“All of us might wish at times that we lived in a more tranquil world -- but we don't. And if our times are difficult and perplexing, so are they challenging and filled with opportunity.”
-– Robert Kennedy
Far too often it seems these days, we think with regret and frustration of the stressful times we live in. We think about the wars going on around the planet. We think of horrendous acts aimed not at armies, but at defenseless civilians whose only guilt was to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. We think about famine, civil strife, crime, neighbor distrusting neighbor -- often with prejudice based upon skin color, religion, whether we are men or women instead of human beings equal in the eye of our Creator. We know we are in troubled times with every breath of polluted air. And we find ourselves resigned to polluted rivers and soil as if they were somehow the price of our advancements in what we call ‘civilization.’ When we think of all of this today, we often say, “Times have never been this bad.” Or harder. Or grimmer.
Are they though? Our historical perspective seems to have been dulled by the shallow self-absorption so prevalent in our society today, a society softened by comfort, materialism and loss of urgency dulled by the narcotic of cheap and easy “communication.” Can we tear ourselves away from the flood of extraneous, cotton candy fluff of Korean dramas, K-Pop, Kawaii culture, propaganda, manufactured consent (as Noam Chomsky puts it), vacuous slogans, endless reruns of ‘Baywatch,’ long enough to achieve enough quietude to really pause, and reflect? What can be said about society when the current President of the United States is openly labeling reputable media outlets as “fake news” all the while making up facts as if they were going out of style and having them accepted by 44% of the voting public? How can we even focus with modern society's daily time-consuming activities like traveling to work, making dinner, picking up the kids, sundry shopping, tuition, work stress, money worries?
Well, to paraphrase John Lennon, objective thought is possible, “if you want it!” Like religion, we CAN make time for intelligent reflection. The trick is to stop saying, "I'm too busy." I have news for people who use that bromide like they do commas in a sentence: EVERYONE's too busy. Yet, whatever God (or gods) one worships, He (or they) gave us minds, free will, and the ability to think, otherwise we'd all still be swinging from tree to tree on vines. We are free to break the chains of "Too Busy!" and use some time to think about where our lives, and our societies are heading. Otherwise, why whine and wallow in disgruntled resentment if we aren't willing to even think about changing anything?
1) The Times We Live In
Are today’s times worse than in 1860 when the United States stood at the precipice of a brutal, protracted and bloody Civil War? Are today’s times worse than in 1939 when the world was still clawing its way out of the Great Depression with Adolf Hitler on the rise and humanity about to plunge into a cataclysmic darkness that would claim 60 million lives?
When viewed against the backdrop of these tumultuous events our concerns appear more in perspective, less dire, less immediate. Yet we feel the same unease as those previous generations did in the calm before the storm -- perhaps even more so, as our fears have no outwardly visible form as tangible as armies massing to clash like the North/South conflict over slavery or Nazi tanks thundering across the Polish plains -- nothing immediately obvious that we can rally for or against. The challenges of ‘Now’ are less tangible and far more subtle; just a general, indefinable unease, frustration and worry, all driven by root economic concerns of which the issues outlined in the first paragraph are but ugly symptoms of.
Worldwide governmental elites’ essential inability to frame a proper focus around which people can be rallied has been largely to blame for this societal malaise. A quick scan of budgets and economical blueprints from a Sampling of G20 countries reveal an equal parts blend of stylish “in” jargon such as “disruption,” “resilience,” “open and inclusive society,” and “smart nation.” This is all well and good, until one watches four different senior leaders on television just keep repeating the exact same terms as if scripted, obviously enjoined not to deviate from predetermined collective talking points. If we needed parrots we would go to a pet shop, not waste our time watching ostensibly smart people saying vacuous things. Neither do we need deferential hosts nodding sagely and lobbing softball questions, all in front of carefully selected audience members with as much in common with ordinary folks as we have with newts.
What do all these terms it really mean? How does this affect us, the man (or woman) on the street? Most importantly, what are the specific policies are the elites advocating that might alleviate these challenges?
For all of the summits and conferences and talks (Davos and TED, anyone?) virtually every world leader is flailing for a coherent agenda or vision. No one knows how to cope with the realities of over-zealous globalization and the transition to a ‘New Economy’ with ‘New Jobs’ that seems as ethereal as leaves wafting on a summer breeze. Neither can they explain how to manage the socio-political impacts of the accompanying technological revolution that is confounding economists and dislocating the employment of millions around the globe. How does it all add up? How can governments plan for what they can barely comprehend, summarize or digest?
2) The Tech Storm
What does it mean to put a hand-sized computer (the cell phone) into our prehensile paws, not to mention the implications of linking everyone magically together through the electronic ether? Gutenberg’s humble printing press unleashed the first age of global information sharing across space and time, spawning nothing less than both the Reformation and the Enlightenment, the rise of the modern state, as well as the industrial and scientific revolutions. These weren’t mere historical ripples but rather sweeping, seminal changes demanded from the micro-level of daily life to tectonic shifts in the world order. How much change, at what speed(s), and how much more far reaching will this kind of technological liberation cause?
Elites are riding on the restless back of this tiger (i.e. posting self-important selfies in a vain attempt to connect with Joe Six-Pack) and have not truly seen the beast’s teeth or felt its sharp, serrated claws.
The truth is, while they revel in their supposed egalitarianism, insulated by a fawning public made up of planted acclaim, millions of people -- the non-one percent living outside the best zip and postal codes, can feel heavy breathing and hear the scratch of sharpened claws.
Governments failed to anticipate the central premise of globalization. Mesmerized by the theoretical elimination of trade barriers and the promise of free( r ) trade, they assumed that the central focus for their policies would be the need for increased efficiency and productivity. Managerial theories like Lean and Six Sigma became the vogue as educational institutions focused on metrics and goals, which invariably resulted in the need to “rebalance” staff.
This approach worked –- for a while. However, without sufficient monitoring companies improved their numbers, provided healthy returns for investors, yet failed to note that their “streamlined” operations were beginning to result in larger and larger numbers of disenfranchised former workers -- victims of “the Old Economy,” who had neither been prepared adequately with retraining skills to meet the “New Economy’s” digitized workplace, nor had fully realized that traditional industries were becoming redundant. Take the example of the “disruption” caused by a single company: Apple. Steve Jobs’ iconic iPod, iTunes, iPhone and iPad put paid to industries that had managed to weather generations: the retail music store, the CD industry, the phone industry, the photography industry, newspapers and print media. Amazon and Alibaba are making dinosaurs out of department stores, Twitter has allowed Donald Trump to bypass traditional news sources, and even the exploration of outer space stands on the edge of being privatized.
The problem with creating armies of out of work, or under-worked, or part-time work is akin to the same principals inherent in aerodynamics. Sooner or later, this number of people becomes a drag on a national economy, as their consumer buying power declines. Therein lies the rub: we got productivity and efficiency on one hand, however paid a hefty price in slower economic growth on the other. It just took a while for the wind resistance on our global economic airframe to build up.
The traditional elites have reacted with predictable “solutions.” Governmental standing committees, blue-ribbon panels, economic summits with lofty titles chipped away at the growing imbalance of workers with large sums of tax money set aside for infrastructure spending (usually because they can’t think of what else they can do to provide employment and stimulate growth, tax cuts, tax increases, fee rises and cut back services). Message machines started churning out bromides about “belt-tightening,” “restraint,” “discretionary spending,” as governments subtly shifted their messages from ‘We’re Here to Help You’ to ‘You Are To Blame.” The latter message is like blindfolding oneself while holding a revolver to one's head with five empty and a single loaded chamber. There’s a very thin line between asking the populace to work together as a team and collectively become responsible and falling over to the dark side to be perceived as blaming the customer. History shows that nanny states who blame their populace breeds subsurface discontent that can spiral into anger, frustration and the kind of conditions that result in backlash at the ballot box. Ask Marienne LaPen, Nigel Farage, Emmanuel Macron, Rodrigo Duterte and Donald Trump.
The missing link all along was neither productivity nor efficiency. Those levers could not long sustain growth, living standards and sustainable jobs. What was missing was innovation. This could not come from text books, or be taught like the steps to baking a cake. Ideas had to be generated, incubated and field-tested in real-world conditions. Failures could not be regarded as shameful, as portents of inadequacy, but learning experiences that could result in further refinement, and the courage to cannibalize one’s own hitherto successful product or service in order to evolve the next model be encouraged. Mankind has always been able to innovate himself out of a jam: cold? Hunt for furs to make coats. Tired of eating raw food? Build a fire (and oh, keep warm too). Cultivate a garden. Build a wheel to get your and your products from farm plot to home. Build a market for exchange etc etc etc.
Granted, these are but simplistic examples. Yet it underlines a very key premise for successful innovation: there must be a proper societal atmosphere and support framework to greenhouse ideas. Top-down governmental directives, specially designated “innovation zones,” this lab or that centre at this university or that college will NOT produce the spontaneity and creativity needed. No amount of rote memorization, theory or guru can do so either. Innovation comes from experimentation, risk-taking, and daring to fail, for failure imbues one with experience and experience makes people, industries and nations strong at the broken parts.
Societies have to learn to embrace change. And a key part of that is the need to ask questions: is this the best way to do things? What other ways are there? What do we know? What do we NOT know? What do we need to know?
This approach puts a fair amount of responsibility into the hands of the people, more specifically individuals, whose task is to question the status quo, not out of a desire to disrupt (never liked that word’s negative connotations, which makes people leery of change), but out of unhappiness with the way things are.
But where to start? It's hard to be a border collie when all one's life has been spent as a sheep.
3) The Innovation Game
Innovation exists along continuum, from material improvements to existing products or processes all the way to the rare, truly “disruptive” (in the proper context as paradigm-shifting) change. Governments, which by nature essentially reactionary, throw the word around with all the abandon of a lucky gambler on an overheated Vegas winning streak. When pressed for specificity, their invariable response is a tepid, “Well, you know, innovation. Everyone knows what that means!”
Really?
In business parlance, the word “innovation” has reached near-iconic status (some would say, cliche) -- like “customer centricity,” deemed to be a strategic necessity, but devilishly hard to define. Unsurprising, for like Kennedy conspiracy theories it means different things to different people.
Put aside the textbook rhetoric for a moment. Forget all that Ivy League, Oxbridge dogma taught by most professors who’ve spent much of their lives theorizing and not actually DOING. There is NOTHING inherent in the development of innovation as easy as what can be taught in the confines of a book, or even the walls of an educational institution (heretic!).
Innovation arises from thinking differently than we normally do, and via learning by experience -- by DOING. Just as one would hardly place much faith in a pilot whose experience is confined to reading all the manuals and only ever "flying" in flight simulators, it stands to reason that, should the unthinkable happen, it would be preferential to have someone like Chesley Sullenberger (of "Miracle on the Hudson" fame) with 40 years of practical experience at the controls.
For our purposes let’s define innovation as a “big new ” for business or a “ big different” in how business is operated. Yes, neither term is exactly grammatical, but consider this a thought experiment where traditional rules and nomenclature do not necessarily apply.
How does this kind of innovation occur?
Innovation is birthed via a messy, inefficient process of idea generation, exploration, hypothesis testing and experimentation. Invariably, we co-create something with customers; generate entirely new value by combining unrelated (or seemingly so) things or ideas in new ways; moving something from one environment to another; or finding new insights in patterns or their opposite, by studying clues in aberrations or exceptions. “Aha!” or “OMG!” moments are few and far between, and usually confined to movies.
The wonderful thing about being human is that, as a race, we are collectively efficient, fast, reflexive thinkers who seek to confirm what we already know. Ergo, innovative thinking, like critical thinking, does not come naturally to most of us. If it did there would be so many more Thomas Edisons, Isaac Newtons, Confucius(es?), Albert Einsteins and Steve Jobs(es) in the world. In addition, our thinking is limited by our innate tendency to rationalize information that contradicts our beliefs and by many cognitive biases. In a nutshell, when we are on autopilot, we are not critical or innovative thinkers -- for most of our lives we meander through life as merely confirmation machines.
By such an interpretation rationality is but a myth and we are driven by emotional comfort zones. Emotionally, we seek to affirm our self-image (our ego) and we use the 3Ds -- deny, defend, and deflect -- to ward off challenges to it and to our perceptions of the world. Fear is one of the emotions that comes all too naturally to most of us -- and makes it hard for us to engage in the messy work of innovation. Fear of failure, fear of looking bad, and fear of losing our job if we make mistakes all can lead to the tendency to defend what we believe.
Viewed in that context, our protestations about being too "busy" with daily routine can become the rational, logical equivalent of lying in a fetal position rocking back and forth.
Our educational system and most work environments have taught us that what passes as good performance means failure avoidance, not making mistakes, or taking risks, however calculated. This is a big problem, because failure is an unavoidable part of innovation experimentation. Innovation requires the willingness to fail and learn. Abraham Maslow, one of the founders of the humanistic psychology movement (Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs) stated that an individual would engage in learning only “to the extent he is not crippled by fear and to the extent he feels safe enough to dare.”
Do YOU feel safe enough to dare?
Does the society you live in, the company you work with, or the social group in which you move encourage you to do so?
To be clear, we are not advocating or condoning flagrant disregard of risk (that would be like asking trapeze artists to disregard the inconvenience of safety nets), but rather to consider evidence-based (not analysis-paralysis driven) leaps of faith in trying unconventional approaches.
In order to innovate, we need to change our attitude toward failures and mistakes. Contrary to what many of us have been taught, avoiding failure is not a sign that we’re smart. Being smart is not about knowing all the answers (that’s just rote memorization) and performing flawlessly (such as in more easily quantifiable disciplines as sports). Being smart is being undaunted by not knowing. knowing that you don’t know everything, prioritizing what you need to know, and becoming proficient at finding the best evidence-based answers. Being smart requires you to become comfortable saying, “I don’t know,” or “I have no clue,” with the caveat, "I intend to find out." It means that you do not identify yourself by your ideas but by whether you are an open-minded, good critical, innovative thinker and learner.
Unfortunately, most organizational environments won’t help us overcome our fear of failure and build our innovative thinking skills. That’s because most organizations (governmental, corporate or academic) exist to produce predictable, reliable, standardized results. In those environments, mistakes and failures are considered "bad." That' sucks. To innovate, one has to employ a seeming dichotomy: simultaneously tolerating mistakes AND insisting on operational excellence. Many organizations struggle with imparting or implementing that dual mentality.
Here we can learn from companies like Lego, Pixar, Brookfield Asset Management, and Apple. In those organizations, mistakes and failures are redefined as “learning opportunities.” They don't take things to extremes where some organizations characterize failure as good because it helps people develop the humility that is necessary for empathy -- a critical skill in user-centric innovation.
Nonetheless, in many workplaces and societies, people do not “feel safe enough to dare.” They don’t necessarily feel that they can speak with candor up and down the organization. Can you tell your boss the truth? Innovation occurs best in an “idea meritocracy,” a culture with a "retribution-free zone" where the best evidence-based ideas win and there can’t be two sets of rules -- everyone’s ideas must be subject to the same rigorous scrutiny.
Ideas may be formed individually, however they are refined, tested and implemented collaboratively. Everyone at a company, group or institution has to become engaged in a radically transparent “search for truth,” involving candid feedback and a deliberate effort to get past the emotional defenses that inhibit our thinking. We have to rise above ourselves.
Tough, yet hardly impossible. And yes, it takes considerable investment, primarily in time, to create the winning conditions for innovative environments.
Many organizations which have positioned themselves to incubate innovation spent the past years building internal cultures to better foster experimentation-driven innovation. A key part of that focus is an intense focus on how leaders needed to change their behaviors and thinking. Humility, empathy, and the devaluation of hierarchical rank were integral elements to making this new culture work.
Creating a “big new” or a “big different” for any organization requires innovative thinking, and innovative thinking requires the right kind of organizational environment. That is why innovation is so hard.
The payoff though, is huge. For as Steve Jobs put it, "Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower."
Which, does your nation, company, or school want to be?
Which one do YOU want to be?