The media lab events should serve as a warning for institutions cut from the same cloth.
- Pivot the brand now
- Swap out impresario leaders for quiet bureaucratic-heroes
- Reduce funding reliance on PR
- work on problems that are unsexy and hard not stunts
- refactor > vision
Conversation
Replying to
This seems like a plan to kill the Media Lab. It's supposed to be visionary, so you need a visionary leader, or one that's good at picking visionaries to lead labs. They need to double down on vision, but likely a new vision.
1
Replying to
Worth a long-bet. I think we're headed for a decade or two of "vision recession" where the initiative shifts to the opposite of "visionary" types.
3
3
Replying to
If you don't believe in vision's future, then you should probably just winddown the Media Lab and start a more serious research lab with a fresh culture.
1
Replying to
Possibly. This is is in fact what I suspect a lot of funders will do. In fact, taking it one degree out, the funding culture will change, and a different kind of billionaire/millionaire will step in while the glamor-seeking/BIRGing kind will retreat.
2
1
Replying to
Even in a depression though, I think the culture wants hope/vision. If 2020 picks Trump again and the culture wars continue, we may have everyone asking for safety/normalcy more though and then you're right. Is that your bet?
1
Replying to
Hmm I don't think Trump re-election is a good proxy. If he wins, his mandate for term 2 won't be the same as term 1. If someone else does, it will mean different things depending on who does. But note that there are no strong "vision/hope" candidates like Obama in 2008.
1
Replying to
A Trump re-election will be a referendum on the culture wars (and maybe whether change is possible at all).
is clearly a vision candidate and on the rise. Same with . People crave a new way forward right now past our apathy / inaction.
1
Yang, yeah. Warren not sure. And I don't know what the election will be a referendum on. I'll wait for the post-mortem
1
I'd say Warren has a strong vision for a progressive future for America. I def don't agree with all of it, and it's def not all "new ideas", but it's not just a bunch of focus-group-tested BS.
1
Do you think "healing" is a vision? Because I think that's what there's an actual hunger for right now, not "vision" in the positive-future sense. Just healing of wounds and some R&R. Healing --> key reforms --> new vision. Path will be about a decade at least, more likely 2.
I don't disagree on the need for healing, though I think "healing" is orthogonal (more goal than method) to vision/execution/etc. I think a boring healing candidate won't do, Hillary lost people by not recognizing pain where Bernie / Trump connected more.
Maybe we're saying the same thing and the answer is a vision candidate who plans for healing then executes on a vision of hope. Unsure on timeframe as well. It seems everything moves faster now. Healing is also interesting re: holding Trump&Co accountable, likely not healing.

