If you have read about bitcoin, then you should have thought about what money is all about, what it is, fundamentally, and why it works. Thus a new technology nudges you to reconsider something that you previously took for granted. Blockchain does this in many areas as the ramifications of 'verify then write' rather than 'write then verify' play themselves out. In the process of examining the concepts underlying blockchain, I keep coming across related concepts that then prompt me to think about other domains. A side effect of thinking about blockchain is thinking about everything.
In my reading in the last few months, I keep coming across Albert Hirschman's theory of exit, voice and loyalty (Wikipedia). To save you following the link, the basic premise of the idea is that if you are in a system that you are unhappy with, then you have two choices: you can speak up: voice; or you can leave: exit. You level of loyalty is a factor on both sides - a higher loyalty will be the result if your voice is heard, and loyalty acts as a barrier to exit. Note that loyalty may be voluntary, or involuntary in the event that you are constrained in some way. (You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave...?)
This macro theory has clear applicability to many domains. An obvious one is your role as a consumer. If you are unhappy with service from a retailer, say, then you can complain and seek to address the issue (voice), or you can vote with your feet and go somewhere else (exit). For a given country or political system, you could stay to reform things (voice), or you can emigrate and try somewhere else (exit). In both cases, your loyalty influences your decision, higher loyalty making you more inclined to use your voice than to exit.
With a blockchain perspective and based on my experience, there are two angles on this that occur to me. The first is that blockchain technology changes what it is possible to exit, by creating new business models. For example, bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies raise the possibility of exiting some or all of the banking system - the whole "be your own bank" concept. This is an issue for the customers of financial services in particular, where positive loyalty is notoriously low, but 'involuntary loyalty' in the form of barriers to exit is high. The is perhaps something to address in another article.
The second angle, which I want to explore here, is different. Those who have spent time studying blockchain technology and who recognise its impact see it as a once-in-a-career thing. For this group, the possibilities and opportunities are impossible to ignore. How their employers, and potential employers, treat blockchain will therefore influence their voice / exit decision as employees. For the staff who see the potential of blockchain, there is a decision: do I try and do this from inside (voice) by influencing the company's direction, or do I leave and build something without constraints (exit)? This relates to my earlier article about faster horses and the adoption of blockchain. In that, I argued that the incumbents will be disrupted by startups who combine technology and domain expertise, with the domain expertise coming from former employees of the incumbents who had left. More explanation here.
The more accommodating incumbent employers are to the blockchain people, the higher that group's loyalty will be, the more voice they will have, and the less likely they will be to leave. That accommodation should take the form of enabling the creation of meaningful blockchain related initiatives, which will then provide a potential upside for the business. If this is not the case, then there is a strong possibility they will leave, with a corresponding downside for the business.
It is worth bearing in mind that there are people outside your organisation too, thinking about the reverse of this dilemma. Everyone in your industry: your peers, your staff, your potential staff, and your customers and suppliers, are looking at what you as a business do. In financial services, it is becoming increasingly untenable not to have a clear approach to blockchain and its possibilities, in the same way that it is untenable not to have a response on fintech generally, or legislative change. How the business responds to these opportunities and threats has a magnified effect down the line.
As for blockchain, so for many other fields. The best systems create loyalty. In an ideal company you have a lot of people who could walk into other roles or could create their own business but choose not to. The fact that their exit door is wide open should mean that their voice is heard. Barriers to exit don't work. Listening to the voices after the good ones have left is also a poor strategy. Companies are like swimming pools - they get colder and less pleasant places to be through evaporation of those people with the most energy. To stretch an already tortuous analogy, the more vigorous the environment (wind & sun, hot technology) the more people will leave.
I love these 'meta theories' because they are patterns that crop up repeatedly, and become useful tools for interpreting systems. The cross disciplinary nature of blockchain - cryptography, game theory, and so on - is one of the reasons that its applications are still unfolding. Something so complex can be used in ways we are just starting to get our heads round.
Comments