I have long held that I prefer to have all rowers in the boat rowing in unison, even if not necessarily in the perfect direction, rather than seeking the perfect direction and pushing all rowers to row hard (and independently). Depending on how one words this phrase, one can easily sway the argument one way or the other. In any event, I was seasonably and happily surprised to find, courtesy of the Economist article of March 31, “Rhythm and Blues,” that some academic research had also been poured into this very metaphor of management. Specifically applying his theory to the annual Oxbridge boat race, Mark de Rond, a management theorist from Cambridge’s Judge Business School — and Cambridge’s coach — favored a flamboyant well-liked rower over a stronger smoother rower believing he would get the most out of his crewmates. The trick of the selection is finding a careful balance between competitivity and co-operation. There is mention of supporting evidence in a Harvard Business Review article “which found that workmates prize amiability over ability, preferring the ‘loveable fool’ to the ‘competent jerk.’” It must have been quite gratifying for deRond as Cambridge won by more than a length in this year’s (153rd) race. I think the metaphor can easily lead into the notion of how good rock’n'roll bands need a good (flamboyant) drummer and base guitarist.

They say that what most makes London the capital of the world (today anyway, sorry New York) is that it is the premier financial hub. Attracting immigrants from everywhere — immigrants that want to work and achieve — London is abuzz with activity. Building cranes span the horizon despite the world famous grey clouds.

And, inspite of the ever growing population, burgeoning cost of living, traffic circulation challenges (being fought aggressively by congestion fees, etc) and a relatively ramshackle tube underground, London continues to thrive. And the charm of it is that the people remain globally so courteous (not just the cabbies). The defining English touch: you can still find milkmen doing their rounds with crates of fresh milk and grain-fed chicken eggs.

In addition, it is obvious that “natural” and/or “organic” is spreading like mushrooms no matter the category. The latest concept that caught my eye: The Natural Kitchen (77/78 Marlyebone High St) selling ‘organic, wild and artisan food.’ The part that got my attention was the “wild.” The store was just a day old when I visited, but the selections were tantalizing and the setting was agreeable; the staff were visibly fresh. A concept restaurant is planned as well.

Following the “eco” flavour, I ate a yogurt on the Eurostar that is qualified as Bio Live Yogurt, where each ingredient is Organic, including the starch. Along side “wild” you have to love “live” food, especially which never once had a heartbeat.

And then there is the discovery of the Fairtrade Chocolate & Raison Geobar with 30.9% Fairtrade ingredients certified to international Fairtrade standards. Eating this bar “guarantees a better deal for Third World Producers.”

I also felt that there were a lot more bicyclists – even as commuters. Not exactly Amsterdam, but a far more civilized feeling than the zippy motorcyclists dominating many mainland European cities.

And, I constantly admire the Fair Queueing practiced by the English. Thinking of the 300,000 transplanted French people living in London (making it the 7th largest populated city of French citizens), how much do they love (and respect) those habits? In any event, it is lovely to see a London so “wild and live.”

Oddly enough, I am not referring to my friend and step-brother (who is called Cyril and comes from Nice). It is more of an old football (US read: soccer) chant from the UK, but I couldn’t help mixing metaphors and intoning my step brother’s name.

In another remarkable moment during our family visit to Nice (south France, duh), I spotted a poster featuring John Leclair in a Philadelphia Flyers uniform (CCM advert) at the Super Sports store near the old town. While the ad was in French, it is curious that they picked an American whose name is French, rather than a Quebec native (like Gagné for example). Anyway, glad to think ice hockey has an international reach.

Having spent basically all my life living in big metropolitan centres around the [western] world, I am prone to wax on about their long vaunted advantages: cultural centre, variety of people, business opportunities, anonymity, blah blah blah. Then there are the ordinary complaints, such as the cost of living, getting kids into schools, parking, rudeness, pigeons, and more parking (towing mafia, etc).

For purposes of this blog, I wanted (initially) to refine my analysis, to limit to those things that are true today about big city dwelling, but may not have been so 30 years ago.

The good things today include:
-On any day (in NYC), you can find a $20 bill lying on the ground (used to be just a $1 bill).
-Wifi coverage is generally good (this is the case for whichever new technology will come next) — 30 (nay 20) years ago we didn’t have mobile phones with which to contend.
-Less SUVs than in the suburban towns.

The less good things:
-On any day, you can easily lose a $100 bill (via rip off, mugging, or just leaving an object of value unobserved on a table) versus a $20 bill 30 years ago.
-At any point, you can get run into by a pedestrian absorbed by his/her mobile phone, texting while also listening blithely to the ipod.
-And the topper: a big city has more than one airport, which means you can screw up the departure or arrival. Alternatively, you can have a different arrival airport than the one from which you departed which is a problem when you decide to drive in your car to one airport (happened last week).

In the end, each big city has its tale and it is impossible to generalize [anyway]. Perhaps, it is more appropriate to examine what lies in store for us who have preferred city living. More profoundly, as the city populations continue to grow, real shifts are going to occur. City centres will increasingly become merely cultural or tourist centres and retail spaces, and less and less business offices and even less residential.

As the first world populations age, the retired people will have no call (nor means) to live in cities. The shift in demographics, the stress of space, the expense and the lack of community will all converge to create more “retirement communities” (exacerbated by a lack of the younger generations taking care of their aging parents) outside urban centres.

Travel will become a desperately important criterion as we face the congestion on the roads, the escalating price of fuel (as fuel sources diminish) and higher real estate prices forcing, especially the younger, further afield. Given the propensity to provide only low paying/non paying “stages” or internships, the younger adults may well prefer to stay at their parents’ home where the rent is free and the location may be closer to the city.

And then there is schooling. As far as I can tell, finding good schools is at a premium in any big city (either because there are limited spaces [including playing fields] or there just aren’t any good ones). With the inevitable departure of living quarters, schools will follow the migration. Perhaps, it is or will be the reverse that provokes the change. In any event, education will be another key component to the changes.

I would prefer city centres to remain thriving, creative experiences in which to live, but by the force of economics and demographics, it seems the greener pastures await us (of meeker means) all.

Following only a couple days after posting a comment on old-fashioned marketing (starting with your ABCs), I came across an article in the Daily Telegraph (Tuesday May 22, page 29) entitled “Is your name to blame for your life?” The article featured an online study of 15,000 readers, declaratively, showing that their lives were indeed better (criteria based on health, finances, career and “life in general”) if they had a surname beginning with a letter near the start of the alphabet. What the article also stated was that there had been numerous other studies in and around the same area, two of which are cited. The first was a study in 2006 by Liran Einay (Stanford) and Leeat Yariv (California Institute of Technology), was published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives and demonstrated that academics working in US universities with initials early in the alphabet were more likely to be in the best-rated departments and to become fellows of the Econometric Society and even to win a Nobel Prize. The study concluded that this effect was likely due to the convention of listing published works by authors in alphabetical order. I suppose Yariv needed to buddy up with Einay for that survey? The second study cited was by Nicholas Christenfeld (University of California San Diego) who, in 1999, found evidence supporting the notion that people whose initials formed positive-sounding words (such as J.O.Y. or H.U.G….) lived longer than those with negative-sounding initials (such as P.I.G. or B.U.M.). And the margin of difference was quite noteworthy with men with positive sounding initials living 4.5 years longer than average and those with less positive initials dying 3 years earlier than average. For women, the positive effect was only 3 years and there was no negative effect. This seems to reassure me in my mania to find acronyms of interest for our family (YAMO as opposed to OA-MY).

As the article suggests, we can’t do much about our last name, and maybe we should not fret so much about the forename we give to our children. A quick look around well-known figures today reveals a resounding bell: Arnault, Blair, Berlusooni, Brown, Bush, Branson, Cheney, Clinton, Chirac…(dare I say Christ). The contest between Sego and Sarko was between two end-of-alphabeters. A possible new generation?

I remember in my entrepreneurial days thinking that it was a good idea to have the name of the company start with an “A” so that we would appear at the beginning of the [old concept] yellow pages (sort of the ABCs of marketing). Today, we are confronted with two realities that are interesting in regard to this notion. First, the alphabetical listing of music has never been more pertinent than with itunes and the ipod. In my car that is configured with my ipod feeding directly into the sound system, I find myself listening to ABBA a lot more frequently than in the past until I manage to set to shuffle. Anyone else find they are listening to more A… bands? Think of poor old Zappa.

On the other hand, Google‘s search engine does anything but alphabetic searches. It seeks out the active sites, the sites with perfect matches, the sites with recent updates, the sites posted more than 3 months, etc. Now, that is a new form of marketing that speaks to me… oh father [abba] of all marketers.

I found refreshing, as a pseudo New Yorker, this blog by Freakonomics duo, Levitt & Dubner, on the possibility of having three of the US Presidential candidates coming from New York: H Clinton (D), Giuliani (R) and Bloomberg (Independent)…! When you know that NY or New England historically speaking isn’t good at producing Presidents, it would make for a seismic change… What do you think?