Bias Against the Status Quo

Steve Jobs is a major figure in a new book on what differentiates the CEOs of innovative, disruptive companies from more run of the mill executives. The book, Innovator's DNA, describes the five skills of innovative disruptors that were identified after analyzing a series of interviews with a selection of CEOs. The selling point of the book is the idea that anybody can apply these behaviors in their professional or personal life to generate more and better ideas.

The marketing and organization of the book downplays a key finding of the original research. An early report on the project identified bias against the status quo as a common attitude among innovative CEOs. The book is written to highlight the skills, granted, and a bias against the status quo is more of a disposition, but that disposition is essential to pursuing a vision that deviates from "the right answer" to building a successful company. Seeking a disruptive innovation is essentially recognizing that there is a better way to get things done. The recognition of this shortcoming compels a search for a better way to do things. This search requires experimentation and trying novel approaches to routine tasks. A successful search requires a rejection of what everybody thinks is normal for the pursuit of something that you think is better.

Pursuing a vision that deviates from the accepted way of going about your business is a bigger challenge than developing that vision. The courage to make a new idea a reality is more precious than the new idea. Working to turn a novel idea into reality isn't a simple rejection of superficial appearance norms. It's more about an authentic sense of purpose and identity. It's an attitude and projection of confidence. It's an inability to follow the herd. Being away from the herd is uncomfortable. Embracing the ambiguity and uncertainty inherent in the cutting edge is the first step to making a difference in the world. It's also the hardest.

The Betrayal of Book Smarts

The outpouring of adulation that has accompanied the ascension of Steve Jobs into the pantheon of Immortal Men offers a telling testament to the irrelevance of formal education. Steve Jobs accomplished all that he achieved not by applying insights gathered from a curriculum "designed" by stuffy professors. He did things and used what he learned in those activities to do more things. He pursued a vision that grew from experience and the desire to create. Formal education had a role, but what he learned in school was a complement to an internally developed and determined direction. Jobs didn't try to find the "right" path and work hard to pursue that path. He followed a path that grew from his experience and thinking.

Much is made of innovation at Apple. It seems that management writers have a difficult time finding other companies and leaders to use as examples in their discussions on creativity and innovation. They seem to have this immediate need to type "Apple" after typing "innovative." Apple exemplified innovation because Jobs never felt compelled to reconcile his vision with "the right answer." The only right answer for Jobs was his vision. He didn't try to make Apple match the prescriptions for a successful company that are taught in business schools. His ideas came from a cache of books that he wouldn't discuss because he didn't want to offer his competition access to his insights.

Apple succeeds because Jobs created a culture that focuses on generating and building ideas that support a well-defined vision. The right answer was the answer that made the vision more of a reality. It didn't matter what the experts had to say. They ignored the nay-sayers and the media critics. You can't create when you're aiming for the same target as everybody else. I read a brilliant quote by the Dutch sculptor Theo Jansen. I'll get the exact wording later, but the gist of the quote was that most engineers come to the same solution to a problem because human minds think alike. Novel solutions are born through the combination of previously disparate ideas.

Formal education, book smarts, builds a connection of thoughts that are supposed to go together. These are the right answers that people turn to when they face a novel challenge. It's easier to flip through the book and find an answer rather than think about the problem and come up with a fresh approach. Formal education conditions the mind to seek experts, either in person or on in writing, to suggest the best path forward. There are companies that print money on the fact that executives prefer to rely on the expertise of management consultants, the people with the right answers, rather than using their teams to develop novel insights that could solve the company's problems.

Creativity is a messy, chaotic, nonlinear process that may offer solutions that defy conventional thinking. It's risky and ambiguous. It requires thinking about and learning from experience rather than falling back on the tried and true. The best solutions are usually spotted by a novice who's thinking has not been shaped by the conventional thinking of the field. It's about learning by doing, an active participation in the process rather than sitting outside of the fray and commenting on what's happening. Critics may recognize something creative, but they are hard pressed to be creative themselves.

It's easy to recognize creative genius, but the process of being creative is alien to most of us. The process looks mysterious and magical, but it only looks that way because we're all brain washed into conformity thinking as we endure years of formal schooling. The lack of a right answer usually scares people into something that's a little more well-defined. The fear that you feel when facing this kind of challenge is really just your creativity trying to get some attention. Listen to it. That's an opportunity for the next level of achievement.

Why I'm relieved that I didn't go to law school

What little internet traffic finds it's way here, a good deal of it starts with a blog I wrote while I was applying to law school a couple of years ago. Writing the blog was fun, and I had fun applying to law school. The LSAT was an intriguing mental game, the cut and dry nature of LSAT and GPA made the law school application process feel more like a game than anything with serious real-life repercussions, and waiting to hear decisions on my applications made checking my email a fun adventure. There was a community aspect of the whole process too. Keeping up with, and occasionally posting, on the Top Law Schools forums became a regular part of my day. Law School Predictor, Law School Numbers, these law school application social media sites consumed a tremendous amount of my time. My engagement with these sites had a lot to do with my engagement in the application process.

Getting into law school took several months of focused effort. I threw myself into the process. I was ready to hit the law books and work hard at the next stage of the law school game, getting the top grades. It was hard to leave it behind when I finally had to face reality and recognize that the time and money that would be required to get a law degree were definitely not worth the effort. I always knew that the process would end with me staying exactly where I was, that seems to happen to me more often than I want to deeply consider at the moment, and that's probably why I never gave serious thought to what it means to be a lawyer. I would hate being a lawyer. But that's not really why I'm relieved I didn't go to law school.  

Every first year associate at a big law firm is pursuing the same career path. They started down that road when they started preparing for the LSAT or picked their major. They'll stay on that road until they burn out, fail to make partner, or retire from their office or life. The course is fixed for every Big Law attorney. Maybe a few of them will step out and become in-house counsel for a corporation, my college roommate did that, or perhaps a few of the lucky ones with the prestigious resumes will become law professors. In any event, their options are limited. The study of law requires no imagination or creativity, and the practice of law is largely a practice in drudgery and minutia.

I could put a link into every word of this sentence, hell, probably the remainder of this post, that would take you to a blog or a website that offers abundant stories and reasons why you shouldn't waste your time and money in any law school, much less the vast majority of schools outside of the top 15 or 20 programs. All of those sites go on about how there are very few jobs, you spend more than I spent on my first house to get the degree, and the frustration that too many people feel over doing everything right only to end up living with mom and dad while making an hourly wage. The same basic theme pervades all of those sites (Google will get you to a few if you ask), law school closes opportunity.

That's why I'm relieved I didn't go to law school. Had I made that choice, I would have had basically one career path open to me. It would be the standard lawyer path, with the wrinkle that I would be in IP. My career template would be to join a firm's intellectual property group, work like a dog to repay my loans before my kids start college, keep at it until I just can't do it any longer. That would be it. The job wouldn't require my best skills. I would probably be competent enough to do alright, but I would never be the best. The cases would change, the names of the clients would be different, but the work would be pretty much the same thing year in and year out. Write the patent, defend the patent, schmooze the client. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

Definitions and Perceptions

The University of Richmond chemistry department puts the worst possible description of chemistry right in the middle of their department website. Did they intentionally highlight the most uninspiring description imaginable? Chemistry is NOT simply the study of matter and transformations that occur in material things. Chemistry is a process of DOING, not merely a body of knowledge. Chemistry is a system of inquiry that seeks to improve human welfare through the application of a molecular level understanding of complex systems.

I say this only to emphasize that how an entity describes itself goes a long way toward determining how it acts. A chemistry department that sees chemistry as a subject contained in a textbook for ready digestion by undergrads will act in a manner that perpetuates that view. Rather than getting students engaged in the process of discovery that drives the creation of scientific curiosity, students will be treated to four years of abstract theories and dry facts. Zappo's and Apple seek to create meaningful experiences for their customers. In both instances, the entire company behaves in a manner that seeks to make this self-definition an actuality.

Losing your legs could make you an amputee, with all of the limitations that label connotes, or losing your legs could spur an exploration of the limits of human potential and what it means to be beautiful. Definitions imply limits, so the more limited or amorphous the definition, the more potential for exploration and growth atrophy. A definition delineates, separates, and makes crisp borders that are often better left vague and ambiguous. If actions limit thinking, a clear definition of what you are or who you strive to become puts a wall around what it means to be you.