Why you need to see Fruitvale Station

I can't get Fruitvale Station out of my head and I'm writing about it two weeks after seeing it to see if I can explain why. I went to see it at Angelika in Soho and almost bought a ticket  for "Before Midnight" instead.

I had little foreknowledge of the Oscar Grant case and it didn't make a difference either way. The first scene of the film removed any foreshadowing whatsoever and it was more about the character's story than anything else.

Hard to talk about a brilliantly directed and acted film because really you just have to see it.

I'm still bewildered by the senselessness of what happened, shocked at the injustice of the aftermath, enraged by the helplessness I feel about avoiding it in the future.

This obviously isn't a light recommendation and I don't know what you will feel when you watch it. I simply recommend that you do. It's rare these days for a movie to move you so strongly. 

How to be happy and rich

There's plenty of research showing that money doesn't make you happier. If it did, then linearly, the rich would be happier than the poor. But turns out that's not true.

Assume someone takes this to heart and prioritizes something other than money. Family, food, music, dance, travel, time, healing, volunteering, etc. A competitive person who prioritizes money may now be better off because they have one less person to beat. More money for them.

But if enough people agreed not to prioritize money, who would the money-hungry person be richer than? The next money-hungry person right? It's completely relative isn't it? Those that don't care about money won't be at a loss. The value of money is only figurative so if it isn't the benchmark of success, it loses value.

Without everyone competing for resources on the basis of money, there will be less resources you can buy with money. There will be less of a high-price market for the rich. Less relative difference in production costs because "the poor" would become a smaller market (or larger depending on how you look at it).

What would we compete for then? Very little. The things we prioritize would determine the circles we participate in.

You can see this in reality when you hang out with a group of people that distinctly prioritizes something other than money, like food. They may work at a farm, or start a garden, or become part of a community-supported agriculture group, or go wwoof for a while. They may cook more or save money to go to nice places that use mainly organic, locally-grown produce. They may not spend their money on clothes or a car or an apartment as much as others who prioritize those items.

Money would go back to being merely a form of exchange for those basic things we all need, food, water, shelter. Competing with someone else to have a bigger house, or nicer car, or prettier furniture wouldn't make much sense unless it was just friendly competition. It wouldn't be about what lots of money can buy, it would be about what you want to buy.

It goes back to happiness, doesn't it? If money doesn't make us happier the richer we get, then why go after it? Why not just go after the things that make you happy? 

What is the purpose of education?

"The function of education is not to make you fit into the social pattern; on the contrary, it is to help you to understand completely, deeply, fully, and thereby break away from the social pattern, so that you are an individual without that arrogance of self; but you have confidence because you are really innocent."

That's Krishnamurti talking about self-confidence as "the capacity to succeed within the social structure," versus confidence without a sense of self-importance, which is "the confidence of a child who is so completely innocent he will try anything." 

I went back to look up this quote after listening to Sir Ken Robinson's witty and comedic intro on The Commonwealth Fund. I highly recommend it. 

He talks about America as a society acknowledging that a standardized educational system creates standardized automatons. It's doing what it's built to do, so why should we be surprised by the outcome?

We rarely expose kids to the options they have. Budget cuts eliminate art and music programs, technology class and creative writing, foreign language and sports. The focus remains on the hard sciences and english, missing out on opportunities to introduce children to a variety of professions.

Not being able to try other career options without taking enormous risks continues through adulthood. Whether because of debt constraints, family responsibility, or simply a risk-averse personality, too many people live "actively disengaged" lives because they don't get exposed to what they may like and excel at. 

There are two approaches towards change: 1) re-engineer the current educational system to be less standardized and more diverse in its teaching curriculum, and 2) create risk-free opportunities through internships, externships, sabbaticals, temporary leaves, 20% time, and paid volunteer hours for people to explore other options. 

The first approach is a political issue and is slowly being disrupted by the entrepreneurial community through maker movements, online education, and new learning profile models of teaching. 

The second approach is considered unrealistic since employers are highly unlikely to release their clutch on workers they've trained (but not necessarily cultivated). I consider training a sunk cost when the employee has no personal interest or curiosity in their work. What kind of production value comes from someone who inherently doesn't care about what they are doing and are simply waiting for the weekend to come around? 

The payoff in allowing your employees to explore their options is other individuals will explore your company as an option. Highly motivated, engaged and curious individuals willing to treat work at your company as rewarding in and of itself will apply and get involved. 9-5'ers won't come in at 9:01 and leave at 4:59. They'll be thinking about "work" outside of a set time schedule because to them it's a part of who they are. 

If the positive side isn't a good sell, consider saving all the money spent on workforce development programs and morale-boosting in-services and wellness programs geared towards mental health. Treating symptoms is costlier than striking at the root. 

I'm curious whether there are companies thinking innovatively about HR, from recruitment to retention. What startups are working to build the new HR? Which entrepreneur is building a conduit for people to explore other options? 

The next step on the ladder

Just because being the boss is the next step on the ladder doesn't mean you should want it or have it. Look among your colleagues and make a judgment call on who'd be a good leader. Who among you can facilitate a project efficiently, is humble but direct, is reliable yet lenient, brings up morale simply by being there, and is respected for handling tough situations well?

Regardless of the salary bump, of the title, or our current equal footing, I'd personally want a person with these character traits leading the charge because they will make me better as well.

Too often, we get caught up in beating out the next person because that's what we're supposed to do. It may not even be up to us, because we've institutionalized the construct that the best worker will make the best leader.

High merit in one skill set doesn't equate to high merit in another. We inherently know this, but choose to forget it just in case we're the one that might be selected, whether or not we want to even be the boss. Better judgment calls require less ego.