Innovation? Talent Crunch? Give me a break!
Okay, it's time for me to get something off my chest. What is it with all the talk about innovation and talent? Yesterday, I attended an American Marketing Association seminar on the lack of innovation in marketing, and the magazine BusinessWeek has decided to make 2006 the "Year of Innovation." Today, I see that the cover story of The Economist is dedicated to an apparent deficit in "talent." As a person who has been searching for a career opportunity in Toronto for more than six months, it certainly doesn't feel like employers are hurting for bright young workers, and I'm damn tired of hearing about it!
As a person who's studied more than his fair share of demographic trends, I don't doubt that the impending retirement of an entire generation of baby boomers will have an impact on the labor market. But does that mean there's really a shortage of talent, or that the lack of qualified individuals is the only piece of the puzzle?
Here I am--smart, well educated, trilingual, and with a combination of unique experiences that few of my peers can claim--and not one of Toronto's companies has contacted me about job opportunities. And believe me, it's not for lack of trying on my part. I've sent out nearly a hundred resumes in the past six months, and they all seem to disappear into the ether.
Maybe there's something wrong with me. I admit that I'm not a "traditional" job candidate, but in my humble opinion, that's what makes me such an attractive candidate. I have a solid liberal arts background that trained me to identify, analyze, and solve problems--regardless of the field. We live in an increasingly globalized society, and my experience living and working in Japan and Russia have given me firsthand knowledge about successfully working across cultures. Three years I spent as a volunteer in the U.S. Peace Corps, which more than any MBA course taught me how to deal with ambiguity and to initiate complex and ambitious projects with nearly no resources. Oh, and I do have business experience and professional training and an MBA and an MA. So what is it that employers are looking for that I don't have?
Here's the thing about buzzwords likes "innovation" and "talent." That's all they are to most organizations: cliches. The panel of speakers at yesterday's AMA meeting gave a lot of good insights about innovation, but no methodology will do any good if the culture of the company is fundamentally risk averse.
After all, there are really two sides of innovation. One side involves finding new solutions for problems or new ways of seeing things that others haven't thought of. If somebody else had thought of it...it wouldn't be innovative! But the other side of innovation is taking the risk to do something different once you've identified what it is. Having a fresh idea is not the same as acting upon that fresh idea. But because it's new and untested, there's always a risk of failure. But failure is not a bad thing when it's accompanied by a desire to learn and improve. Then, failure simply becomes a feedback mechanism that gives you guidance for formulating your next innovation.
Companies say they want to be innovative and they want to attract talent, but is that really true? Most corporations today seem to be technocracies--those who get ahead are those who do a particular skill well. Employees are rewarded for their proficiency in completing their function. Employees have no incentive to take risks. Many managers, then, are technocrats who have gotten ahead by being good at their technical area. It's no wonder that when hiring new employees, managers look for other technically proficient people whose background mirrors their own. These are the results that get rewarded by the system; but this is not a system that inculcates innovation and it is certainly not a reflection of talent.
Innovation is not technical skill. Talent is not technical skill. This is not to say that technical proficiency isn't important. Of course it is. But many skills are simply learned activities. But that you have mastered a skill does not mean that you are talented at it, nor does it mean that you are capable of being innovative in your field. Don't misread me as being arrogant, and don't get me wrong. I'm not belittling the achievement of people who have worked hard to learn their professional field.
But the mindset behind innovative thinking requires the ability to think outside of familiar paradigms. I'm trying to avoid the "think outside the box" cliche. And guess what: the world looks different when you look at it from a different paradigm. That's where innovative people gain the insight to come up with innovation--which later they can apply to technical skills. It's far easier for a person who has cultivated the capacity for critical thinking (and cultivate is the appropriate word) to pick up additional skills than it is for a person who has focused on rote technical proficiency to later develop the sense of wonder and curiosity necessary to question the status quo--what Zen Master Suzuki called "shoshin" or "beginner's mind."
If it were so easy, more companies would be innovative, right? There are plenty of accountants, financial managers, investment bankers, engineers, marketers, and so on who are extremely competent at what they do, and I have no doubt that they know their shit better than I do. But what does it mean that companies are bitching and moaning about innovation yet they continue to hire and encourage technocratically proficient candidates rather than more untraditional ones?
One of the participants in the AMA seminar was a former Kraft marketing manager. He noted that the bean counters have laid siege upon the modern corporation. They manage almost entirely by numbers and analysis and most importantly, quarterly reports. The hot new jobs are "risk analysts," which reflects the risk-averse orientation of most big companies. While strong analysis is important, as is calculated risk taking, this trend has created a culture counterproductive to creativity and, therefore, innovation. The former Kraft manager's expression was that "there's no place for the wingnuts in marketing anymore." By "wingnuts," he meant the innovative thinkers who are able and willing to look at the business landscape from an entirely different perspective. Moreover, they're willing to take the risk of implementing a "wild and crazy" idea. That idea might be so innovative that traditional "metrics" are incapable of predicting the probable outcomes, which is probably why they usually get nixed by the C-suite.
Companies want growth and they want to maximize shareholder return. But have they forgotten the fundamental principle of finance: the risk-return relationship. If you want higher returns, you have to be willing to accept greater risk.And this is going to be true throughout the company and the decisions you make--including hiring.
Though certainly necessary, technical specialists are safe hires. "Wingnuts"--i.e., innovators--are risky hires. But if employers want to "diversify their portfolio" of employees to maximize shareholder value, then they must be willing to hire talent that doesn't fit the cookie-cutter mold of business school graduates in gray pinstripe suits. What are the risks? First, the person may not be fully proficient in a certain technical area, and the employer will have to invest a little more at the front end for the innovator to get up to speed. Second, cultural frictions may arise when the safe way of doing things comes into conflict with the innovative perspective.
These risks can be mitigated if employers are willing to see their hiring decisions as investments. In most cases, your "wingnut"--with a liberal education focused on critical thinking--will move quickly along the learning curve when it comes to technical skills. After the initial investment to train the person--and you have to be willing to make this commitment to mentoring the new employee--you will be rewarded very soon and very well by the creative enthusiasm that your wingnut will bring to his or her work. As for the cultural issue--an effective manager will embrace the change and welcome the dialogue that emerges. In time, the addition of more wingnuts will help invigorate the culture and shift the organizational mentality to a more innovative one.
So, here I am, a lone "wingnut," working from my 25th floor home for a start-up company (entrepreneurs are wingnuts!) based in California (the land of wingnuts!), and I'm still baffled by the calls for more talent and innovation. Here I am world! I'm well-trained, with unique experiences and top-notch education. I'm ready and willing to join your team. Stop complaining about the talent shortage and hire me already!
Powered by Qumana