Over the last several years I have spent much of my time doing business outside of the United States in locations such as Europe, South America, the Middle East, and Asia. Over the arc of my career this is not new — I have had opportunities to see much of the world through business travel and a wide range of educational and commercial engagements.
However, my home base for work has almost always been Silicon Valley. As an entrepreneur, venture capitalist, lecturer at Stanford, and even in my time at Intel three decades ago (when Intel was one of the most valuable companies in the world), most of my working life has been based in the hub of American technological innovation.
But as I type this while returning from a week-long business trip to Malaysia, and when I look at my travel plans for the next six months, I’m realizing I am seeing some of the most compelling business and leadership opportunities happen outside of the San Francisco Bay Area. The size and scope of the companies with whom I engage, and the positive impact on both local and global arenas, seem much broader and more positive than what I run across with either large tech companies or startups in my backyard.
Comedy or documentary?
The current American tech behemoths appear to be lumbering giants ambling with the inertia from their previous creations. Google, Meta, Microsoft, Netflix and Amazon are all clearly still successful and profitable, but what true innovations has each contributed in the last decade? And impact? Selling ads, sharing photos, delivering enterprise productivity software, watching movies, and shopping via eCommerce have been with us for a while now.
Of course, the activity around OpenAI and Nvidia is impressive, but broadly, Silicon Valley feels stale.
Even most of the startups coming out of Stanford seem small in nature to what I am seeing elsewhere.
Don’t get me wrong; it isn’t that I’m seeing a Cambrian explosion of technology innovation outside of Silicon Valley that is outshining what is being invented here. But I see two things that are missing in the home of American innovation:
Companies in other parts of the world are shaping and impacting their countries and societies in ways that may have already happened elsewhere but are profound in their regions. From the energy transition in Southeast Asia to financial services in the Middle East, there is a sense of transformation amongst the young people that is palpable and aspirational. It feels that the startup energy in Silicon Valley is focused on chasing commercial success for the sake of commercial success. While I see a lot of virtue signaling around certain sectors (e.g. climatetech), there is an almost willful ignorance by most entrepreneurs and investors of the time and capital that will be required to scale these solutions to commercialization.
There is a wider global awareness and interconnectedness with the leaders I see outside of Silicon Valley, and these leaders see both the local and global implications of their work. Silicon Valley has become so internally focused in its ecosystem of hiring, funding, and narrative discussions of finding product-market-fit, MVPs, life hacks, and even political perspectives, it is as if it has become its own isolationist bubble not because of fear of the outside, but due to the gravitational force of its own inbred perspectives.
Now, granted, the purpose of business is to create profits and shareholder return (if you buy into the Friedman worldview), but many of the companies being started in the Bay Area seem to lack entrepreneurs who take pride in positively transforming their countries and regions. Not in a “we are doing good and doing well” mindset, but more in seeing broad positive impact and the willingness to put in the work and time to achieve these goals.
In the last two years I have hosted the CEOs of PG&E, Cargill, and Occidental Petroleum to my classes. Each time I asked the students if climate change and food sustainability are existential issues for our species. In rooms of over 100 people, every hand went up.
When I then asked if anyone wanted these CEOs’ jobs, and/or would go to work at these companies when they graduate, each time only one or two hands went up.
And, yet, the leaders of these three companies will have more impact on affecting climate change, food sustainability, etc. than almost any anyone else on the planet.
In 2016 one of my students called Silicon Valley “joyless.” He observed that people were chasing the big hit but seemed remarkably unhappy in their lives. When we look at things such as “hustle culture,” “hacking one’s life” (versus living one’s life), working at a small desk with co-workers stacked on top of each other — the question arises, “For what?”
(At least my generation had veal fattening pens — now people don’t even get cube walls — only a desk.)
I think there is a reason the idea of “quiet quitting” in the United States and “lying flat” in China have become so prominent. People realize that the culture of optimization and efficiency does not have a high probability of personal economic success, and certainly it is not providing emotional fulfillment. We are starting to see individuals, particularly young people, who are calling bullshit on this idea of “changing the world” and “making it a better place.” Most of what they see coming from companies is vapid, uninteresting, and they are no longer fooling themselves about their positive impact on society.
Of my students who return to their overseas homelands, in particular those going back to developing economies, they and the companies in which they work exude an optimism and purpose that seems nonexistent in Silicon Valley. I find people in other parts of the world realistic of the challenges they face, but having a desire and belief that they can truly make a difference — either at scale or even just in their communities. By working to accomplish something great in every little thing they do, whether by employing people, helping those in their area, or perhaps achieving commercial success, they exude a light that is missing in the Bay Area.
I see an emptiness in Silicon Valley, and I am aware of it more than ever when I leave the bubble.
The soulless zombie apocalypse is upon us.
The more attention on this question, the better. The way I put it is that for any given industry, there are some pretty obvious second order questions. If you make self-driving cars, you affect certain jobs and infrastructure with your design choices; if you make social networks, you affect certain constituencies; if you make social networks and only invest in moderation in English, you affect others again; etc.
I don't think everyone can or should agree on what the right answer to those questions is: who is responsible, what should be done, or the interaction effects between technology and society and business. You can think you are doing something good and then 100 years later it turns out you accidentally deafened whales; bad, but, maybe unknowable at the time. But today if you are building autonomous sonar drones, well... you should know.
I think if you build a business, or work on problems that directly or indirectly ask these questions (read: anything), then you should at least find the /question/ interesting and be open to rigorous engagement. Even if your conclusion is, "that is someone else's problem because ____" at least you've thought about it!
A lot of the time, though, there isn't only disengagement - there's a certain hostility or disbelief that these questions even have merit. And I think that's pretty unfortunate on a lot of levels.
So - thanks for provoking people on this topic!
(++ disclosure that I had the benefit of seeing Rob try to help / inculcate / resuscitate souls amongst the at-risk in business school, a worthy effort ;) )