I was doing my copy-editing thing for the actuarial magazine,
when lo and behold, I was gifted two articles about innovation in the actuarial
profession. I thought that it was quite
providential given my renewed interest in creative and innovative actuarial
work. So I took to reading the articles
with gusto in the hopes of something to light a fire underneath me.
After reading through them looking for obscure grammatical
mistakes, I was disappointed. I mean
innovation should be right up my alley right? I love looking at things in a
new way. But each article fell flat on
their promise of renewed innovation because they were basically puff pieces written
to bolster the author’s own image. But
besides the ego stroking on the part of the authors, I sensed a
misunderstanding of intuition and how that feeds innovation.
Take for instance the first article which reduces innovation
to following a process. He equates
innovation with the output of some sort of a rote process, some sort of
machine that creates innovative insights.
To be fair, that might be a route to innovation. Having a process to get you to think about
things differently might produce innovation. However, that is not the only route. Intuition, the gift to be able to infer
relationships almost out of thin air, is not a conscious process. Intuitive folks can innovate and build on
their own esoteric insights to create innovation with little, if any,
methodology. It just makes sense and
they often may not know exactly why it works.
The second article also has some merit. Some people do well when there is a contest;
they are motivated either by the esteem of their peers or some material
prize. That motivation might be enough
for people to “risk” thinking differently if it gives them an advantage. But the issues with contests are that they
need to be judged and entries deemed better or worse in order to determine a winner. In so doing, everything is in the
eye of the judge and what could be preconceived notions on their part as to
what a good idea could be. A truly
innovative idea might be beyond the judge’s comprehension and then deemed
worth less than a more “conventional” innovation.
But the point about competitions is that some folks thrive
in a non-competitive environment.
Intuitive individuals only need time and space to be able to produce
phenomenal results. The fact that an
idea is implemented or given consideration is often reward in and of itself.
It is possible that the reason that intuition was not given
mention is because it is not a popular concept.
Why? Well, because not everyone
possesses intuition, which is detestable in the modern world’s eyes. The fact that we cannot be anything that we
want to be with or without extraordinary instruction through school is seen as
a slight to the modern institution of civilization. The fact that no matter how grand of a carrot
(or Cadbury Crème Egg!) that we give people, nature cannot change.
And indeed we are not the same. Deep down we are all different and it does
not matter how much schooling (basically a rote process) or motivation (even
competition) one receives, we cannot change whether someone has the gift of
intuition or not. I believe that
innovation for all of humanity would be best served if we accepted the fact
that some people have intuition and are best fitted in the world of innovation,
while others serve best as implementation of innovation. The well of innovation exists for any
industry or sector, or anywhere – we need to open our eyes to where those well
springs are and let them flow.
God bless,
Sven
No comments:
Post a Comment