dispatches from the new world of work

The Case For Perpetual Revolution:
Not Optional

I am speaking today at an "offsite" leadership conference for Odebrecht. The firm is a fast-growing global player with about $12 billion (U.S.) in revenue, principally from Infrastructure construction and petrochemicals. These days, Brazil is frequently mentioned alongside China, India, and Russia as one of the Big 4 economies of the future—and Odebrecht is emblematic of Brazil's probable rosy future. Odebrecht emphasizes "entrepreneurial technology," and a principal focus of this conference is keeping the keystone entrepreneurial spirit alive in the face of growth and enormity—no small feat.

When one finds in one's hotel room a book about the company written by an insider, the appropriate response is to groan. Which is exactly what I did when I found Education Through Work, by Norberto Odebrecht, weighing in at 599 pages, on my bed. Little did I expect it to keep me up half the night—especially when it was competing with both jet lag and the latest from Daniel Silva, The Secret Servant. But read it I did, and Education Through Work is a superb work that explores the philosophy and reality of the idea of Entrepreneurial Technology. I am especially keen on leaders who look the enemy squarely in the eye. And Sr Odebrecht does just that: "Data drawn from the real world attest to a fact that is beyond our control: Everything in existence tends to deteriorate."

Amen. And what a clarion call to action, especially in these brutally competitive times that do indeed call for "perpetual revolution" and command the Ultimate Sanction to those who fail to appreciate the new economic realities.

(I'll let you know how it comes out.)

[PPT link is below.—CM]
Excellence. Always. Odebrecht, São Paulo, Brazil

Tom Peters posted this on 08/03/07.

Comments

K. Sriram--NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY EXCELLENT! Not even economically excellent. I have first-hand experience with the supposed Brazilian sugar-fuel, which has actually been 20+ years in the making. Remember that everything has consequences, both foreseen and unforeseen. Sure, they can grow enough sugar cane to power all their vehicles, as long as you don't mind that fact that they are destroying thousands of acres per day of rain forest to do so. And to state the sugar-based ethanol "miracle" always in the form of percentages is meaningless. What is the population of Brazil that owns or drives automobiles? Compared to a country like Japan or the United States, is it significant? Not really. There are serious economic consequences to alternative fuels, including significant price increases of the fuel systems in the autos. Some components I used to manufacture for alternate-fuel vehicles in Brazil cost ten times as much to make as those for gasoline vehicles. This keeps private transportation out of reach of many people in a relatively poor country like Brazil, and keeps poor people poor. Sorry, Mr. Sriram, but NONE of this qualifies as WOW in my book.

Posted by Red Island Rhodes at August 7, 2007 6:54 AM

Beware of Green Wash Propaganda Here

There are two issues that need to be looked at below the surface.

1. It is my understanding that modern commercial farming operations were, in effect, made possible by the development of Nitrogen fertilizer, which occurred after WWII. Nitrogen fertilizer is an oil derivative.

I have read articles that report it takes more oil per gallon to produce enough fertilized in order to grow enough corn to produce a gallon of Ethanol than it would to just use the oil.

2. An equal contributor of global warming is the destruction of the world large forest. These forest are natures air purifiers that adsorb the ozone gases. Preserving and now restoring the worlds forest is as critical if not more so than reducing carbon emissions.

3. It is the double combination of increasing emissions and reduction of the forest that is forming the ecological time bomb.

4. On this issue there is no room for kill the competition battles, or let's make or protect our profits. The ecology of the planet is not a win loose competition in this battle we either ALL WIN or ALL LOOSE.

Posted by MLM at August 7, 2007 9:29 PM

RE: Forests and deforestation and CO2
The amount of CO2 removed by plants does not depend
on how tall the plant is.
Do you have evidence that show that sugar cane (or
grass or soy beans or corn, etc.) remove any less
CO2 than the same acreage of forest?

Posted by Shakespeare's Fool at August 8, 2007 4:57 PM

Too busy to take the time to look it up. But, considering your suggestions, just common since tells me there is much more, 365 days a year vegitation, in a forrest than a sugar cain field. You have the trees and then you have all the vetation on the forrest floor.

I would venture to say that it is the surface area and volume of lvegitative surface that makes the forrest much more effecient than a frew months of sugar cain.

I really do not see this as being an apples to apples comparison.

Posted by MLM at August 9, 2007 2:07 PM