Poking through 13+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

It’s interesting that so many of the entrepreneurs whose ideas could actually change the world are either still in school (not college) or at the other end of the spectrum. It also seems that most of the 20s/30s/40s crowd are primarily interested in changing their financial status and burnishing their brand. Oops! Seems like I’m getting cynical in my golden years.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

I frequently see comments on blogs and social sites along the lines of “I know I could be an entrepreneur if I just had a good idea” or “I want to be an entrepreneur and change the world.”

Sadly, it seems that most are looking for ideas to make them the next Groupon or Foursquare and while that might make them rich, it will hardly change the world.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but it won’t change much or get you into the history books.

You change the world by tackling real-world problems, often with hard science.

But you don’t need to be a scientist; self-taught Gary Cola invented the world’s lightest, strongest steel that takes less than ten seconds to make.

In fact, you don’t have to be an adult. Take a look at the winners of the first Google Science Fair and you will be blown away; none are 18 yet and none of their ideas involved the Internet.

Here’s an idea; if you want to change the world look for problems with global impact. Blake Mycoskie is changing the world with shoes and glasses, while Anthony Capone, CEO of Nimbus Water Systems, is changing it with inexpensive, solar-powered, portable water purification systems.

Then there are toilets.

Yes, toilets.

That handy gadget that we take for granted (unless it isn’t working) and that many parts of the world only dream about.

“No innovation in the past 200 years has done more to save lives and improve health than the sanitation revolution triggered by invention of the toilet.” –Sylvia Mathews Burwell, president of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s global development program

And the Gates Foundation is putting its money where its mouth is.

Look around; think about changing the world by reinventing or innovating something that addresses a basic need.

You may not end up as rich as Mark Cuban, but I guarantee that it’s the sexiest, most exciting, rewarding, feel-good thing you’ll ever do.

Image credit: Kate Ter Haar

In the intro to yesterday’s post, about how boredom often triggers creativity, I referred to the hoops being jumped through to foster creativity in the workplace.

Unfortunately, it’s not working and that’s what to day’s post is about.

You may have noticed that creativity is all the rage—and not just among artists. American culture, and indeed the world, has become obsessed with manufacturing creative kids, who will turn into inventive workers, who will then become the innovative leaders we need in these rapidly-changing times. (…) As creativity is increasingly touted as the “premiere skill” of our time, [Diane] Senechal argues, there’s little interest in just letting this ability develop independently. Instead, it is being quantified, dissected and tested, taught and measured.

That approach may work on some talent, but developing creativity isn’t one of them.

In reality, that approach does more to destroy creativity than almost anything else.

The enormous number of major discoveries grounded in serendipity should be enough to convince people that structure and pressure don’t work.

If institutions really want to encourage creativity, in other words, they’ll have to develop the requisite patience to wait for it—and the ability to recognize what inventiveness is really made of. Insisting on innovation will never work, according to Senechal. “Perhaps the worst thing for creativity is dogma,” she argues. “Dogma delights in nothing; it insists on its own rigid ways.”

Of course, humans are notorious for believing they can improve any process by structuring it — even when it goes against research and proven results.

Bottom line, if you want your people to be more creative you need to let go, not hold on.

Image credit: Rigby Financial

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here.

Unlike most folk, when tech types want to improve their sex life they assume there’s an app for that.

If there isn’t they create one.

[Jakub] Konik’s foundational story is a simple one: he was having sex with his girlfriend, and he started wondering how many calories they burned during one particularly memorable session. Stunned to discover there were no existing apps that could answer that rather specific question, he came to the conclusion that he should create one.

Wow! It doesn’t take much thought to see how connected sex toys can make a difference.

And before you laugh, know that at least a couple of the companies received funding.

So, give a cheer for this sexy version of ‘change the world.’

Image credit: HikingArtist

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here.

If I have to listen/read one more time about value/importance/etc of hiring “stars” or the “best” whatever I think I may scream. Or, better yet, shove the words/premise down the appropriate throat.

While I, and a small minority, have tried to debunk this mindset we haven’t made much progress.

So here’s an article from Scott E Page, the Leonid Hurwicz collegiate professor of complex systems, political science and economics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Perhaps you’ll pay attention to him.

Why hiring the ‘best’ people produces the least creative results

While in graduate school in mathematics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I took a logic course from David Griffeath. The class was fun. Griffeath brought a playfulness and openness to problems. Much to my delight, about a decade later, I ran into him at a conference on traffic models. During a presentation on computational models of traffic jams, his hand went up. I wondered what Griffeath – a mathematical logician – would have to say about traffic jams. He did not disappoint. Without even a hint of excitement in his voice, he said: ‘If you are modelling a traffic jam, you should just keep track of the non-cars.’

The collective response followed the familiar pattern when someone drops an unexpected, but once stated, obvious idea: a puzzled silence, giving way to a roomful of nodding heads and smiles. Nothing else needed to be said.

Griffeath had made a brilliant observation. During a traffic jam, most of the spaces on the road are filled with cars. Modelling each car takes up an enormous amount of memory. Keeping track of the empty spaces instead would use less memory – in fact almost none. Furthermore, the dynamics of the non-cars might be more amenable to analysis.

Versions of this story occur routinely at academic conferences, in research laboratories or policy meetings, within design groups, and in strategic brainstorming sessions. They share three characteristics. First, the problems are complex: they concern high-dimensional contexts that are difficult to explain, engineer, evolve or predict. Second, the breakthrough ideas do not arise by magic, nor are they constructed anew from whole cloth. They take an existing idea, insight, trick or rule, and apply it in a novel way, or they combine ideas – like Apple’s breakthrough repurposing of the touchscreen technology. In Griffeath’s case, he applied a concept from information theory: minimum description length. Fewer words are required to say ‘No-L’ than to list ‘ABCDEFGHIJKMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ’. I should add that these new ideas typically produce modest gains. But, collectively, they can have large effects. Progress occurs as much through sequences of small steps as through giant leaps.

Third, these ideas are birthed in group settings. One person presents her perspective on a problem, describes an approach to finding a solution or identifies a sticking point, and a second person makes a suggestion or knows a workaround. The late computer scientist John Holland commonly asked: ‘Have you thought about this as a Markov process, with a set of states and transition between those states?’ That query would force the presenter to define states. That simple act would often lead to an insight.

The burgeoning of teams – most academic research is now done in teams, as is most investing and even most songwriting (at least for the good songs) – tracks the growing complexity of our world. We used to build roads from A to B. Now we construct transportation infrastructure with environmental, social, economic and political impacts.

The complexity of modern problems often precludes any one person from fully understanding them. Factors contributing to rising obesity levels, for example, include transportation systems and infrastructure, media, convenience foods, changing social norms, human biology and psychological factors. Designing an aircraft carrier, to take another example, requires knowledge of nuclear engineering, naval architecture, metallurgy, hydrodynamics, information systems, military protocols, the exercise of modern warfare and, given the long building time, the ability to predict trends in weapon systems.

The multidimensional or layered character of complex problems also undermines the principle of meritocracy: the idea that the ‘best person’ should be hired. There is no best person. When putting together an oncological research team, a biotech company such as Gilead or Genentech would not construct a multiple-choice test and hire the top scorers, or hire people whose resumes score highest according to some performance criteria. Instead, they would seek diversity. They would build a team of people who bring diverse knowledge bases, tools and analytic skills. That team would more likely than not include mathematicians (though not logicians such as Griffeath). And the mathematicians would likely study dynamical systems and differential equations.

Believers in a meritocracy might grant that teams ought to be diverse but then argue that meritocratic principles should apply within each category. Thus the team should consist of the ‘best’ mathematicians, the ‘best’ oncologists, and the ‘best’ biostatisticians from within the pool.

That position suffers from a similar flaw. Even with a knowledge domain, no test or criteria applied to individuals will produce the best team. Each of these domains possesses such depth and breadth, that no test can exist. Consider the field of neuroscience. Upwards of 50,000 papers were published last year covering various techniques, domains of enquiry and levels of analysis, ranging from molecules and synapses up through networks of neurons. Given that complexity, any attempt to rank a collection of neuroscientists from best to worst, as if they were competitors in the 50-metre butterfly, must fail. What could be true is that given a specific task and the composition of a particular team, one scientist would be more likely to contribute than another. Optimal hiring depends on context. Optimal teams will be diverse.

Evidence for this claim can be seen in the way that papers and patents that combine diverse ideas tend to rank as high-impact. It can also be found in the structure of the so-called random decision forest, a state-of-the-art machine-learning algorithm. Random forests consist of ensembles of decision trees. If classifying pictures, each tree makes a vote: is that a picture of a fox or a dog? A weighted majority rules. Random forests can serve many ends. They can identify bank fraud and diseases, recommend ceiling fans and predict online dating behaviour.

When building a forest, you do not select the best trees as they tend to make similar classifications. You want diversity. Programmers achieve that diversity by training each tree on different data, a technique known as bagging. They also boost the forest ‘cognitively’ by training trees on the hardest cases – those that the current forest gets wrong. This ensures even more diversity and accurate forests.

Yet the fallacy of meritocracy persists. Corporations, non-profits, governments, universities and even preschools test, score and hire the ‘best’. This all but guarantees not creating the best team. Ranking people by common criteria produces homogeneity. And when biases creep in, it results in people who look like those making the decisions. That’s not likely to lead to breakthroughs. As Astro Teller, CEO of X, the ‘moonshoot factory’ at Alphabet, Google’s parent company, has said: ‘Having people who have different mental perspectives is what’s important. If you want to explore things you haven’t explored, having people who look just like you and think just like you is not the best way.’ We must see the forest.

Scott E Page

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.

Image credit: HikingArtist

Yesterday’s post focused on the importance of good writing when in a professional setting.

Pure coincidence, but an article today in the International Business Times talks about the negative effect of using smiley faces in business emails. (Emphasis mine.)

According to the study, while smiling during face-to-face communication was perceived as warm and indicated more competence with regards to the first impressions created, a text-based representation of a smile in computer-mediated communication did not have the same effect.

“Our findings provide first-time evidence that, contrary to actual smiles, smileys do not increase perceptions of warmth and actually decrease perceptions of competence,” said Ella Glikson, a post-doctorate fellow at the BGU Department of Management, Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and Management.

Definitely something to share with your team.

What else can writing do?

Free up your creativity.

But only if you put down the keyboard and pick up a pen or pencil.

Anyone can benefit from penmanship’s cognitive benefits, whether you’re taking notes at a meeting or just trying to figure out what you think.

Put another way, writing by hand engages your brain, while keyboarding does not.

Brain scans during the two activities also show that forming words by hand as opposed to on a keyboard leads to increased brain activity (pdf). Scientific studies of children and adults show that wielding a pen when taking notes, rather than typing, is associated with improved long-term information retention, better thought organization, and increased ability to generate ideas.

Writing by hand forces you to turn off distractions, whether smartphone, computer, or music.

Writing by hand forces you to focus.

Writing by hand forces you to really listen; it makes you process what is being said and be more selective in what you record as opposed to running on autopilot.

If you never learned to write by hand, or have forgotten how, there are classes.

And if you don’t believe it works, try it.

You may find yourself very much surprised.

Image credit: Mike’s Birds

Last week I shared Steve Blank’s definition of an entrepreneur and asked if it fit you.

It fits Alex Kostyrya, a Russian entrepreneur I e-met and have done work for on and off since 2010.

He’s a great guy and I Skyped him to see what’s been happening, since it’s been awhile, and wish him a great holiday week. (For those who don’t know, all Russian business is closed the first week in January—and I do mean all.)

Alex responded that he planned to relax the whole week.

I said that was good, better if he unwired, and that he would be far more productive when he came back.

I also said that he should be sure his team does the same and he said he would.

Many founders (and other managers) don’t realize that the team is their responsibility and making sure they take down time is important—they will be far more productive and creative if they get away completely (no texts, emails, calls, etc.).

It’s easy to lose site of the human side and needs in the heat of a startup, but when you get right down to it your people are your only real assets.

Alex agreed.

“The people are all I have now. Technologies have changed, the original project is gone, but our core team is the same as 3 years ago. I’m proud because whole last year we all work for nothing, without any financing. Now we have new people on the team and we plan to build a great company with them.”

Sometimes founders need to be tough and make sure their people really do take the time off and that doesn’t mean taking the work home or not take any work home.

It’s necessary because people are like batteries; they need to recharge and their families, friends and the physical world around them is their best generator.

Image credit: Alex Kostyrya

I have just one link for you today, not because it’s a long article, but because there are 32 parts to Innovations That Will Change Your Tomorrow and I think you will enjoy them all.

We tend to rewrite the histories of technological innovation, making myths about a guy who had a great idea that changed the world. In reality, though, innovation isn’t the goal; it’s everything that gets you there. It’s bad financial decisions and blueprints for machines that weren’t built until decades later. It’s the important leaps forward that synthesize lots of ideas, and it’s the belly-up failures that teach us what not to do.

When we ignore how innovation actually works, we make it hard to see what’s happening right in front of us today. (…) Worse, the fairy-tale view of history implies that innovation has an end. It doesn’t. What we want and what we need keeps changing. (…)

That’s what this issue is about: all the little failures, trivialities and not-quite-solved mysteries that make the successes possible. This is what innovation looks like. It’s messy, and it’s awesome. –Maggie Koerth-Baker

Which are your favorites?

Flickr image credit: pedroelcarvalho

I frequently see comments on blogs and social sites along the lines of “I know I could be an entrepreneur if I just had a good idea” or “I want to be an entrepreneur and change the world.”

Sadly, it seems that most are looking for ideas to make them the next Groupon or Foursquare and while that might make them rich, it will hardly change the world.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but it won’t change much or get you into the history books.

You change the world by tackling real-world problems, often with hard science

But you don’t need to be a scientist; self-taught Gary Cola invented the world’s lightest, strongest steel that takes less than ten seconds to make.

In fact, you don’t have to be an adult. Take a look at the winners of the first Google Science Fair and you will be blown away; none are 18 yet and none of their ideas involved the Internet.

Here’s an idea; if you want to change the world look for problems with global impact. Blake Mycoskie is changing the world with shoes and glasses, while Anthony Capone, CEO of Nimbus Water Systems, is changing it with inexpensive, solar-powered, portable water purification systems.

Then there are toilets.

Yes, toilets.

That handy gadget that we take for granted (unless it isn’t working) and that many parts of the world only dream about.

“No innovation in the past 200 years has done more to save lives and improve health than the sanitation revolution triggered by invention of the toilet.” –Sylvia Mathews Burwell, president of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s global development program

And the Gates Foundation is putting its money where its mouth is.

Look around; think about changing the world by reinventing or innovating something that addresses a basic need.

You may not end up as rich as Mark Cuban, but I guarantee that it’s the sexiest, most exciting, rewarding, feel-good thing you’ll ever do.

Image credit: idf-fotos

There is much talk these days about entrepreneurs and entrepreneurism, what makes the first and the importance of the second.

Today we look at the story of Vijender Shekhawat, a struggling small business owner turned entrepreneur with an unlikely product, but one that is changing lives for the better.

Eight years ago 29 year old Vijender Shekhawat, warrior caste and descendant of kings, did what millions of Indians do each day—he stepped in elephant poop.

But unlike the other millions, his reaction was to study the poop and in doing so he realized it was similar to the wood pulp he used to make his custom paper (that wasn’t doing all that well).

Through trial and error he found the right ration of poop to cotton to produce a unique and beautiful custom paper; he uses organic dyes, including beet juice for red paper, dried pomegranate skins for gray and the castor oil plant for green.

Talk about sustainable!

When dung prices skyrocketed because there was a market for it, Shekhawat found a solution that not only made everyone happy, but also improved the quality of his raw material.

He provided the elephants’ food, pleasing the mahouts. The beasts ate better, pleasing the elephants. And higher-quality dung emerged, pleasing Shekhawat. “Before, keepers skulked around dumping it at night,” Shekhawat said. “Now they’re delighted.”

The paper is now sold in Europe and the US.

Like many entrepreneurs Shekhawat wants to do good along with doing well and that attitude drives his expansion plans.

Shekhawat has always had a charitable bent — as a boy he gave his lunch to beggars, his mother said — and his next dream is to help villagers by moving his workshop to a rural area and providing jobs, especially for women who often don’t have much chance to leave the house, and serving as an example for wannabe entrepreneurs.

Metaphorically speaking, we have all stepped in elephant poop at one time or another and are bound to do so again.

The real question is what will you do the next time it happens?

As Shekhawat points out, “the difference between being a fool and a genius is success.”

But first you have to try.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/56796376@N00/1027372659

An interesting article from Knowledge at Wharton cites several recent studies that help explain the difficulty corporations have tapping creative types for positional leadership roles.

Those individuals who expressed more creative ideas were viewed as having less, not more, leadership potential. The exception, they found, was when people were specifically told to focus on charismatic leaders. In that case, creative types fared better.

The article and associated studies should be required reading for every manager charged with hiring, whether for a so-called leadership position or team member.

Every manager wants to hire creative talent, that isn’t new, but understanding why you might pass on the very talent you need is knowledge worth having.

Creativity, also known as thinking outside the box, isn’t always a comfortable trait to have around; moreover, it requires much more effort to manage.

But make no mistake, while in today’s high stakes global markets those who color inside the lines can maintain the company for a time, it is the creatives who will take it to the next level.

It’s also worth noting that not all creative people are charismatic and those with charisma may not have a creative bone in their body.

Read the article and determine how much applies to you/your organization (team, department, company), and then decide if it’s worth changing.

As always, it’s your choice.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zedbee/103147140/