Jay Yoo

The WSJ is up to it again featuring articles on the institutionalization of innovation (and creativity).  

In most high-school and college classes, failure is penalized. But without trial and error, there is no innovation. 

I certainly applaud the effort being put forth by certain schools to try and teach kids innovation (learning via failure), but think these rudimentary mechanics can be easily picked up at any time in life.  Schools should really stick to teaching fundamentals (math, reading, writing, health and the arts) rather than trying to educate the next “Steve Jobs.”  

Creating some kind of quasi-Entrepreneur/Innovation program put together by people who they themselves have never started a business is crazy thinking.  Besides, you cannot educate the next Steve Jobs; he/she needs to be curious enough to search and create beyond education.

Steve Jobs did not learn innovation in a school; he freely exposed himself to many diverse experiences (Zen Buddhism, Vegetarianism, The Whole Earth Catalog, Technology, The Arts, etc.) that were out of mainstream learning (counter culture).  He did not accept the rules as they were written and brought culture (Humanities) into the geek world of technology.  Steve Jobs was insanely curious about the world (had a beginner’s mind) and “had more dots to connect.”  Being curious is one of the things that allowed him to be an innovator.  

A lot of people in our industry haven’t had very diverse experiences. So they don’t have enough dots to connect, and they end up with very linear solutions without a broad perspective on the problem. The broader one’s understanding of the human experience, the better design we will have.  - Steve Jobs

Ironically, the WSJ article does not mention curiosity once?  This I find to be disturbing and fundamentally flawed in any attempt to try and teach innovation.  Why do most kids start out being curious in kindergarden and go on to loose it as they progress through middle school, high school and college?  

The endeavor of every school should be to keep kids curious and to figure out why they stop (asking questions), rather than trying to teach them innovation or how to be like Steve Jobs.  Also, not every kid is going to be an innovator.  This is a big and messy undertaking.  Being an innovator means you have to be willing to break rules and not follow directions.  Not every kid is wired like this so it is fruitless to push it on them.  Isn’t being curious enough for building a good foundation from which some kids can eventually explore becoming innovators and for all of them to be positive, truth seeking contributors to society?

Sure the article stresses learning from failure and this is a good thing in concept.  That said, I sure wish they would stress the importance of being curious by engaging them in many different experiences as opposed to trying to “measure their innovative skills.”  I mean how do you measure curiosity and being a rule breaker?

What is most salient about the article is that it stresses the importance of parents being involved in the process of their kids becoming innovators:

 …what the parents of future innovators do matters enormously. My interviews with parents of today’s innovators revealed some fascinating patterns. They valued having their children pursue a genuine passion above their getting straight As, and they talked about the importance of “giving back.” As their children matured, they also encouraged them to take risks and learn from mistakes. There is much that all of us stand to learn from them.

Honestly, the greatest example a parent can be to future innovators is for they themselves to simply be curious.  Boy, wouldn’t this be great!  

Schools, please stay focused on educating our kids and help them to simply be curious.  Let them be themselves rather than being Steve Jobs.  America will be waiting to forgive them for their great failures and flameouts and will certainly reward them for their breakthroughs!

What is the cost of failure in Silicon Valley? Go to 5:25. 

I am a geek. That is to say I am “an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity.” It’s always been that way. When working in corporate america during the 1990s I was always using technology far beyond any of my peers, many of whom were engineers (mechanical and chemical).  As a sales and marketing guy (at the time that was me) I was teaching engineers how to use Excel pivot tables? You would think it should have been the other way around, as they were the analytical ones.

I was often made fun of for my passion for technology and to this day do not connect with most of my older peers (+35 y/o) on finding ways to implement technology at every level of life to make it easier. They just do not get it.  

In today’s hyper-connected world, access to the best and brightest is just a “click away.”  Also, the interconnectedness of IT platforms (eg. ecommerce and fulfillment centers) continues to rapidly make routine/repetitive manual labor obsolete.  The bottom line is that avoiding technology, and not teaching your kids to fully embrace it, may not be the wisest thing.

This article from the Economist sums it up nicely by challenging the merits of just getting a higher education:

There are good reasons for thinking that old patterns are about to change—and that the current recession-driven downturn in the demand for Western graduates will morph into something structural. The gale of creative destruction that has shaken so many blue-collar workers over the past few decades is beginning to shake the cognitive elite as well.

Today, it’s not enough to simply get an education and hope that someone will hire you and show you the “way.”  The “way” is a fast moving target; unless you come to the table yourself with more than an education (i.e. tech skills, subject expertise, creativity) your position in the pecking order is diminished significantly by default.  Employers can find someone with your knowledge set in New Dehli, Bangkok or Ho Chi Minh for a lot less (1/4 the cost) and this trend is only going to continue.  You have to offer more than “knowing something;” you have to be able to “do things.” 

Thomas Malone of MIT argues that these changes—automation, globalisation and deregulation—may be part of a bigger change: the application of the division of labour to brain-work. Just as Adam Smith’s factory managers broke the production of pins into 18 components, so companies are increasingly breaking the production of brain-work into ever tinier slices. TopCoder chops up IT projects into bite-sized chunks and then serves them up to a worldwide workforce of freelance coders. These changes will undoubtedly improve the productivity of brain-workers. They will allow consumers to sidestep the professional guilds that have extracted high rents for their services. And they will empower many brain-workers to focus on what they are best at and contract out more tedious tasks to others. But the reconfiguration of brain-work will also make life far less cosy and predictable for the next generation of graduates.

Parents, if you want your kids to be competitive in the work force of the future, reading books, doing well in school and emotional quotient work may not be enough. They are going to have to compete with nations that are throwing away textbooks to learn on an iPad. Just imagine what this mass immersion in technology will mean for a country and their ability to hyper-connect their citizen’s lives to the world. It’s is rather mind blowing and I would say we are at the brink of a major tipping point in human evolution with our ability to learn, teach others and get things done at light speed and with more accuracy.

The deterioration of the middle class in America is obvious and people are going to have to find a new place in a “global” pecking order.  Simply getting a degree is no longer going to assure graduates will get a good paying job. If you are not fully immersing your kids in technology, and showing them how to manage change to be more efficient in their own lives, they already have a huge disadvantage in this fast changing world.  

Don’t be afraid to teach your kids to be a geek.  They will be able to “do things,” and just might go out and start their own company rather than finding a job.

via The Economist

This is an interesting article in the WSJ. Actually, you could easily replace Chinese with Korean, Vietnamese, or Japanese.  This is how a lot of Asian kids across the board are raised.  I certainly think there is merit in rote training and being firm with your kids.

However, this is over the top. I just can’t do it in full to my kids.

Amy Chua’s kids rote train for hours and are not allowed to do the following:

• attend a sleepover
• have a playdate
• be in a school play
• complain about not being in a school play
• watch TV or play computer games
• choose their own extracurricular activities
• get any grade less than an A
• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama
• play any instrument other than the piano or violin
• not play the piano or violin.

Really? Her kids are not allowed to be kids? 

I want my kids to excel and am a firm believer in training as the way to being good at anything. That said, I think there is very little opportunity for creativity with this kind of “life box.”

It is interesting to compare and contrast this with Sir Ken Robinson’s views on creativity. There is a difference between rigor and rote.

I actually thank Amy Chua for this article and think it is important for my kids to find what they are good at and work to excel at it.

However, I also want my kids to develop social skills necessary to succeed in an increasingly diverse workplace and world, so play dates are a must.

In the end, we all have to be more than smart and good at something to really succeed; we have to be likable and creative. I did not get a sense of how likable or creative Amy’s kids are or that she places a lot of importance on these aspects of one’s being. 

Well, my kids are getting straight “A’s”. One is in a play and the other is a master at video games. For sure they are super likable, creative and fun!

I think I might send Amy’s kids a whoopie cushion. I wonder if they would know what to do with it?