r az elsŇĎ 12 ember felv√©tele sor√°n r√°j√∂tt, hogy ha igaz√°n a lehetŇĎ legtehets√©gesebb embereket akarj√°k b√°rhonnan megszerezni, akkor a diverzit√°s m√°r a legkor√°bbi csapatban is nagyon fontos szempont.

“Their focus on diversity in hiring was real, important and ultimately, served as a massive competitive advantage over other companies who followed the same, tired playbook. Over a decade later, Google has built the greatest Internet company of all time, on whose technical, product and business success was pioneered by a diverse team, many of whom happen to be women and people of color.”

A diverzit√°sra f√≥kusz√°l√°s r√©sz√ľkrŇĎl val√≥di c√©l volt, fontos volt, √©s v√©g√ľl massz√≠v versenyelŇĎnynek bizonyult m√°s c√©gekkel szemben, akik a r√©gi √©s f√°raszt√≥ forgat√≥k√∂nyv szerint j√°tszottak. Egy √©vtizeddel k√©sŇĎbb a Google minden idŇĎk legnagyobb internet c√©ge lett, √©s technikai, term√©k √©s √ľzleti siker√©t √©ppen erre az √ļtt√∂rŇĎ jellegŇĪ, diverzit√°s√°ban egyed√ľl√°ll√≥ csapatra √©p√≠tette, melyben rengeteg a nŇĎ √©s a sz√≠nes-bŇĎrŇĪ ember. ¬†

It Does Apply to You: Bridging the Gender Gap in Business

Why the World Needs Women Entrepreneurs

Saying High-Tech Is a Meritocracy Doesn’t Make it So

“Only 3% of high-tech firms are owned by women, and women hold only 25% of computer occupations in the US. (Department of Labor)”

A high-tech c√©geknek csak 3%-√°t birtokolj√°k nŇĎk, √©s a sz√°m√≠t√°stechnikai √°ll√°soknak csak 25%-√°ban tal√°lunk nŇĎket az USA-ban. (Munka√ľgyi Miniszt√©rium, USA)

“Research shows that women face persistent barriers … in the high tech industry — to name a few: isolation, a lack of access to influential social networks and mentors, lack of role models, stereotyping, unwelcoming cultures, and organizational practices that are not adapted to a diverse workforce.”

A kutat√°sokb√≥l kider√ľl, hogy a nŇĎk √°lland√≥ akad√°lyokkal tal√°lj√°k magukat szemben, p√©ld√°ul, hogy csak n√©h√°nyat eml√≠ts√ľnk: izol√°ci√≥, a befoly√°sos t√°rsadalmi kapcsolati h√°l√≥khoz, mentorokhoz val√≥ hozz√°f√©r√©s illetve a p√©ldak√©pek hi√°nya, sztereot√≠pi√°k, bar√°ts√°gtalan k√∂zeg, √©s olyan szervezeti gyakorlatok, melyeket nem heterog√©n alkalmazotti k√∂z√∂ss√©gek sz√°m√°ra dolgoztak ki.

MoolaHoop Launches Crowdfunding Platform Dedicated to Women Entrepreneurs

“Despite the fact that¬†women own 10.6 million businesses in the U.S. and represent 35 percent of startup business owners, they receive a¬†piddling 4.2% of venture capital funding. This means women-owned companies tend to be smaller and grow more slowly than companies owned by men.¬†MoolaHoop¬†launched a crowdfunding platform for women entrepreneurs today to bridge this gap.”

Az USA-ban a nŇĎk 10,6 milli√≥ v√°llalkoz√°s tulajdonosai, a startup v√°llalkoz√≥k 35%-√°t reprezent√°lj√°k, de csak a kock√°zati tŇĎke 4,2%-√°hoz jutnak hozz√°. A MoolaHoop elind√≠totta a kifejezetten v√°llalkoz√≥-nŇĎknek sz√≥l√≥ crowdfunding platformj√°t, hogy √°thidalja a kir√≠v√≥ szakad√©kot.

7 Ridiculous Restrictions on Women’s Rights Around the World

Not only is Hungary among the countries where people are most likely to hate their jobs, but according to this article, Hungary is also among the countries where the gender disparity is very large.

Ha nem lenne el√©g, hogy Magyarorsz√°g igen szomor√ļ helyen van azon a list√°n, amely az emberek munk√°hoz val√≥ viszony√°t elemzi, akkor itt van egy m√°sik lista, mely szerint az orsz√°g szint√©n sz√©gyenletes helyen van, ami a nŇĎk √©s f√©rfiak k√∂z√∂tti egyenlŇĎ b√°n√°sm√≥dot illeti.

Why Google Wants Women (video)

“Vice President of Google[x] Megan Smith talks about the biases against women in engineering that she has personally overcome, and how companies like Google are combating the glass ceiling.”

Megan Smith a Google[x] aleln√∂ke az √°ltala gyerekk√©nt megtapasztalt, nŇĎkkel szembeni elŇĎ√≠t√©letekrŇĎl besz√©l (a m√©rn√∂ki szakm√°ban), illetve arr√≥l, hogy a Google-h√∂z hasonl√≥ c√©gek hogyan k√ľzdenek az √ľvegplafon ellen.

The House that Helped Build Google

Susan Wojcicki saj√°t (r√©gebbi) gar√°zsa elŇĎtt, melyben anno a Google “inkub√°l√≥dott”… Susan ma a Google egyik felsŇĎ vezetŇĎje. Egyik testv√©re, Anne Wojcicki ma Sergey Brin feles√©ge √©s a Google √°ltal finansz√≠rozott 23&Me biotech alap√≠t√≥ja √©s vezetŇĎje.

Powerful Ads Use Real Google Searches to Show the Scope of Sexism Worldwide – Simple visual for inequality¬†Al√°bb egy k√©p abb√≥l a kamp√°nyb√≥l, mely egyszerŇĪ Google keres√©sek automatikusan felaj√°nlott v√°laszt√°si lehetŇĎs√©geivel demonstr√°lja a nŇĎkkel szemben tapasztalhat√≥ diszkrimin√°ci√≥t vil√°gszerte… Arra, hogy “a nŇĎket/a nŇĎnek”, ezt aj√°nlja a Google algoritmusa a legn√©pszerŇĪbb glob√°lis keres√©si kulcsszavak hat√°s√°ra: A nŇĎket helyre kell tenni… A nŇĎnek tudnia kell, hogy hol a helye… ¬†A nŇĎket kontroll√°lni kell… A nŇĎket meg kell regul√°zni

‚ÄúThis campaign uses the world’s most popular search engine (Google) to show how gender inequality is a worldwide problem. The adverts show the results of genuine searches, highlighting popular opinions across the world wide web.‚ÄĚ (!)

Fontos szakkifejez√©s: “Affirmative action¬†(known as¬†positive discrimination¬†in the¬†United Kingdom¬†and as¬†employment equity¬†in Canada and elsewhere) refers to policies that take factors including “race, color, religion,¬†sex, or national origin”¬†into consideration¬†in order to benefit an underrepresented group “in areas of employment, education, and business”.¬†The concept of affirmative action was introduced in the early 1960s as a way to combat¬†racial discrimination¬†in the hiring process, and¬†in 1967, the concept was expanded to include gender.”¬†(Ezen a¬†linken a magyar verzi√≥ is megtal√°lhat√≥:¬†

Update from March 15., 2014:¬†If you think that men and women have an equal opportunity as entrepreneurs in society, you are at least ignorant. If I consider the fact that VC money is mostly controlled by men, and if I add¬†the results of the new MIT/Wharton study: Does it mean that male venture capitalists unconsciously and overwhelmingly prefer to invest in very handsome men? Does it mean that latent or undisclosed or open male homosexuality governs VC investments? Does it mean that the majority of women have no chance of making it as entrepreneurs due to this bias when competing against men in front of male investors? Is this happening in other fields, like science or politics as well? Obviously it is. Testosteron, looks, objectification, big money, business, power, and men go hand in hand…