Reverb Consulting

“The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of
knowledge.”
- Daniel J. Boorstin

Daniel J. Boorstin was a very learned man who did a lot of things in his ninety years. To me this is what is intriguing about him, or anyone - doing a lot of things that have common threads running throughout. Boorstin was a learner and did not shy away from things he had not done before. He was an American historian, professor, attorney, and prolific writer. Boorstin wrote more than 20 books, including a trilogy on the American experience and one on world intellectual history. In 1974 he won a Pulitzer prize in history. Boorstin also served as director of the National Museum of History and Technology of the Smithsonian and as Librarian of Congress.

There is a lot to be inspired by Boorstin and his life of perpetual learning but this bit is my favorite. When President Gerald Ford nominated Boorstin to be Librarian of Congress in 1974, the nomination was supported by the Authors League of America but opposed by the American Library Association because Boorstin “was not a library administrator”. I love that because I get that all the time. Basically, the ALA said “we can’t trust him because he is not one of us”. One of us myopia - it’s a disease. Of course, the nomination was approved by the Senate without debate.

The ALA back in 1974 when faced with a new leader from outside their ranks suffered from the illusion of knowledge. They assumed that to administrate a library you have to have risen from the ranks. Their illusion of knowledge created a trust barrier. The alternative analytical approach in this situation would have been to look at Boorstin’s success in other areas and have deduced that the temperament, qualities, and skills that made him successful in those arenas were transferable to their playing field.

I think the illusion of knowledge occurs because we become complacent and comfortable with the status quo. We stop learning. We become lackadaisical in our work. Lackadaisical means we are without interest, vigor, or determination. We become listless and lethargic. Ignorance develops because literally knowledge passes us by when we stop reaching. Our knowledge becomes irrelevant, a mere illusion of knowledge. And, the result is that we analyze situations and make decisions with old knowledge such that new discovery is off limits to us. A leader who is lackadaisical risks steering his organization severely off course.

Commitment is passion. Commitment says I dedicate my whole being to this. Commitment should be deep, root, a source of energy. Work that you are committed to creates this paradoxical cycle: the more you work the more energy you have. Commitment should be that place where intellect and gut intertwine, where values are transformed into actions. We use the word commitment lightly, or numbly, because many of us are not reflective about daily life and how we spend our time. We hold a job, not engage in great work.

We think of work all too often as a job, not as a commitment, a passion, a chance to show daily what we believe in. To use an ancient term that Carl Jung recast, we should see our work as our mandala. Our work should be that sacred place and sacred endeavor that allows us to give our gifts to the world. Our work should feed our sense of self and our sense of purpose. We spend way too many hours at work, physically and emotionally, for it not to. If work is not a great source of creativity and pride for us, then we are doing the wrong work. And, the wrong work has no chance of being great work.

Steve Jobs, in his commencement address to Stanford Class of 2005, says it well:

Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. I’m convinced that the
only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. Your work is
going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly
satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do
great work is to love what you do. Don’t settle [for less]. As with all
matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it.

Work is about the heart as much as it is the head. We must find work we can be committed to and passionate about in order to create greatness for others, and for ourselves. We must help others find work they can be committed to instead of just holding jobs in our organizations.

“Everyone should seek to be creative, even though
creativity is full of risks and uncertainties.”
— Edward de Bono

Edward de Bono www.edwarddebono.com has made a career of teaching the skills of creative thinking. Yet, isn’t it sad that most people think they are either creative, or not. And, by extension, we think the same of our children - some are creative, and some are not. Believing that one is either born creative or not is, using Carol Dweck’s, author of Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, definitions, a very fixed mindset about creativity.

Edward de Bono believes that everyone has the capacity for creativity and that creative thinking can be learned and further developed. So, what happens to our natural creativity? I think we are taught at a young age to play it safe, not to take risks, not to follow an uncertain path, not to experiment and see what we learn. We are shamed if we fail at anything, regardless of what that failure gives us the opportunity to learn. Thus, we are taught to value safety and certainty more than creativity and learning by doing. We are taught and encouraged to be staid, steady followers. As Buckminster Fuller laments, “we are all born genuises but school un-geniuses us.” Not just school, but also our parents, our culture, our society.

For me, the question becomes what are the costs we pay individually and collectively for not fully developing and valuing creativity? What problems could have been solved long ago by a impetus of collective and coorperative creative thinking? What level of happiness could have been achieved by so many had their creativity not be stunted, thwarted, and shamed? Recognizing that creativity is a critical competency for the 21st century, how shall we design for creativity’s resurgence?

It will take creative minds to answer these and many other questions about the way forward. The first step? Ask the right question. These are but a few of the right questions.

Leave a comment or your right question.

Sir Ken Robinson spoke at the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Conference in February of 2006. The TED Conference is dedicated to new ideas and thinking that can change the world. You can view his talks and hundred of others at Ted.com. I enjoy watching Sir Ken’s Ted talk when I need to be reminded of the importance of enduring the hard process of change. I find listening to him reminds me of the goal, the purpose, the reason it all matters: our kids’ futures.

Below is my synopsis of his talk. Read, re-read, and re-read it again. To me, it’s logical; it’s emotional; it’s a call to action. I ask myself what is my part, what can I do?

• There is enormous capacity and potential in human creativity, especially for those who make it to adulthood with creativity.
• Kids have innate and enormous capacity for creativity.
• We have no infallible, certain idea of what the future will bring.
• Education is meant to take us into this unknown future.
• All kids have unique talent and we squander it.
• Creativity is an important literacy — we don’t think of it that way. Why not?
• Kids are not frightened of being wrong at the beginning of school.
• If we are not prepared to be wrong, then we will never have anything original to contribute.
• By adulthood, most are afraid of being wrong.
• This is how we raise kids and run our companies.
• We are educating people out of their creative capacity.
• There is hierarchy of education: Math and language. Humanities. Art………first art/music then drama/dance.
• Education focuses on left-brain skills.
• These skills were most valuable in the Industrial Age.
• We are no longer in the Industrial Age.
• The education system places importance on academic ability.
• It is designed to get into college and then get a job in the industrial company.
• There is evidence of a tremendous shift in education now, as the traditional degrees are now worthless.
• MFA is the new MBA because of how it trains one to think.
• We need to re-think how we understand intelligence.
• Intelligence is diverse.
• Intelligence is dynamic creativity (generate original ideas that at worth something).
• Intelligence is distinct for each individual.
• We need to question the fundamental principles of education.
• Our job is to help kids make something of their future.

Sir Ken Robinson was the keynote speaker Thursday, February 28 in New York at the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS) Annual Conference. For those of us who got to hear him, what a delight! His dry wit and humor balances the gravity of his message. His basic message in is briefest form is this:

-the future is upon us right now and what we do about it matters.
-creativity is a critical skill for 21st century competence.
-Kids are naturally creative; schools seems to drain kids of their creativity.

As a beginning place to start to the process of changing schools and the environment they engender, Sir Ken suggests we alter how we think in the broadest sense about our schools; he suggests we change our school metaphor from the factory to the living, dynamic, ever-changing organism. It seems like a simple thought, perhaps even a simplistic thought. But, with some reflection and with effort to fill in some thought gaps, let me add something connecting thoughts and guiding questions.

How are factories in general faring in today’s economy? Think about GM and all of its integrated production facilities and its current state of affairs, for one.
How quickly do factories adapt to evidenced need in the marketplace?
What mindset and basic assumptions govern the culture and systems at factories?
What new factory business is present in today’s culture and marketplace? Where is factory business migrating to?
Are the prominent, energetic companies today less product-oriented and more idea and information oriented? Think about Google, Yahoo, Facebook, My Space, the whole “Wikinomics” boom — is there much likelihood that this type of industry (information and idea production) is a passing fad?
Are we teaching our kids to produce ideas?
Of what use is a new metaphor or a new way of thinking about our schools? How does a new metaphor expand our thinking and understanding?

Let me offer the words of Peter Senge, social scientist and philosopher, author of Presence, to introduce the power of the living organism as a apt metaphor.

How does a tree come from a tiny seed?

It’s common to say that trees come from seeds. But how can a tiny seed create a huge tree? Seeds do not contain the resources needed to grow a tree. These must come from the medium or the environment within which the tree grows. But, the seed does provide something that is crucial: a place where the whole of the tree starts to form. As resources such as water and nutrients are drawn in, the seed organizes the process that generates growth. In a sense, the seed is a gateway through which the future possibility of the living tree emerges.

Changing the way we think as individuals and organizations about the future and how best to prepare for it is the first action step needed. Leading our thoughts and the thoughts of the people we work with in schools — asking new questions, developing new metaphorical understanding — is the seed that begets the possibility of the future. The seed, or school leadership, is crucial in directing our organizations to sustainable futures. But, as Senge describes, the seed is only half of the process. The seed cannot survive and grow without a seedbed that accepts and nurtures it. To me, this is our big dual challenge. To re-consider and re-fine the needs of the future. Quantifying that forms the seed. Then, we must plant that seed with its powerful ideas and their potential into a culture that is accepting, embracing, and nurturing. The seed is activated by the nourishment and caretaking of the culture. A toxic seedbed does not hold the future possibility of a living thing.