On this episode we explore what leadership and innovation look like in the industry and in academia focused on the tech sector. Matt Perault is the director of the Center on Technology Policy at University of North Carolina’s School of Information & Library Science. He previously led the Center on Science & Technology Policy at Duke University. Before returning to academia, Matt was a director on the public policy team and the head of the global policy development team at Facebook. He covered issues ranging from antitrust to law enforcement to human rights and oversaw the company’s policy work on emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and virtual reality.
On this episode we explore what leadership and innovation look like in the industry and in academia focused on the tech sector. Matt Perault is the director of the Center on Technology Policy at University of North Carolina’s School of Information & Library Science. He previously led the Center on Science & Technology Policy at Duke University. Before returning to academia, Matt was a director on the public policy team and the head of the global policy development team at Facebook. He covered issues ranging from antitrust to law enforcement to human rights and oversaw the company’s policy work on emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and virtual reality.
Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and has not been thoroughly reviewed for completeness or accuracy.
[00:00:00] Gus Herwitz: This is Tech Refactored. I'm your host, Gus Herwitz, the Menard Director of the Nebraska Governance and Technology Center at the University of Nebraska. Today we're talking about leadership, innovation, and management in industry and academia. Our guest is Matt Perault. Matt is the director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina's School of Information and Library Science, and he previously led the Center on Science and Technology Policy at Duke University.
Before turning to academia, he was the director on the public policy team and the head of the global policy development team at Facebook, now known as Meta. He covered issues ranging from antitrust to law [00:01:00] enforcement to human rights, and oversaw the company's policy, work on emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and virtual reality, and for some reason, he left for academia.
Mm-hmm. Matt, great to have you on the show.
[00:01:11] Matt Perault: It's great to be here.
[00:01:12] Gus Herwitz: Matt, you, you have a, just a fascinating background having worked, uh, in, a senior policy, uh, position at Facebook, but previously you started your career, I guess, at, uh, the World Bank. Then the Congressional oversight panel turns to industry, and now you're directing academic centers at the universities.
So, I, I guess I just wanna start, uh, with, this is gonna be a, a needlessly deep question. Mm-hmm. Who is Matt Perault?
[00:01:42] Matt Perault: I wish I knew, Someone told me recently that there's like a, a phase in psychology known as Boom, which is a little, which is like an outdated term in a gendered way, but is becoming ones own man.
But I think it could be boo becoming in one's own person or something. And the, and the person was saying that [00:02:00] this happens around age 40 and I'm 42. And it feels like, it does feel like, I'm trying to figure out kind of what does. I don't know. It's interesting. It's like what does a path look like in a way that, I guess in some ways I feel like I haven't thought about that much since college because as you know, and you do, you, you do this like unbelievably well, but in an academic world or for lots of academics, you cobble together a bunch of different things that give you a compelling life. And that's different for me than it was when I was at Facebook where I like woke up wearing one uniform in the day and got a paycheck from like one place and sort of did one set of things.
I mean, certainly varied, but I had a very clear employer. In my academic life, I've really like, one of the reasons I was seeking it out was to do a whole bunch of different things. So I, I direct a center and I, I teach from ti. I taught every semester at Duke. I'll teach from time to time at unc. I have a consulting practice, which is really interesting and exciting for me.
That's actually [00:03:00] been a really compelling thing and in the consulting practice I have different clients, so I'm not just working for one entity. So, It's a cobbling together life and that's amazing in so many different ways because like you're exposed to so much different stuff, you get kind of the best of lots of different situations.
But it makes it hard to answer your question cuz I don't know, like, I don't know what , what is the uniform that I, that I put on in the morning when I wake up. It's less clear. I guess the thing that like has motivated a lot of it. Recently, which is like really exciting to me, is trying to develop what rules might look like for the tech sector that make the internet better.
And I know that sounds cheesy and high level and stuff, but I, I really have been excited by thinking in kind of granular terms about what that would look like in trying as much as possible to kind of avoid the shouting of like, Section two 30 is amazing. Tech section two 30 is terrible. And sort of move beyond some of those kinds of conversations to kind of figure out, like, look, if you're a, if you're a legislator who's trying to do something good in the world, what does that, what?
What are the set of things that you could do [00:04:00] that would actually make the internet better? That's really motivating and fun and. I'm trying to like focus as much energy as I can in that direction, whether it's wearing an academic hat or a consulting hat.
[00:04:09] Gus Herwitz: So the, the way that I'll phrase it, which what I heard you just say is this was your midlife crisis.
Yeah. But as they go, it's a good one. Um, yeah. A and I, I like that. Uh, really taking charge of what you're trying to do in the world, which from also the way that you described it, really jumping into the void. I've been stepping into the void, but jumping into all of this stuff, all this potential without a, a single master telling you this is what you need to be doing.
[00:04:40] Matt Perault: Yeah, it was terrifying. Like I really grew up at Facebook. I mean, I didn't know how to, I feel like when I started there, I didn't know how to do things in the world. And then I had a job where there was like, at various different times, lots of responsibility. And my mentors there were great, and the issues were fascinating and I learned a lot from a lot of different people.
And you know, I, I [00:05:00] loved it there. I, I did, I, I had a really good experience, but I didn't think I wanted to do that for the entirety of my life. I was, Interested in approaching those issues from a different perspective and make, making that leap was hard and complicated. And, you know, I didn't, there, there were certainly like push factors when I left.
Like there were reasons that I, that it felt like my ability to learn and explore. There was narrowing in many ways. But it wasn't like I woke up one morning and was like, Behavioral advertising is evil and this company is terrible. I, I, I, you know, there are a group, you know, there are people who leave the company and who say like, Now I've realized everything I did was unethical and the per people I worked with were not good people.
And that wasn't how I felt. I was leaving friends and leaving a company I felt proud to work for and. Leaving a proximity to issues that was really compelling. You go and meet with the European Commission and you go and meet with top authorities in India and you meet with people, you know, with senior policy staff in Brazil and you're constantly on the hill and, um, and talking to leading academics and think tanks and stuff.
It was a very, you [00:06:00] know, it was an extraordinary opportunity for me. I felt very lucky about it. And so leaving was a big leap. It really was. I think it was a good decision, but it's like, you know, I don't know. It's a mixed decision. There are a lot, There are a lot of things that I miss.
[00:06:15] Gus Herwitz: You mentioned something there that, that really resonates with me.
I talk in my own work with representatives of all sorts of companies on a regular basis, and I'm always struck they know a lot. And a lot of them, they're reading academic papers. They know researchers. Sometimes I, I learn about interesting work being done by folks that I, as an academic you'd think I would know about.
And it, it turns out when your job is to stay on top of this stuff, you stay on top of this stuff. So they, they are very frequently. Academic level of familiarity with the issues. What's the difference in how the, the, We don't need to focus on the tech industry, but that's where you come from and that's where we both work.
What's the difference in [00:07:00] your, uh, experience in both of them with how, as, uh, consumers of research industry and academics approach these questions?
[00:07:10] Matt Perault: it's, Yeah, that's really interesting. I mean, I think the, the main difference is like at companies you make a thing, right? Like you're putting something out in the world and it needs to be compelling to people.
And that's really the underlying sort of driving force that animates what you do. There have been times I, I guess I'm thinking of some discussions I had, but when I think I was still at Facebook where I was talking about some hard stuff we were facing and I. Started talking about it with a legal scholar who was like, Oh, that's a settled question.
Like the Supreme Court has settled that question, so it's not interesting. So why are we spending time on it? And I was like, I don't know if it's interesting or not, but like that is the question in the text after, like that's the question for engineers who are building products. That's the question for legislators who are trying to, you know, make the law.
It's the question for, you know, it's the question that is kind of driving this debate about what products look and feel like for people. And so I'm not sure if it's interesting or not, but that's not really. The [00:08:00] focus, For me, the focus is like building products that, you know, helping people who are engineers to build products that work for people and work for society.
I also think the consumer research thing is really interesting cuz it, it really varies depending on the kind of company that you're at. So, Larger companies tend to be the ones that have more, The larger companies tend to have the luxury of more academic type roles where they can have people who, you know, read a lot of large review articles or something that's, that's not something typically that if you imagine a company, And these companies exist, like companies that have a hundred million users and one general council and no public policy team and one communications person.
Those those kinds of companies, the general council is focusing on existential issues for the company like every single minute and doesn't have the luxury of diving in on. I shouldn't say the luxury, but like is gonna focus their time probably on other things. So I think it varies company to [00:09:00] company.
But you were also asking sort of about the academic side, like how do academics digest research, I think mm-hmm. . Yeah. Well, you, I don't know if I can, I feel like I should be asking you that question. Yeah, I think I should. I don't know. I'm curious about your thoughts on it. Like how, how does, how does it look different from the academic side?
[00:09:15] Gus Herwitz: Uh, I, I think you're, you're capturing it. Um, Academics, and I guess this is me, myself, I'm talking about, um, I, I almost use the word lazy in how we consume information. Mm-hmm. , because we, we consume what we're interested in. Um, we take up a project and we focus on that project and we deep dive on that project.
And the, the relevance might be unclear. To anyone other than sometimes ourselves. Other times, a small group of gears or colleagues, sometimes there's a clear policy relevance, but we, we have the luxury of their not being a, a bottom line or a, a product or a clear constituency that has a need for an answer [00:10:00] driving the whatever it is that we're thinking about.
[00:10:03] Matt Perault: One thing that's so interesting to me about you is that. You speak all these languages really well, Like I'm now like an ex industry person who's in academia and that creates like all these different ruffles. Oh, he's evil, awful Facebook person, or like, oh, he's not someone who like writes law review articles or whatever.
Like there are any number of different ways that I can like. You know, I've, I, I, I'm a little bit of a, I'm like one of those photos of like the cute puppies and then there's a cat, you know, I'm like the cat amongst the cute puppies or something. And, you know, there's just a little bit of difference. One, like the thing that seems just like really extraordinary about how you do your work is like you talk to lots of constituents, You talk to like diverse constituencies all the time and seem like you can like play very well.
Across them. That is a skill I feel like I don't have, I mean, I'd love to have it, but, But do you kind of shift how you frame things and how you think about things depending on the audience and the kind of community you're engaging [00:11:00] with at a particular moment?
[00:11:02] Gus Herwitz: Oh, I-I-I probably should do that more than I do.
I, uh, walk into a lot of rooms and either just tell folks upright right up front. You're not gonna like what I have to. Uh, actually, uh, sometimes that works out really well and I find that folks, especially on the policy side, usually they know, they don't have all of the answers, but they're trying to come up with something and they, they appreciate the, the input, the honest criticism, and they tend to be responsive to it.
Though I, I will say, I, I've recently had a couple of conversations with policy makers and I, I think this is direction, we'll take the conversation. Who are trying to figure out what to do about technology regulation. And I went in and they told me this book, this is what we're thinking about doing. And I told them six ways to Sunday, every single thing wrong with it, how it was going to be harmful to consumers and detrimental to [00:12:00] industry bad for the, the politician themselves.
And it would just be raining, fire and brimstone. And they did this and I, I convinced the. In one of these most recent conversations, and he, he said, Thank you. This is all very helpful. But here's the deal. My boss, who was an elected official, uh, senior house whip in a state house, he was getting calls for constituents and he was going to do something because he needed to do something, and he didn't know what he was going to do.
So his, his question was, You've told me why I can't do anything. We're thinking about doing, what should we do? Yeah.
[00:12:36] Matt Perault: Yes, that's, that is the thing I'm so excited about cuz like, I mean there's, there's a, a big industry of people who say, who like know in very intelligent ways how to say no. And that's really compelling and really important, but it's harder to figure out, I think, how to say.
Yes. And I guess one maybe, you know, I would say one big difference between academia and company, and this is a thing I really miss about a [00:13:00] company, is when you put a product out on the world, there are real downside. To any, any product, there are real costs, and your job, when you're building and putting stuff out in the world is to like minimize those costs as much as possible, and then figure out the costs that you can bear when you're more in a critic mode.
You don't have to do the weighing the pros and cons of a particular decision because if you're not responsible for the decision, The, you could just, you could just be a critic of whichever direction that a, that someone decides to go in. I, I'm really excited about the idea of like trying to be an academic who proposes ideas that like lots of people will criticize any number of parts of them, but ideas where I think the costs are lower than alternatives and that side of things is, is really hard.
And, and I'm not trying to like be disparaging about the critic side, like I think. It sounds like your analysis is like really helpful to someone who's working on these problems. That's, that's, that is obviously like a really critical component of it, but I'm, I'm excited about, you know, well what can we do and the kind of murkiness [00:14:00] and, you know, it's like those questions are like murky and unsatisfying.
Cause they all, they all have downsides. You know, there aren't cost free decisions. They all have downsides.
[00:14:08] Gus Herwitz: And it, it sounds like going back to where you started the discussion with your work on and your interest on section two 30, trying to figure out things that we can do that, that's the direction that you're going.
And I, I just gave the anecdote about my talking to, uh, a policymaker, uh, and only saying no, that that's actually the direction that I try and go because there, there's just an endless industry of. Folks who explain no. Or who are paid advocates or paid sync tanks, whose, whose job is to say no to the other side.
Yeah. Um, and explain why you, you can't do this. So you have to do what we think you should. Well, no, that doesn't explain, that doesn't say you have to do what we say, what you're telling us. We should do it. Just explain why we shouldn't do the other thing. How are you thinking? Uh, actually, Two, two questions.
The first is, are, are we in the tech policy [00:15:00] discussions, um, moving anywhere towards actual solutions instead of these, these polar, No, you can't do this. Yes, we must do this.
[00:15:08] Matt Perault: Binaries. Yeah, it's a good question. I mean, Some people say yes, and you, maybe you're tracking this more closely than I am, but like, you know, there, there may be the introduction of sort of an omnibus type tech tech reform package that packages up a bunch of different things that have been introduced recently.
And you know, some people seem to think there's a chance of. Those things passing. And some people think that those would be like, you know, meaningful and fundamental reforms. I tend to be more skeptical of action at the federal congressional level. Um, but certainly there's like real reform happening in Europe, in state capitals all over the country.
There's real reform happening. So I think, I think there are things happening. It's a good question for a whole bunch of different reasons, like both because we could like talk about what might happen and, and. The pros and cons of those various different things, but I think it also sets up a question of like, what's the criteria that we use to evaluate if there's [00:16:00] progress?
And one of the things that I have been really, that I have. That I think is, is problematic about the way the debate is set up in lots of places right now is that we are setting it up as if, if we don't revolutionize what the internet looks like today, we have failed. If we don't break up big tech, um, or we don't like stop all future mergers or, you know, we don't do any number of different things, then.
Then that is a failure state, and I think it's like so unsexy to say. I mean, it's like, you know, it's like trying to campaign as the moderate, you know, it's like, it's, it's hard to have the campaign slogan that's like, I'm not, I'm not far left and I'm not far right, I'm right in the middle. That tends to, you know, is often desirable but is not like a sexy, compelling fundraising tool, you know, for a candidate.
I feel that way about my views of tech reform, which is that there's a ton of stuff that's incremental that can be really meaningful, and we should do those incremental things and we can have debates about whether we go further or not. But I think there's often kind of like a break 'em up or bust sort of mentality that stands in the way of being able to say like, [00:17:00] We've come up with some incremental ideas that, that are moving in the direction of progress.
And that's, that's the kind of stuff that excites me. So like the, the stuff I've suggested in the past about two 30 reform, I, someone once criticized it as basically saying, Oh, like that's a game of whackamole. Like, you're not really solving the issue, but like, Let's whack some things. , you know, let's like make a little progress.
Let's take care of some of the issues that we might be able to address where maybe there's some consensus and maybe we should do more at some future point, but let's like have it be a little iterative and incremental and see what we can
[00:17:30] Gus Herwitz: do. So sometimes it turns out there, there is no solution and whackamole might be, uh, the, the best approach that we can take. Or it's, it's going to be a series of compromises that don't make, don't leave everyone happy.
[00:17:44] Matt Perault: Yeah, well if you take, I mean, again, you can sort of like, like think about two 30. So if the goal is end all censorship, that's inappropriate, like end any removal of content that I don't like and prohibit all bad content, if that's the objective.
Are we gonna solve 230? No, [00:18:00] we are not going to solve 230. But the kinds of stuff that I was proposing was like, A lot of people who are animated about 230 concerns are concerned about voter suppression, or they're concerned about voter fraud, or they're concerned about the use of online tools to riot.
And you can actually criminalize those things probably narrowly because of First Amendment constraints, but you can criminalize them. And Section 230 is in a bar. So if we were to pass federal criminal law prohibiting deceptive practices in voting, that would effect, that would be kind of 230 reform.
It doesn't reform the statute of 230, but it changes the scope of what's permissible to. Online and the scope of platform liability. So I think that's meaningful. I think we should do that. Does that solve bad online content? It does not.
[00:18:40] Gus Herwitz: Mm-hmm. and, And it's worth noting that in a sense, does change section 230 because Section 230 doesn't apply to federal criminal law.
So if you change federal criminal law, you're changing the scope of conduct that to which section 230 applies. That's right.
[00:18:55] Matt Perault: But if someone, I mean, again, I think the way that you describe the meeting with the staffer is just spot on. [00:19:00] Because everybody has institutional incentives, right? So like the, I think that's like a really interesting dynamic in, It's an interesting dynamic in, in Congress, but it's also an interesting dynamic in at companies.
You know, where you say like you probably lots of people who meet regularly with companies have conversations that go something like, you should do X and that person says, I agree with you, but like my boss or my boss's boss, like, you know, they're going in a different direction or something. Academia obviously, like there are a whole lot of strong institutional incentives.
So the, the discussion that you were having with the staffer, you know, they're, you're describing a situation where like, this person sort of agrees with you, but like the boss like needs them to do something. And then the question is like, is the thing that you do, you know, sufficiently meaningful for the boss to feel like they've gotten the win that they need to get?
And I think that dynamic tends to really, you know, tends to distort the range of outcomes that are perceived as sufficient.
[00:19:51] Gus Herwitz: So talking about those institutional incentives in a, a perfect world, which we know, uh, doesn't exist, but who is [00:20:00] best positioned to address big social concerns about the use and design of technology.
And I'm thinking in particular, is the responsibility really on companies to design their technologies so as to not evoke the ire of the consumer constituent who goes to Congress and gets Congress to do bad things. Knowing that, uh, that means the companies need to effect. Predict the future, or is the burden more appropriately placed on to give guidance to the companies so that they know how to design their products in a way that will satisfy social needs?
This is a good question.
[00:20:43] Matt Perault: I'm really, I'm curious about how you would answer it. I, I think in theory it should be Congress, I think. I mean, well, in theory it should be both. Like companies should design better and better products over time. That's what innovation is about. And if we have a competitive market, then [00:21:00] companies will be incentivized to divine develop better and better products over time.
And, and they should do that. And because they understand their products, they will often come up with like, Probably, I think actually better solutions than in some cases governments will, um, because they understand their products in more detail. They understand like sort of product tweaks that they can make to get various different outcomes.
They'll have kind of, they'll, they'll have lots of access to data to sort of measure impact and to evaluate whether they're creating a better product. So companies have a role. I, I think in theory it would be good if Congress were the driving force because. You know, our constitution created a , created a system of government that depends on a strong legislature to enact policies that grapple with the hardest questions of our time.
Whether that's like what you can say online or like what does, you know, what is the scope of impermissible dominance? What does dominance look like, and what does the kind of anti-competitive conduct that we should find to be problematic? But, but we don't have a, we don't have a workable legislature right now.
We don't have, [00:22:00] I mean, I have. I have friends who advise companies on policy risk and they have basically said like, I don't pay attention to Congress anymore because there's no risk there because nothing's gonna happen. So, So it's irrelevant, you know, States, Yes. Europe, yes. Other countries, yes. Congress, it's not worth even reading about cuz there's just screaming and then nothing happens.
Mm-hmm. . So I don't think that's, I don't think that's optimal for tech. I mean, I think it's, it's not just a tech issue like, You can, Ima like on issues like climate change or immigration or any number of different issues. There are obviously, like, there are obviously different opinions depending on what political, where you fall politically, but I think most people could agree on something like climate change.
Like we should have something like, we shouldn't have no environmental law. And there's some number of people who think that, but like, I think the view, I think there's a huge middle ground of people who would say like, we should do something. But typically because we end up on polls, we do nothing. And so we don't, and then, and then that means that we have a country that's not tackling these issues, that are really monumental, that [00:23:00] are critical to our society.
I mean, again, immigration, like there range of different views about what the right approach is, but like probably people, most people would think like we should have some. Norms for thinking about mm-hmm. people who want to come to this country. And we should modernize, you know, the rules that we have and we should have, we should kind of have evolving norms, but we don't have a legislature that's capable of passing laws at the pace of evolution in our society.
And so in the face of that, I think a lot falls to companies and I think that's kind of unfortunate cuz I don't think we should say like, well nothing's gonna happen in Congress so therefore we need tech companies to take X, Y, z action. It's not, I don't think that's really fair or appropriate, but I do think the responsibility, like the sort of day to day task of building better tech will be much more com an industry thing than a congressional thing.
Is that how you see it? I'm curious what you think.
[00:23:51] Gus Herwitz: So since you put me on the spotlight I did to you, where, where. I, I think of it as a complex adaptive. It, it's [00:24:00] a feedback loop, ideally, in which the threat or the possibility of congressional action that provides an important signal to industry companies about what they can, or should, or shouldn't be doing.
So the, the threat that a federal agency or Congress might do something that that's useful. But as you say, Congress lurches from crisis to crisis, which means, uh, in- in-
[00:24:27] Matt Perault: in action in response to crisis A and then in action in response to crisis B.
[00:24:32] Gus Herwitz: We, every now and then might actually see actual action and where Congress is currently debating a couple of antitrust related and competition related bills, some of which might be enacted and the Federal Trade Commission might actually be consider.
Some rules that, uh, folks in industry are, I think rightfully very, very worried about. Yeah. Um, and when you have such a high threshold for action, basically industry is trying to [00:25:00] stay below that threshold. Mm-hmm. . So I ideally, If Congress were more able to act, if federal agencies were made more able to act, that would lower the threshold of responsiveness and make industry more responsive to the threat of, or the possibility of regulation.
So, That's my own way of saying that the system is broken.
[00:25:23] Matt Perault: Yeah, yeah. No, that's really smart. I mean, that's a, that's ob that's like quite a bit smarter framework than I think I have for evaluating it. But I, I would say one thing -
[00:25:31] Gus Herwitz: I cheated and said complex adaptive system.
[00:25:33] Matt Perault: That, that makes sense. Smart. It didn't sound , it didn't sound like a cheat.
Or if it is, is one I should start to use. I mean, one thing, one thing about that though that I, that I find to be challenging. And I think the speech context is a great example is there are so many cases, what you described exactly right. There are so many cases where someone's at, there's a hearing and a senator asks a series of aggressive questions to a tech company about why some certain content [00:26:00] exists on the platform or why they removed certain content and they shouldn't have.
And putting that direct pressure on an individual company will result in that company changing its decision. I think a lot of those decisions are suboptimal. Like the fact that you're getting yelled at by a senator doesn't mean you made the wrong decision. It just means it's politically costly to not reverse your decision.
Mm-hmm. and, and the, the incentives for you as a company are to be responsive to a member of Congress, but often it's often the case. I think those decisions weren't wrong. I mean, sometimes they're wrong, sometimes they're not. But it's certainly, I think, the case that. The, the nature of that quote unquote debate is not really sufficient.
Like typically what a legisla, if a legislator's putting pressure on a company for content that they have left up on the platform, the government is barred by the First Amendment from getting the company, from passing a law to get the comp company to remove that kind of content. And often there, there are often some things that they could do to address problematic content.
And they're, they're often politically, From moving forward, they don't have the political consensus to pass a lot of like change, you know, section two [00:27:00] 30 or whatever it might be. And so I think. When we have corporate action, in the absence of something where there's legal authority for the government to act, or political momentum or political authority for the government to act, and companies just flip their flip, flip their position, I think we actually get a series of like often suboptimal decisions, not companies making decisions in the best interests of society or their
[00:27:23] Gus Herwitz: users.
Well, uh, listeners, I, uh, apologize to your ears. We've been talking longer than we like to without taking a break. So we are going to give your ears a brief break and we will be back in a moment with more discussion with Matt Peral.
[00:27:42] Matt Perault: Hi listeners. I'm li Sandra Marquez and I'm one of the producers of Tech Refactored. I hope you're enjoying this episode of our show. One of my. Things about being one of the producers of Tech Refactored is coming up with episode ideas and meeting all of our amazing guests. We especially love it when we get [00:28:00] audience suggestions.
Do you have an idea for tech refactored? Is there some thorny tech issue? You'd love to hear us break down. Visit our website or tweet us. At UN L underscore N GTC to submit your ideas to the show. And don't forget, the best way to help is continue making content. Like this episode is word of mouth, so ask your friends if they have an idea too.
Now, back to this episode of Tech Refactored.
[00:28:36] Gus Herwitz: We are back talking with Matt Pearl about, while we're turning our conversation now to, uh, uh, leadership management and innovation industry versus academia, which is what I, I most want to actually bring Matt onto talk about because he's in the, I think, really unique position of having been both in industry at a pretty high level and now binging, [00:29:00] directing a center at the university.
So, Matt, I'll, I'll just throw to you initially with how's the transition been? Any interesting surprises or observations?
[00:29:12] Matt Perault: That's good question. I mean, I, I found building institutions to be challenging. I mean, I think, I think it just is challenging and I also think it's like, you know, it's a different skill set than.
Some things that I feel more comfortable doing, like if you said write a three page policy brief or something that's easy. Um, figuring out the right hiring structure for an organization, figuring out, you know, how to establish partnerships with other f. Other people, other organizations, um, that can be more difficult for me.
So it, it's definitely, it's definitely challenging. I mean, it's exciting as well to like sort of be in the ground floor of a thing and try to have a vision for what the thing can become. That was the work that I did at Facebook that was most exciting and interesting to me, like starting a policy development team.
And I love that kind [00:30:00] of work. But it's, I mean, you know, this, it's challenging building an an institution.
[00:30:05] Gus Herwitz: So I, I love reading and thinking about, I expect like, uh, many tech focused people, uh, the all all the, the tech thinking about leadership and management for innovation and that this really goes back to, uh, Watson at IBM who had, for listeners, most listeners probably don't know.
You might be familiar with IBM and think stations and think pads and all their think products. That actually was a defining element of Hudsons who was a, a ceo, um, at IBM management philosophy. He had a one word management goal for all employees. Think. That was, that was how he, uh, assured the organization in many ways.
And Jeff Bezos has his own management philosophy and, uh, a discussion. I think he's treat every day like it's the first day of a startup. Steve [00:31:00] Jobs a a little more colorful and more off color, perhaps avoid the bozo explosion. Was one of his things. Uh mm-hmm. and Satya Nadella. Same thing was he talks about how, uh, Reed Hastings at Netflix when he went and spent some time, uh, on Reed Hastings sword, how he learned and relearned management.
Um, I guess, uh, and Facebook, we have to just throw in, move fast and break things. Make sure that that's in there, Uh, with Mark Zuckerberg, um, I, I guess from an outsider's perspective, it feels like, uh, all of this management thinking and uh, innovation leadership, um, is really culturally defining for the industry.
And I guess my question is, is. From your experience, is that reflective of how the industry thinks?
[00:31:51] Matt Perault: I don't know about the industry broadly. I mean, I know about what it felt like at Facebook and then I guess I know now and know just anecdotally from other companies and I know now from [00:32:00] other organizations that I work with a little bit more about it.
I, I think it really is defining, I mean, I think it is defining. When it's functioning well and all the companies you describe, I think probably have gone through periods where it function well and then periods where it function poorly. But when it, when it functions well, you feel highly incentivized. And incentives can come in lots of forms.
I mean, I think people think money, but it's not just money, but you're highly incentivized to do, to, to do aggressive things. I mean, to, to try to act quickly, to try to achieve, you know, things of large value and your. Doing that with some protection against potential downsides. So like you're willing to take risks cuz you know, if you take risks, it won't be the end of things.
I have found academia to be like almost inverse to that. I mean that's probably in some ways like the biggest struggle I have, which is there aren't that many upside incentives like you can do. You could like, um, I wasn't very good at grading and I would, I'd grade like, I would ask [00:33:00] for pretty short papers and I would basically have like the same.
Word count in my comments that the students had in their papers. Like if they did 500 word paper, I'd have 500 words of comments. Which, which I think is like, is good, but, and I felt like an incentive, I felt a desire to, to provide that kind of feedback. Cuz I thought it was helpful. I'm actually not sure, I guess I should say that it was helpful, but I thought it was helpful.
I thought like more detailed feedback would be useful to students who are working on something. But other than student evaluations, There's no reason to do that. And I don't, I don't think in any of my evaluations students were like, Oh, this extensive written feedback was helpful. So you don't have, like, I'm not sure you're, there's, there are a lot of incentives that exist in that direction, and my experience is like the bureaucracy is very strong and there are a lot of incentives to not.
Rock the bureaucracy, like incentives to knock it on the wrong side of people. Incentives to not do something, that's where you're outta step with some particular policy. And so like moving slowly, not achieving things. [00:34:00] No downside. No, no, no. Real upside I guess, but like. Very little downside and trying to like really achieve a lot means you'll like probably ruffle feathers.
Um, you'll step on someone's toes, you'll like move before there's some approval that needed to be provided or something. And, and there are lots of downsides to all of those things. And so the structure ends up being, ends up creating a world where I think like there, there's a, there are, it's very difficult.
You, you have to question yourself about why would I want to move fast? I think move fast and break things. I mean, obviously like that's a. That is not a phrase developed by your public relations team, , but I actually think conceptually it makes a ton of sense to me. I mean, and it feels this way in like setting up an institution, like if you are going to move really quickly, you, if you're gonna try to push yourself to move as quickly as you possibly can and achieve as much as you can, there will be disruption and there will be like some good disruption and people will be excited about it and there will be some bad disruption and people will be mad about it.
And you have to exist [00:35:00] if, if you, if you want to achieve a lot, I think. As quickly as possible. If you feel like an impatience to achieve, there's gonna be some of that. And I think what Facebook was signaling with that phrase was like, And that's okay. Like, we're willing to bear some of those costs. And obviously like they're, I mean, I'm not like defending it really, they're problematic things on, on the breakage side.
But I, I see the like opposite setup of like, you know, move slowly because you won't be held accountable to be, to really like, Not create optimal institutions, I guess.
[00:35:35] Gus Herwitz: So that for, for better or worse, that is very much reflective of my own, uh, experience and thinking about, uh, uh, the academy broadly. It certainly varies institution to institution, but it, it puzzles me, um, because, uh, Universities and industry I think of as our two primary innovative industries.
This is where these [00:36:00] are where ideas and products and, and the future. I'm, I'm getting really dramatic. This, this is where the future comes from, universities and industry and I. I don't think that universities necessarily fail at that mission, but their approach is so antithetical to the industry approach to, to management and innovation, leadership.
Uh, I, I'm just putting you on the spot and, uh, asking if you have, if you have thoughts about why that is or, uh, how, how we can do things better or things that you're trying. Well,
[00:36:30] Matt Perault: well, you have to incentivize stuff on the high. I, I, And so that's not, I don't think in a common university setting with, with huge bonuses.
You know, like there are situations, you know, there are situations at companies where like you make $75,000 a year, but if you do your job really well, you make $2 million. And that creates a lot of incentive to try to do your job really well. And if you fail, you still make 75 or something. So like, You have kind of downside protection, like it's not gonna get worse, you're not gonna be punished, and yet you have a lot of upside incentive.
That's [00:37:00] not how the rewards will be structured at the, on the university side. And I don't know exactly like. How to create those incentives. I mean, I certainly think managers saying like, I've got your back. If you fail and I really want to see you do well and if you do well, like this is how we'll be able to grow together.
Like those kinds of kind of informal things are helpful institutionally. I don't exactly know. I mean, I think it has been interesting to me to see universities go through the Covid experience where I thought there was like unbelievable opportunity for innovation. Like that was a moment where like you could say, We we're going through this horrible thing, the gift of that horrible thing.
I'm not saying the thing was great, but like the, there are certain things that were positive opportunities. The gift was we have an opportunity right now to rethink our business model. Mm-hmm. and to figure out how to like evolve in a way that will move toward where the future is likely headed, which is fewer students are probably gonna want to come to campus in person, may want, may not be willing to pay.
[00:38:00] To come in person, like may want other kind of cost options, may want more sort of flexible schedules and stuff. And my experience is universities were like, Get us back to the way things were 50 years ago as quickly as possible. Like, no, you know, fewer remote options, mandatory on campus stuff. Even I think last year, you know, when universities tried to big students back, like there were serious health consequences of that in lots of places.
And so, I find that to be disappointing that like we, you know, we aren't looking at moments when it's been given to us to figure out like, what does the future look like in a way that delivers value for students. And, and I do think, you know, um, I sort of often thought when I watched companies and nonprofits from my purchase Facebook that like everyone thought Facebook was all about money.
Not at all about mission, but actually like mission was pretty important to the company. Like people who worked there really had a sense of mission. It's also about money. I'm not saying it wasn't about money, but it was about both mission and money. When people look at nonprofits, they think it's all about mission.
It's not at all about money, and my [00:39:00] sense of nonprofits is like a lot of it is motivated and not, Sorry, I shouldn't say a lot of it, but nonprofits also have financial interests. Like understandably, they need to keep the lights on. They need to, they want to grow their teams, they want to do stuff. They need to figure out ways to fundraise and get money in the door.
Universities are in that category. They are, they are interested in money, um, as well because money keeps the lights on. And so it's not just an educational mission, it's, you know, it's a financial one as well. You know, they don't pay a portion of their labor force that, um, performs in sports for them, for instance, and generates significant revenue.
And, and I think the, the, the feeling that that foundation, that the financial foundation was at risk, Was le you know, the risk aversion around that. Mm-hmm. Of like, we can't afford to lose this business model motivated behavior that I think at times was like unsafe. Um, you know, certainly wasn't forward looking.
Was much more focused around avoiding loss than it was around maximizing upside benefit. And I found that too. Disappointing.
[00:39:59] Gus Herwitz: Uh, do [00:40:00] you have thoughts on how to. I, I don't want to say, or perhaps I do want to say encourage risk seeking or mi minimize risk in, uh, risk aversion in a, uh, a productive way. .
[00:40:15] Matt Perault: Yeah.
I wish I had more specific ideas. I mean, I do think, like the idea, I, I do think that like conceptually it is minimizing the costs of, you know, breaking rules or like moving too quickly and stuff. So you try to like protect people who take risks and then you reward people who take risks that are successful, right?
So that, I think that is like the core kind of reward structure at companies. That are doing this well, and you know, again, just cuz a company has like a big stock option, bonus plan doesn't mean that they're like necessarily creating the right incentives. Like there are, you have to like set up goals in the right way and you have to have good managers in place who can drive people toward those goals and protect them when they take risks and don't, and things don't work out.
But, But what's the like hook that [00:41:00] does that in a university setting or in a company that like wants to kind of move more quickly than it's moving or wants to try to, Um, you. Achieve more within a particularly condensed period of time. I, I don't exactly know what the specific thing would be. I dunno, Do you have stuff in mind?
[00:41:16] Gus Herwitz: No. simple answer is asking because I'm, I'm looking for ideas here. Um, uh, one thing that I'll say that I'm keeping my eye on your, you're exactly right, um, the pandemic. Has been a opportunity to try new things and everyone tried new things because we were forced to try new things. Yeah. And one of the things that I'm keeping my eyes really attuned to is who is learning from the experience?
Yeah. Who is changing, incorporating lessons, doing things differently? Both because probably if they're doing different things, they've learned lessons. And right. The, the, the people don't remember, [00:42:00] uh, with, uh, move fast and break things. Um, that, that actually isn't the, the full statement or the uh, uh, motivation.
It's not about just moving fast and breaking things. It's iterate fast. Fail fast. Mm-hmm. , Yeah. Learn lessons, incorporate those lessons and try something new. I think. Keeping an eye open for those who are doing new things and incorporating lessons that tells you two things. First, Hey, they probably learned stuff that's worth emulating.
Uh, let's, let's steal their ideas and go with them. Mm-hmm. , there's some reason they're moving to a, a new, uh, a new normal, a new equilibrium. And also it tells you something. Either them as individual academics, administrators, universities, uh, whatever, that they probably are more innovative. They're more willing to embrace and try new things and we.
One of the most frustrating things about this sort of discussion from my academic experience and perspective is more than anything else in my own teaching and [00:43:00] research. Fundamentally, I'm a teacher working with the next generation, um, trying to educate students about how to innovate and think dynamically and respond to change and be productive forward looking members and participants of our society.
The way to do that is to get them comfortable with change. Yeah. And get them thinking about this stuff. Yeah. Not to say we're locked into this system and you have to do, do it in this way or this way, or this way, I guess. That if, if that is our future, then we are doing a great job training them for that future.
But I, I, I imagine
[00:43:35] Matt Perault: better. I, I totally agree. I mean, I thought it was sort of hilarious when people were like, Well, we need to get back in the classroom cuz that's where students learn best. And I, and, and, and I think that's true for certain students and I'm not opposed to coming back to the classroom.
But, um, in most jobs you have to now be able to communicate. Via a screen, and you need to be able to learn via a screen. You need to be like a giver of information in [00:44:00] a professional way. You need to do that with high aptitude, and you need to receive in a professional way and receive with skill. So, , is there a place where we could train students in how to process information in that way?
And they could take some number of classes virtually with professors who were invested in developing that skill and gave them feedback on how to be good in the digital format. Like that sounds like what a university might be. And the, I think what you said is just spot on because I think if instead of saying, Um, all profess, all classes need to be in person, which is, I think, kind of the direction, like lots of schools have gone in, um, like real anxiety about like, we're not, professors aren't gonna be in person.
I think if they said, If you wanna teach remotely, teach remotely. If you wanna be in person, be in person. My guess is like, maybe it's 50 50 with in person versus virtual. Maybe it's 75, 25. I feel like I've heard more professors say they want to be in person than wanna be virtual. So like maybe it's 75, 20.
And then the 25% who are willing to be virtual or do some percentage of their classes virtually [00:45:00] would probably be the ones who would be good at it would be like invested in like helping students to be good in a virtual setting. And that would be pedagogically. There's value in that for mm-hmm. for students.
And that feels to me to be like a healthy outcome. The idea that like, We used to be in person, so now we've gotta be in person in the future. I find sort of absurd. Mm-hmm.
[00:45:19] Gus Herwitz: Well if, uh, nothing else comes of this conversation, Matt, I am confident that I've managed to get both of us in trouble, uh, with our, uh, respective administrations
Um, uh, so, uh, perhaps it's time for us to start wrapping up our conversation. I haven't asked, and I really should have started, uh, with this. What are you up to nowadays at, uh, UNC and the.
[00:45:41] Matt Perault: Yeah, so, um, we're launching a Center on Technology policy, and the idea as consistent with what we discussed earlier is that we kind of are developing concrete policy frameworks that make the internet better.
[00:45:53] Gus Herwitz: Good luck in that endeavor. Uh, I, I say that sounding semi facetious actually. Um, I'm really looking forward to continuing [00:46:00] to work with you because I'm sure that our paths will cross quite frequently in this area. And I, I look forward to seeing, uh, what you, uh, are working on and what you do there at the center.
[00:46:10] Matt Perault: Me too. This has been a pleasure. Thank you. Yep. Thank
[00:46:12] Gus Herwitz: you. And thank you as always. To our listeners, thanks for joining us on this episode of Tech Refactored. If you want to learn more about what we're doing here at the Nebraska Governance and Technology Center, or you want to submit an idea for a future episode, You can go to our website at ngtc.unl.edu, or you can follow us on Twitter at UNL underscore NGTC.
If you enjoyed this show, don't forget to leave us a rating and review wherever you listen to your podcasts. Our show is produced by Elsbeth Magilton and Lysandra Marquez and Colin McCarthy created a recorded our theme music. This podcast is part of the Menard Governance and Technology Programming Series.
Until next. Keep thinking about how your institution encourages innovation.[00:47:00]