Bad Ideas in the Immigration Department

Business Week noted last week that Alabama is projected, in one study, to lose tens of thousands of jobs and a couple billion dollars from its economy due to some new immigration laws it put on into place.

I won't deny that immigrating illegally is a crime and should be punished. But it seems to me there should also be some punishment for creating stupid laws in response, laws that end up hurting employers, employees, and business in general. I'm not sure what they were trying to solve with this law -- putting more Americans back to work, I guess, but no one is rushing to fill these largely dirty, smelly, agricultural jobs -- but whatever their goal was, it seems the unintended (though not necessarily unexpected) consequences have won out.

Creative fields aren't typically filled with illegal immigrants, so this may not seem to be a relevant issue. But overall immigration policy IS a relevant issue, because there is so much great talent around the world, and the US would be better off economically if that talent was working there rather than somewhere else. Plenty of people will argue that the H1B visas issued in the US are taken by people who are willing to work for less, but in reality a great many of those visas are taken by people who have outstanding skills and are hired because of what they add to a company. The 85,000 H1B visas available annually (of which only 20,000 are reserved for people with a master's degree or higher from a US university) put a very small dent in the number of available jobs in the US, so I find it hard to believe that Americans really can't get jobs because of those foreign workers; my experience with those who make that claim is that very often there are other economic conditions affecting them (e.g., the field in which they work has contracted) or the problem is self-inflicted (e.g., they haven't put any effort into their own skill development offer the years).

A 2009 report by the Technology Policy Institute determined that in the absence of green card and H1B visa constraints in the 2003-2007 period, roughly 182,000 foreign graduates of US colleges and universities would likely have remained in the country and raised the American gross domestic product by about $13.6 billion. Personally, I'd like to see the US doing well overall, rather than running an affirmative action program for American citizens.

The US makes it very difficult for talented people to come and work there. As you look at your workforce, you may not even be considering foreign workers because of the time and expense necessary to hire them. But how do you feel about having a huge talent market essentially declared "off limits" to you by regulations and fees? What good ideas would you like to see implemented for immigration reform?

Everyone Thinks They're the First

Saturday night, courtesy of my best friend, I attended a concert by the Vietnamese National Symphony Orchestra, accompanying a Japanese pianist in a program of American jazz at the Hanoi Opera House.

Creative globalization at its finest.

One of the fun things about that was that the pianist was 70 years old this week, which means he's been playing American jazz for a long, long time. Much longer than any Gen X'ers or Millennials have been alive.

I think that's significant because I often get the sense that people think creative globalization (or global creativity -- whatever, it just means creativity that ignores borders) is a new thing. It's not. Creatives, perhaps more than most people, have been ignoring borders as long as the means to cross them -- whether physically or electronically -- have existed. It isn't something that was just invented by today's twenty-somethings.

And that, I think, is a useful example to keep in mind.

In a number of conversations with different groups in the last two weeks, I've been asked the question "How can we lead Millennials? They're so different from earlier generations." Yeah, they are. But they're not as unique as you might think. They didn't come up with a lot of the ideas in use today, they just came up with new means of expressing them. They didn't come up with most of the technologies at work today, they just use them differently. And yeah, they're different from the preceding generation...but so is EVERY generation.

There's a persistent attitude that leadership and management are harder because Millennials are in the workplace now with Gen X'ers and Boomers. But the differences between Gen X'ers and Boomers (and for that matter, between Bookers and the World War 2 generation) are just as sharp. Millennials grew up with cell phones, I grew up with push button phones, Boomers grew up with rotary dial phones, and WW2G often grew up without a phone at all. Millennials see the emergence of a creative economy, I saw the growth of the knowledge economy, Boomers saw the evolution of the industrial economy, WW2G saw the decline of an agrarian economy. We've all had different experiences, we all have different ways of expressing ideas (ideas which often have a common foundation), we all have different expectations, and we all think we're the first ones to be unique.

So perhaps, instead of starting from scratch when it comes to leading Millennials, we should instead go back and read the lessons about incorporating Gen X'ers into the workplace during the economic roller coaster of the 1980s, or the things we learned as the Boomers came into the working world during the politically turbulent 1960s. I'm betting those lessons are still relevant today, but we have to study them for them to do us any good.

This is, I think, particularly relevant for Creatives, because the creative fields are largely populated with Millennials, but at the end of the day, we often end up with multigenerational workplaces. Leading such a workforce isn't about catering to the needs and expectations of any one particular cohort; rather, it's about understanding ALL those cohorts and what they offer, as well as what they need in order to reach their full potential.

You think you're the first generation to be different? I'm betting their were some teenaged Hittites who thought the same thing.

Have a Drink

When you work in a creative field it's easy to get really wrapped up in your work, so involved, in fact, that you might not have much of a life beyond the office. You're working hard and very committed when you're at work, then you can't help but think about things while you're at home, and even if you go on holiday it's easy to spend your time thinking about your creative pursuits rather than just relaxing. Sometimes you realize you just need to go out and really unwind. And sometimes, your Creatives realize that for you.

When you've never done anything socially with your Creatives, and then out of nowhere a group of them suggest getting together for a drink after work, you might want to take them up on it. It could be a sign of a couple things, and it's worth asking yourself why they want to do that.

It may be the case that they really enjoy working for you and are hoping to get to know you better. They could be looking for some kind of a mentoring thing, and see this is a chance to hear your stories in a more relaxing environment.

Another option you need to consider, though, is that maybe they just think you really, really need to lighten up.

If you're going a bit overboard in your job, to the point that you don't have much of a life outside of it, I guarantee it's affecting your Creatives, too. You're probably coming in with great new ideas every day that you expect them to implement. You're calling them on the weekends to ask about work. You try to micromanage everything. And because you don't have a life, you don't understand why they'd want one, either.

Your Creatives will put up with this, but only to a point. If they think the job isn't worth the hassle, they'll leave. But if they like what they do and want to continue doing it, they'll try to fix the problem, and that means fixing you. They may try talking to you directly, but it's very likely they'll first try to get you out of the work environment and help you chill out.

The first time your Creatives ask you out, your initial response shouldn't be "I don't drink," or something else equally silly. Take a moment and consider the reasons behind the request, and realize it might just be a good idea to go spend an evening drinking club soda with your employees.

And whatever you do, don't spend the evening talking about work.

The Top 50

Each year, Fast Company magazine published its "Top" lists, just like everyone else does. One thing that's nice about Fast Company, though, is the way they'll break down that list into something you can really use. I recently saw a good article discussing their Top 10 innovative food companies, and now I've come across their list of the world's Top 50 innovative companies.

Yes, these lists may seem to get old after a while, especially when a lot of magazines and blogs do them, or when you see the same companies popping up time after time after time. Still, it's useful to benchmark yourself against other firms and try to absorb their best practices that may be relevant for you.

Maybe if you see a company that's perennially on these lists, you might find out why (and look beyond the media hype to find out how they really do business). What is it about Steve Jobs' style that worked so well? (and what didn't?) How does Google really use that "20% time," and how could you make it work for you?

Alternatively, you might focus on the newbies on the list. What got them there? Is it something you can replicate? Or at least learn from? If you're an educator, look at Southern New Hampshire University. A scientist? See how Life Technologies took something difficult and made it something simple.

This list is a starting point, and you should find ideas or organizations that offer good ideas that fit your needs. They don't have to be the same industry, nor do they have to be the same size. Even a small firm can learn something from Dropbox.

Ni How, Dreamworks

Dreamworks studios has announced it is creating a new production facility in Shanghai, with its first animated film expected to come out in 2016. The partnership with Chinese media and government entities is particularly useful for Dreamworks, not only because it gets them access to a potentially huge talent market, but also because it will allow for the distribution of this films in China in a far easier fashion than has been the case up until now.

US animation studios have been expanding into Asia as they search for new talent. Lucasfilms has an operation in Singapore that focuses on gaming, and I'm sure Singapore would have liked to snag the Dreamworks studio too, though that wouldn't have helped with distribution up in China. Other studios, such as Disney and Universal Studios, have built theme parks in Asia and have business units here for film and TV distribution, but they haven't emphasized production (though it's possible the new "Stage 28" feature at Universal Singapore may be used as an actual production soundstage).

I think it's great to see major American studios tapping into the Asian talent pool. My question would be, what took so long?

It's been obvious for a long time that animation is huge in Asia, and not just in Japan, though that's where most people think of it. Look at all the fanboys (and fangirls) in the US who salivate over anime and manga; many of those folks are influenced to go into creative industries because of their exposure to Asian animation. Read the closing credit on South Park and you see a LOT of Korean names. Yet the leading animation studios in the US have pretty much kept their operations at home until recently, despite the obvious talent just waiting to be used across the Pacific.

One reason might be that, in the US, we don't get exposed to Asian culture as much as to European. I'm not talking about General Tso's Chicken (which, by the way, was purportedly invented in New York) but instead, exposure to the evolution of Asian art and culture in the way we're exposed to Western art and culture. I don't know about you, but all my literature studies in high school and university were Western Lit. The paintings which I've primarily seen have been American artists or the Renaissance crowd, with nothing from the thousands of years of Chinese culture (unless it's part of a special exhibit). My schools never introduced me to anything else.

But you can overcome that. As you're considering your talent pool, maybe Asia is a place you should explore. Learn about the things that school didn't teach you; don't just watch the Cartoon Network, but instead, take a look at a broader picture of art and culture. With that foundation, THEN go look at the cartoons and video games that have come out of Asia over the last 40 years, as well as the fashion and hairstyles, and get a better sense for yourself of the talent here. Whether you're looking to expand the operations of a large creative firm or merely hire some free agents, don't ignore the tons of talent that's available to you from the billions of people in Asia. In creative industries there's really no point in letting borders limit your talent.

Now that we know it's good enough for George Lucas and for Dreamworks, maybe it's good enough for you, too.

Regular or Irregular Change?

When you think about creativity in your company, are you talking about tweaking what came before, or do you mean discontinuous innovation?

Do you think about how to do things differently, or do you think about how to do different things?

Are you seeking to minimize risk, or hit it straight on?

Do you feel like you're adapting to your environment, or it's adapting to you?

Do you want to respond to changes in the market, or create new markets?

There are no right or wrong answers to these questions...it all depends on your goals. If your goal is to keep doing what you do better, then continuous creativity and regular change is probably more for you. If you want to be able to rock people's worlds and create new categories of things (while taking the risk that goes with that) then you want to be more discontinuous. Either way, just be honest with yourself about what you want, and then do what you need to do to achieve it.

HBR: Harnessing Creativity

When prototypes don't work, customers as innovators, and those "creative types": the research behind how we innovate.

A podcast from Harvard Business Review featuring Andy O'Connell and Scott Berinato, editors of the Idea Watch section of HBR.

What can I say? I like creativity and I like research. Enjoy.

Social Media Week

This week is Social Media Week in a number of places around the world.

From the website:

Reflecting the global impact of social media – and its role as a catalyst in driving cultural, economic, political and social change in developed and emerging markets – Social Media Week is one of the world’s most unique global platforms, offering a series of interconnected activities and conversations around the world on emerging trends in social and mobile media across all major industries.
In just under three years, Social Media Week has expanded to 21 cities.

Annually, SMW attracts more than 60,000 attendees across thousands of individually organized events, with half a million connecting to the conference online and through mobile.

Check it out in Hamburg, Hong Kong, London, Miami, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Sao Paulo, Singapore, Tokyo, Toronto, and Washington DC. Tell them I said hi.

Writing is the Right Thing to Do

A few years ago I was asked to give a talk at a university about the likely impact of President Obama's election on international relations. A couple days before, one of the organizer's assistants wrote and asked me for a bio. She wrote me, "I was just going to pull something from online, but even though you're supposed to be an expert in international relations, I couldn't find you when I Googled you."

Ouch.

Now, in fairness to me, I have a pretty common name, and I share it with a loud-mouthed politician who has been involved in international relations, so if you try to Google me (unless you get kind of specific) it could be tough to find the real me. Still, it emphasized the importance of being out there on the web. One of the best ways to do that is by professional writing.

Writing allows you to enhance your own personal brand by demonstrating that, first, you have some expertise and, second, you can communicate it. Either of those is a useful trait; both of them together are pretty powerful. Writing -- whether it be traditional books, e-books, articles and columns, or a blog -- allows you to show people what you know, and gives you a professional presence. It's one thing to tell people you're an expert. It's a better thing to let them find out on their own.

Of course, writing does more than help you advertise your abilities. It helps develop those abilities, too. As you start writing about your field you're going to learn more about it; trust me, you can't help but learn. Researching for your articles forces you to immerse yourself in aspects of your field you didn't know about. Even if you're only planning to write about stuff you know, you're going to be exposed to some stuff that you don't, and that adds to your professional knowledge.

And of course, practicing your communication helps develop your those skills too, and you'd be amazed how important that is. I guess I was lucky in terms of the experiences I had in high school and college, because I just assumed everyone knew how to speak in public and write coherently, and that just isn't the case. A university professor once told me that if you can write you will always stand out, and he was correct -- so many people can't, so if you get yourself identified as an effective communicator either in front of a crowd or on a page (or preferable both) it will open a lot of doors for you.

You could also demonstrate your speaking talents by doing video podcasts. But you'll constantly be compared to Amy and Sheldon.

Copyright 2012 by CBS Interactive. Watch The Big Bang Theory Thursday nights on CBS!
So get out there and find something you're good at, and start sharing your knowledge of, and enthusiasm for, that subject with the world.

Prove It

Companies spend a lot of time saying they want creativity. They should spend more time proving it.

It's easy for leaders to say they want innovation in their processes or a new way of thinking about whatever product or service they produce. Too often, though, their actions don't match their words. If you want to encourage risk taking and new thinking, you need to create a culture that encourages that. If your policies support the same old way of doing things, then that's what you're going to get.

How can you have a culture that supports new thinking? Well, first of all, if people are going to take risks, you need to realize they're occasionally going to fail...and that needs to be ok. While you may not go so far as rewarding failure, you can't punish it, either. If your Creatives think they'll be punished for failing they won't take a chance on it, and finding something new means taking chances. You need to embrace failure and learn from it, examining why it failed and figuring out what to try next time. While your Creatives shouldn't be reckless with your resources, and should be making a good faith effort to succeed, you should avoid punishing them for good faith failure.

People also need resources to be creative, and the most important resource is time. While you have work that needs to get done today, you need time to be thinking about tomorrow. Give your Creatives the time to work on something new, something unrelated to their regular job (or at least unrelated to their current project).

Do you have a pretty well defined career path that people need to follow in order to get promoted and advance in your company? If so, you're inhibiting creativity. If you're only promoting people who follow a standard way of doing things, you're sending the signal that people need to stay on the same path in order to be successful. People who stay on the same path followed by others rarely find something new.

If you really want people to be creative you can't just say it; you have to show them that you mean it. It's really easy to pay lip service to creativity and innovation, so easy that plenty of people do it. If you don't follow through with action, you won't have a culture that promotes creativity; you'll have a culture that promotes the same old thing.

More Light Reading

Just in case Friday's articles didn't make you think everything was already changing, this article from Jobenomics will give you some insight into some things that might make positive change even more challenging.

(We'll be back with more original writing later this week -- the Leading Creatives crew was flying back to Singapore from the US this weekend, and that 23-hour odyssey is kind of draining)

Some Light Weekend Reading About the End of the World as You Know It

Is the US undergoing a radical change in its economic structure on par with the shift from the agricultural age to the industrial age? Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stieglitz apparently thinks so. Take a look at his article in Vanity Fair and also an interesting blog at Forbes.

Where Are the Young Super-Creatives?

So, what are all the young geniuses up to these days?

A short piece on Scientific American's website recently talked about a study of Nobel laureates showing that scientists are doing their most important breakthrough work later in life. Why is that?

One suggestion is that there is more emphasis now on experimental work than on theoretical work, and experimentation tends to come later in life after one builds a foundation of knowledge. Another is that, as fields expand and our overall knowledge becomes greater, there's much more to learn before you get to the point where you're exploring what we don't know yet.

I'm concerned, though, that there might be another cause: the number of people going into science (or staying in it more than a few years) may be decreasing, leading to a higher average age among scientists in general. I don't have any data to validate that yet, though I've read plenty of reports about the number of PhDs going into the private sector (drug companies, biotech, and the like) where they tend not to do the foundational research but instead emphasize commercial applications of previously-accomplished work. We're also seeing that many of our science PhD students in the US are from other countries and rather than staying here after they graduate they are increasingly likely to return home, leading to a dispersion of scientific knowledge rather than the collaboartion in the US that was the norm for many years.

This isn't just a matter of recruiting; it's also one of retention. Some of our younger scientists feel themselves beaten down and are just tired of doing what it takes to stay in the lab. A geneticist at the National Institutes of Health in the US who has been doing major work that's been very well received internationally told me he's having trouble finding a position there after his post-doc ends next year; private industry is calling, and he may go, but he's also looking at doing policy work...he just doesn't see too many options for staying on the path he's currently on and doing the work he's doing because the NIH is making it so difficult for him to do so. Should we really be making people fight to stay in the field?

We've also increased the role of post-docs (but not the compensation) to the point where they're mentoring grad students and handling grant writing as well as doing the bench work they're supposed to be doing. The role of post-docs has historically been to support a principal investigator in a lab while gaining experience to move on to a more senior position, ultimately with a lab of their own, but in many cases we've given them the responsibilities of junior staff scientists without the authority or the compensation. Is it any wonder some of our best young scientists are looking to leave the field before they can get to their greatest work?

We also need to decide what we want our scientists to actually be doing. One cancer researcher in Singapore told me he's supposed to be teaching in a teaching hospital and seeing patients as well as doing his research, so his attention is being divereted away from the areas he'd like to be studying. He's looking at other positions, including one or two back in the US, where he might be able to focus in on his research.

Great discoveries are still being made, and innovation is happening, outside of the traditional scientific research model, so maybe it's OK if people are going to the private sector. But if people are just dropping out of scientific research altogether, or never coming into it in the first place because they don't see a future, then we're missing out on a lot of talent. As new opportunities and new challenges affect scientific study we want to make sure we retain that capability, whether in academia or the government or the private sector. It's fine if older scientists are doing the bulk of the breakthrough work, as long as they're not the last people who are going to do it.