Innovation is dangerous

Yes, innovation is sexy, but only after it succeeds and gains some popularity.

Until then it is not just hard, it can be downright dangerous to your morale.

It is easy to mistake innovation to be merely coming up with a new idea, new design or a new way of doing something. Yes it is the starting point, but for it to succeed, the idea/design should be implemented and shown to be delivering the promised results. Often, it is a proposition fraught with unforeseen complexities and stiff resistance that tests your mettle.

Surely there are design and implementation complexities to be overcome. The bigger the problem you are trying to solve, the longer it takes (usually) and the harder you've to work.

Then there are the status-quo-ists and doubting thomases aplenty. They question your ability to deliver and the veracity of the idea. Why not simply let things be? Where is the need to change? How do we know that the result will be better?  If all else fails they can always fall back on this popular argument (familiar to UID proponents & opponents as well):

"Has any one else in the world done it before? If it were such a good idea, obviously someone else would've done it. It wasn't. Ergo, it is a bad idea!"

The situation is indeed loaded in favour of the critics. Predictions of doom and gloom are often self-fulfilling. They demotivate the innovators, erect barriers through misguided followers and in general make the innovators' life tougher than it already is. Either the innovators give up; or redirect energy from solving problems to countering the critics. Either way the critics win often enough - for the environment to foster more critics than innovators.

Tough as it is, when you do reach the goal, the rewards are most satisfying. This applies to entrepreneurship too. The similarities are many, though the two are not entirely the same.

The question for the innovators therefore is:

Do you have sufficient self-belief, resolve and inner-strength to persist against all odds and reach the exalted state of success and sexiness?

Then there is a challenge for all us:

How can we turn the environment around, build a culture that forgives failures and encourages the innovators and positivists during their work -- not just after?

No doubt, there is a need for checks and balances. Just that it is far too skewed against our good at this time. It is time we restored a semblance of balance in favour of progress.

Enlightened self-interest

... drives voluntary, sustainable and scalable compliance. 

The alternative, more often practised is a framework of policies, rules, regulations and enforcement. In addition incentives, subsidies, etc., are often included in the policies - creating a carrot and stick combination.

This is considered a time-tested way to drive desirable behaviour. Governments and the private sector, both embrace this philosophy.

The problem is that it is neither sustainable nor scalable. The larger your target audience, the greater your carrot-budget must be; and the greater your enforcement effort too. People openly flout the policies because they can get away with it when there is not enough enforcement. Incentive systems almost never enough and are routinely subject to fraud & gaming behaviours.

Stronger laws, more enforcement and more incentives have their limited role - but to depend only upon them is foolhardy.

The better route, that of driving sustainable change through creating enlightened self-interest is too easily dismissed and far more difficult to embrace mainly because it takes far too long to implement and see the results. This is a big deterrent when the leaders are under pressure to produce quick results and win brownie points.

Enlightened self-interest comes from education (not just literacy or employability), analytical ability and a good values.

Of these, the value system is the most difficult to explain well. Stories of "good vs evil" often drawn our mythology and religion hardly inspire the television and computer-gaming generation even in primary school. Abundant exposure to "real life" flouting of norms (yes, most parents and teachers are guilty) builds early cynicism and dismissive attitudes in children. The essential elements of - and case studies from - the management of commons serve this purpose better, but are hardly ever taught. It is a lot of hard work to make people (and children) understand and appreciate some things; far easier, to lay down the rules and demand unquestioned obedience.

This has been practised for generations now that even our teachers will need to dig deep into their reserves to overcome deep-rooted cultural blind spots and find their own reasoning skills.

The adults will need to find their own way out of it - through wide-spread discourse and personal conviction. Not easy, but the only sustainable way.