No Banana Fever at the Grammys

I'm a big fan of J.D. Salinger, who passed away this week at 91, and of the Grammy Awards, which celebrated music in its stunning spectacle of creative performance on Sunday. Now, Holden Caulfield would likely take issue with the superficial celebrity culture of pop music. As you may recall, Holden, the narrator of Salinger's classic novel Catcher in the Rye, detested "phonies" and gave voice to that part of us that resists conformity and the inauthentic compromises of growing up. I'm sure he would have been disgusted by the idolatry and image-consciousness of the Grammys.

But here's the thing: Holden suffered from "Banana Fever"--as described in Salingers' unsettling "Perfect Day for Bananafish," the first tale of his Nine Stories, one of only four published books which reflect the writer's brilliant combination of uncanny dialogue, telling detail and conflicting angst of a post-World War II privileged generation.

In "Perfect," Seymour Glass (who really is the central character of Salinger's work, a zen-like genius whose New York family populates many of his stories) is explaining the "tragic life" of an imaginary species of "bananafish" to a young girl named Sybil as they look out onto the ocean. "They swim into a hole where there's lots of bananas," he says. "Once they get in, they behave like pigs...after that they're so fat they can't get out of the hole." "What happens to them?" asks the unsuspecting Sybil. "They die," Seymour replies. "They get banana fever. It's a terrible disease."

While the symbolic significance of banana fever may be debated forever, I take it like this: Holden--and many would-be creators--take in and feel so much from life and relationships but can't find a way out of their hole to express themselves. The love that Holden felt for the most authentic and uncorrupted people (Salinger the hermit too--sadly, he seemed to feel there were few left on earth) was so trapped inside him that he became more and more bloated. He suffered from the resentment, frustration and likely gastric reflux common to all of us who aren't able to relieve the pressure by sharing our talents and creativity with the world.

And that's why I love the Grammys--a show where no one ever suffers from banana fever. Instead we get to revel in the full flowering of talent, creativity, nerve and courage. Whether it's the ravaged and riveting Lady GaGa, joined by the still-inspiring Elton John (video below) or the high-flying Pink, her voice perfectly modulated despite the fountain of her body spinning in mid-air (this video is currently unavailable but it's worth finding), the Grammys provide the forum for demonstrating how some of the greatest musical performers of our time get completely get out of their holes and show us what's inside.

It's easy to be a critic about music or fashion or art, but I can't be when watching the Grammys. I love that the performers do not play it safe, that Taylor Swift is joined by Stevie Nicks, that the costumes and choreography of the Black Eyed Peas make my eyes stop blinking. There they are, the Peas, screaming out, "Fill up my cup. Mazel Tov!" and manifesting in celebration the love that incapacitated Holden. This is authentic creativity--full expression, no repression, often with freak flags flying--and, come to think of it, I believe even Salinger would approve.

Three Paradigm Shifts Needed for Innovation

"We need to make 2010 what Obama should have made 2009: the year of innovation."
~Thomas Friedman in the New York Times

As I continue to speak out, discuss with others, and read/hear thought leaders grappling with how to make our culture more innovative, I am struck by common themes and agreements. Clearly, almost all of us see the need for change, and the need to support efforts that will bring about more creative solutions--in education, in organizations, in cities. We need more stimulation (rather than just stimulus) to get us excited about innovation and entrepreneurship, writes Thomas Friedman in the New York Times a few days ago. "The best way to counter the Tea Party movement, which is all about stopping things," he writes, "is with an Innovation Movement, which is all about starting things."

But an innovation movement needs to shift our quite-stubborn mindsets that are currently not serving us well or promoting creative action. Here are the three key paradigm shifts necessary for cultural innovation that I see, with recent confirmation in the pages of a couple of our few-remaining national publications.

1. The valuing of the right brain. It's one thing to say we need to be creative, but it's quite another to support, value and honor those things which improve our creative, right brains. Corporate America in particular still has a hard time valuing anything that appears too "touchy-feely" or that can't be measured easily through profit and loss. But as Einstein said, "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." Recent commentators have been championing liberal arts--which support this blog's emphasis on right brain power--in order to boost innovation. "If the country is to prosper--economically, culturally, morally," writes Jon Meacham in Newsweek, "we have to trust the institutions, old and new, that nurture creativity." Even MBA programs are beginning to find ways to increase right brain education, according to a recent New York Times article. Roger Martin, the new dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, describes his goal as a kind of “liberal arts M.B.A." and other programs are increasing focus on thinking differently and using design thinking to solve problems. The next step is for companies to put actual money behind programs that increase right brain thinking of their employees.

2. Collaboration across Disciplines. We are realizing that new solutions must come from a kind of collaboration that breaks down silos of expertise and combines perspectives and wisdom from many. We are currently set up--in academia, in business, in government--with very little communication between departments and domains. It's time to be multidisciplinary. CEO of IBM Sam Palmisano just wrote, "We will need ongoing, structured collaboration among city agencies; across business, the nongovernmental sector, academia and communities; and among cities and regional authorities. And that's going to require that we develop new skills for both managing people and leading organizations." Both because innovation comes most commonly from the intersection of disparate ideas, and because our economy demands now that we share best practices and help each other solve difficult challenges, collaboration across disciplines must become a real priority. That means working on our collaborative skills, as some MBA programs in the aforementioned article are doing. It also means we need more people who are comprehensivists, able to facilitate dialogue and problem solving among different groups.

3. Act for the long term and not just the short. This is currently America's Achilles' Heel, perhaps the one change of mindset with which most people wholeheartedly agree, but often feel helpless about. To become an innovative culture, we must insist that the quarterly earnings report, the short-term R.O.I., and the next primary election cannot solely determine our behavior. A company can't be innovative if every new R&D project must prove its worth within a year, a requirement of one local large company that is handcuffing an employee I just spoke with. Short-term thinking, especially one ruled by data and numbers and not human values (Google getting out of China appeared to be a rare exception), is killing us as a culture. It limits creativity and prevents the adoption of unpopular-though-healthy policies and practices, regardless of how much the current system is limping along. Every expert in innovation knows that only by allowing for failure and taking risks, even during hard times, is innovation possible. And yet right now as a country we can't solve any of our persistent problems--you name them--because of the suffocating idolatry of the short term.

I found myself typing with rather exasperated fingertips here, as we are just hours away from the State of the Union. I'm not feeling particular hopeful that we can shift paradigms, despite some convincing clamoring for it. How about a little help from you, my elusive reader? Can you share any signs you see that we are valuing the right brain, collaborating across disciplines and acting for the long term?

Making Sense of our Urgency, Making Art out of Radishes

Still tasting the tortillas from my recent excursion to Mexico, I am most struck by one cultural difference here: a distorted sense of urgency of American life. We always have somewhere we have to get to, something else we must do, this to get done, that deadline to meet. It's a badge we wear. Now, I know some of these tasks are indeed important right now, and that productivity is a hallmark of who we are. But, as un-American as it may be, I’m not ashamed to admit that I don’t like being a rat back running on my wheel of "shoulds."

Despite a more tranquilo relationship with time, the state of Oaxaca, like other areas of Mexico, is surprisingly safe, efficient and culturally vibrant. Creativity flourishes there, from its mole sauces to unique art contributions: black and green pottery, woven rugs and its colorfully painted woodcuttings known as alebrijes. But most amazing was the display of creativity during the Night of the Radishes, every December 23rd, where I and others waited in line for hours to see what artists could do with the otherwise inert and inedible root, which grows all around Oaxaca City. I've included a couple of examples.

I don’t believe we should be sacrificing our sense of well-being—let’s admit it, our happiness—for the currency we now trade in, one that ties our sense of self with how busy we are and how many things we can check off our to-do list. As I’ve argued before, our culture of perpetual-tasking and doing-rather-than-being ultimately compromises the breathing room we need for our creative selves, and fosters a consumerist rather creator culture.

In a new ChangeThis article, Olivia Sprinkel mirrors my own contentions with her “Creativist Manifesto,” saying our most important choice right now is whether to be a Consumer or Creativist. She makes some thought-provoking distinctions between the two: having vs. being, certainty vs. uncertainty, movement vs. stillness, answers vs. questions. “To be a Creativist,” she writes, is “to reclaim the right to our individual identities; to play an active role in shaping and in creating our lives from the inside out; to fulfill our need to create which is part of all of us.” Click here for more.

I have to admit: I struggle with this myself. I am an American, and I do feel the pressure of doing more, of finishing and publishing a book or three ASAP, of proving my worth through what I can say I've accomplished today. I am part of this culture that believes that claiming certainty to right answers will help my chances at success, even if I know that belief is as distorted as our incessant sense of urgency. Let's help each other answer this more-urgent-than-we-realize question: How do we find the right balance?

Adam speaking on creativity Friday Morn

My Innovation on my Mind Blog will resume next week, but in the meantime for those early risers in the Chicago area...

Come join me downtown this Friday morning for a talk on creativity, innovation and organizations, a free event sponsored by the Internal Consulting PDN of the OD Network Chicago.

Date: Friday, January 15th, Time: 7:30 - 9:00 AM, 9-10 AM optional open discussion, networking

Location: Northern Trust, 181 W. Madison - 7th floor, Chicago

RSVP REQUIRED for building access. You must send an email to lw56@ntrs.com at Northern Trust to be able to attend the meeting.

TOPIC: Raising Your Innovation Quotient: Creativity Competencies for the 21st Century. Speaker: Adam Shames

Now more than ever all organizations need to raise a different kind of IQ—the Innovation Quotient—to flexibly embrace change and continually improve the ways they serve their customers and stakeholders. In this interactive session, organizational consultant and creativity expert Adam Shames will explore today’s innovation imperative and share the key creativity competencies necessary for individual and organizational innovation. You will learn more about the mindsets and skills that boost creativity—and experience for yourself ways to develop these competencies in others and embed them as part of a more innovative culture.

Wrapping up what's been On My Mind for 2009

I'm sitting on a rooftop in Oaxaca, Mexico, attempting to de-rat-ify from the American ratrace, seeking creative renewal as I wrap up a year of "blarticles." This is the 86th time I've reflected on creativity and innovation this year, and I'm going to use this final blarticle as a summary index of my thinking, distilling with hyperactive hyperlinking the key concepts and perspectives of what's been On My Mind throughout 2009.

My main argument is that as a culture, country and planet, there is now an innovation imperative like never before. As the speed of change continues to increase, we, as individuals and organizations, must improve our skills of innovation--which guide are ability to change successfully--to be able to prosper economically and to solve the increasingly complex challenges of our day.

Simply put, we need to become more creative people.

I've made that case for innovation by sharing ideas and videos from President Obama to thought leaders like Richard Florida, Daniel Pink and Thomas Friedman. I've taken you with me as I discussed breakthrough innovation and explored innovation efforts locally, including Chicago's Innovate Now initiative. I've grappled with ways to help organizations harness their creativity, and underscored our need to make radical changes in education to activate creative thinking for children and adults in ways long overdue.Because the engine of innovation is creativity, I've focused in large part on clarifying what creativity really is and how we all can learn to be more creative. To understand creativity is to first understand the distinction between divergent and convergent thinking, which I touch on in this video (click on picture above, me presenting at Google this summer), and to embrace a shift of mindset that ground rules like P.T.S. offer. Throughout the blog, I've been fleshing out the three key competencies of divergent creativity, which make up my curriculum for creativity training:

1. Fluency: Our ability to generate many ideas, which require skills of initiation, improvisation and experimentation.

2. Flexibility: Our ability to think differently and generate different kinds of ideas. Since innovation most often occurs through the unusual combination of ideas, perspectives and domains--what I call multiparadigmatic or hybrid thinking--the flexibility competency is perhaps our most fertile. It includes skills of shifting, associating and challenging assumptions--and the leveraging of diversity.

3. Originality: Perhaps the most difficult competency to teach, this is our ability to generate unique ideas. It all comes down to the dance of the heart and the mind, and the skills of passion, engagement and synthesis. The more we can express our own unique selves--which was the initial intention of the Kreativity Network I founded and the Creativity Jams I now host--the more innovation will happen, guaranteed.

Finally, I am indeed passionate about changing education, and believe we need our curriculum for K-12, colleges and adults to build these creativity competencies and empower individuals to pursue their innate talents and more experientially tackle real issues. My contention is that we must create a new cadre of comprehensivists--those who can facilitate creativity and change in multidisciplinary ways. We need to break down the silos of expertise that currently separate and stifle us both in academia and organizations, so that we truly leverage our collective brainpower to creatively solve the challenges of our time.

I'm taking a break from the blog for a few weeks. Thanks so much for being part of this conversation and may the new year bring creative renewal--and proactive change--for you in work and life.

Talking about creating Massive Change...

This week the Innovation Council, a Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce group that's part of the Innovate Now initiative, met and found itself provocatively stimulated by the suggestions and vision of world-reknowned designer Bruce Mau, whose "Massive Change" exhibit at the MCA blew Chicago's mind at the end of 2006.

Mau's approach is to think as a designer on a very large scale, and his strategy for Chicago (and anywhere) is to highlight current innovation--there is much here--in such a way that it rises above the cacophonous noise level of all else. You do that, said Mau, through unprecedented events with global resonance and which create platforms for massive participation. "The real idea is to completely eliminate the audience," he explains. Here is a little taste of Mau the person (below, video) a few years back.



There is still a considerable gap between Mau's big ideas and the reality of change in Chicago, but we were riled up as a group and 2010 promises some big leaps in our attempt to embrace the innovation imperative. A few other tidbits from the talk and discussion:

*Mau believes we need to reinforce stability in order to make innovation happen.

*What makes Chicago stand out? It's got great architecture. It's a great meetingplace in the middle. It's friendly. How can we get a theme here that we can rally behind--and participate in--as a city? Mau's talk centered around "In Good we Trust."

*We have to reinvent education. Mau saw it this way: Purpose-driven, entrepreneurial, experienced-based education. Yes. Yes.

I'd like to see more locations throughout the city function like European plazas--be centers for activity, community, conversation, performance and information, whether indoors or out.

I'd like to see people hired to be connectors/facilitators/liaisons between distinct groups. Massive change and unifying events require a new cadre of multidisciplinary interconnectors.

Mau spoke at innovation firm Gravity Tank to a mixed group of civic, corporate and educational innovators, including yours truly, that makes up the Council, which was formed to develop strategies to boost innovation capacity and performance in Chicagoland.

The Past and the Future of the Speed of Change

"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn." ~Alvin Toffler

They say the older you get, the faster time goes, and perhaps that can partly explain it, but I must admit some shock in feeling the final breaths of this decade already on my face. Am I just imagining that the future has been coming at me at an increased speed? Do you also feel the acceleration of information, the more frequent gusts of change, the increased number of difficult but more urgent choices that need to be made as 2010 approaches?

I was perusing my father's bookshelf the other week and came upon Alvin Toffler's Future Shock--ah, that could be it, I thought. I may be suffering from this kind of shock, which Toffler explained as the physical and psychological reaction to "too much change in too short a period of time," "the dizzying disorientation brought on by the premature arrival of the future." I opened the book and out dropped a folded memorandum on mimeographed wax paper, addressed to my father from his boss in 1971. Read this book, his boss commanded, and "consider how the points raised apply to you," the company and "your subordinates." My father remembered it being helpful at the time in setting some new directions for the company. I frankly haven't heard anyone mention this once seminal book in recent memory.

Can Toffler's insights be helpful to us, today, 40 years later? Well, as I gulped down the multitude of forecasts in this gem of a book, I realized that the dizzy spin of change Toffler captures so well has been around for much longer than I realized. While he made some interestingly inaccurate predictions--from the advent of licensed professional parents to living on the sea to group marriages--he also nailed some realities then that have proven unshakeable. His three main factors of change, as relevant as ever:

*Transience: Less and less is permanent, from material items to jobs to relationships to the family unit. Tofflers describes a "short-order culture," a "throw-away society," the increase of temporary work and the decrease of loyalty to organizations. He notes an emerging group of people who live at a faster pace--"the earliest citizens of the world-wide super-industrial society now in the throes of birth." "To survive," he writes, "the individual must become infinitely more adaptable and capable than ever before. He must search out totally new ways to anchor himself."

*Novelty: From technology to fertility, he describes the constant adjustment to the new, which we certainly see in technology today (though our social revolution seems a bit less novelty-producing than in Toffler's less disillusioned time). He was amazingly prescient about what we now call the "experience economy," that people will seek more "psychic fulfillment" and vicarious experiences as part of consumption in an affluent society. "As we hurtle into tomorrow," he nevertheless warned, "millions of men and women will face emotion-packed options so unfamiliar, so untested, that past experience will offer little clue to wisdom."

*Diversity: Every day we're bombarded by "a paralyzing surfeit" of overchoice--too many variations, decisions and options--as well as "information overload" (Yes, Toffler coined that dandy). We may not have the same enduring relationships, he writes, but at least we are offered more varied life niches, more freedom to move in and out, and to create our own niches. But he doubts whether humans can actually cope with that much "freedom."

As this now-campy 1972 documentary about "Future Shock" (hosted by Orson Welles!) asked (video above, the final part of a five-part series), can people really handle the shock of these changes? Are we powerless to do anything about them? I wonder now, how have we fared after all this time? And are we less sane because of it?

If we agree that the pace of change has continued to accelerate, and that we must embrace the realities of transience, novelty and diversity, then we are left with the undeniable need to change ourselves. What else can we do? The central task of education, Toffler explained, is to expand man's adaptive capacities. It seems we have no choice but to become more creative people.

The Innovator's DNA

"Where will your next big idea come from?" asks the year's final 2009 issue of Harvard Business Review. In its "Spotlight on Innovation," HBR offers articles exploring issues ranging from open innovation to career paths for innovators to social technology tools that foster innovation. While game-changing innovations may not come about easily, the magazine argues, "the right organizational conditions can make a breakthrough more likely." I would add the right mindset and practices can help you raise your own innovation quotient, and lead to new insights and actions that can benefit your work and your life.

One article that may provoke you most is "The Innovator's DNA," where researchers Jeffrey Dyer, Hal Gregersen and Clayton Christensen highlight the skills they believe necessary to be more of an innovator yourself. Innovators, they found, "actively desire to change the status quo, and regularly take risks to make that change happen." The authors focus on discovery skills that, according to their six-year study, distinguish innovative entrepreneurs from other executives.

As I have noted throughout this blog, creative people are particularly fluent and flexible in their thinking--they generate and expose themselves to many ideas and perspectives. Dyer et al. found five particular skills to be part of an innovator's DNA, all of which boost the competencies of fluency and flexibility:

1. Associating: This is the ability to successfully connect seemingly unrelated ideas. Key to flexibility, this practice is what Einstein called "Combinatorial Play"; the more multidisciplinary and open to combination you are, the more innovative power you can access. When Ebay founder Pierre Amidyar connected his own fascination with creating more efficient markets with the hobby of finding pez dispensers, voila.

2. Questioning: My working definition of innovation is "Improving what's now and creating what's next." You can't improve if you don't constantly question. According the authors, innovative entrepreneurs ask "Why?", "Why not?" and "What if?" The "What if" question can be incredibly powerful, both by imposing constraints on your thinking and by getting you to challenge your assumptions. Consider a challenge you now have and consider some of my favorite "What ifs...": What if I had unlimited/no money/help? What if I had to finish this by X no matter what? What if I wanted to get fired/fail?

3. Observing: "Innovators carefully, intentionally, and consistently look out for small behavioral details...in order to gain insights about new ways of doing things." Direct observation is built into innovative cultures like Toyota, and innovators usually are able to toggle between the creative polarities of seeing the big picture and noticing the telling details.

4. Experimenting: A fluent organization--which supports, shares, spreads and builds on ideas--also knows how to experiment. Innovative entrepreneurs, say the authors, create prototypes, launch pilots, and actively explore and teste out ideas. "I encourage our employees to go down blind alleys and experiment," Jeff Bezos of Amazon says, with experiments like Kindle, though sometimes failing, ultimately leading to innovative success. Intuit founder Scott Cook says that allowing failure is "what separates an innovation culture from a normal corporate culture."

5. Networking: We become more flexible the more we seek out other perspectives, whether through travel/working abroad (the authors found the more countries lived in, the more likely that experience would be leveraged to deliver innovation) or through good ole networking. Who haven't you called lately? What conference/learning can you seek out? Expose yourself to different colleagues, cultures, attitudes and best practices.

These skills of innovative thinking dovetail nicely with my creative suggestions throughout this blog. The authors offer some more suggestions in their article. We both agree--practice can help you raise your innovation quotient and even alter your DNA...

Innovation Clues from Israel

Do you remember when you first learned what an oxymoron was? Along with "silent scream" and "bitter sweetness," the example of a two-word paradox I most remember, for some reason, was "Military Intelligence," given with a serious chuckle. Many would say the same about "Military Innovation," or certainly "Military Creativity," as most of the conditions necessary for creativity to thrive are understandably not part of strict military culture. Or are they?

As authors Dan Senor and Saul Singer argue in their book Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle, much of Israel’s remarkably innovative firepower originates from the military experience of each Israeli citizen, with all men and women serving for at least two years after high school.

Senor and Singer summarize it well in this Newsweek article: With a smaller population than New Jersey, Israel somehow attracts 30 times the venture capital money than Europe, has more tech companies on NASDAQ than Europe, Japan and China combined, and is constantly making the latest technological breakthroughs with their cutting-edge technology start-ups.

Why? The authors go through eight factors in their book, from immigration policy to high civilian R&D funding, but in particular they emphasize the role of the military as a "boot camp for new tech entrepreneurs." The Israeli military experience is one of leadership and entrepreneurship, not just obedience to authority. According to Senor, those in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are known for these traits:
1. Improvisation and flexibility: Needing multidisciplinary skills to work in different sectors with not-always-reliable resources, often producing "mashups" that combine different technologies in new ways that lead to start-ups.
2. Exposure and experience with diversity: Bringing together people from different perspectives and backgrounds--socioeconomic, cultural and religious--often helping people think differently and make future business connections.
3. Flat hierarchy: Empowering responsibility at lower levels, respecting expertise at whatever rank, and having a surprising openness to debate, challenge and questioning that often leads to unconventional solutions.

Building these innovation skills early--which then results in similar innovative cultures of start-up technology companies in the country--plays a tremendous role in Israel's current innovation capacity. I don't doubt that our organizations and future prospects would also get an innovation boost, as Senor explains in this video below, "if we can cultivate a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation among our young people, the way the Israelis do."



One more quick point. How about this as the solution in our partisan haggling over healthcare in America? Let our military administer healthcare. Democrats want more of non-profit option and Republicans trust the military (as opposed to the "government") with our money. My own experience using USAA (a military-community insurance association for whom profit is not the only goal) has resulted in cheaper premiums and yet still high quality service for me.

"The Decline of Western Innovation"

As 2009 begins to close, key magazines--from Newsweek to Harvard Business Review--are featuring prominent articles on innovation, with both important insights and dire warnings.

For now, let's chat about a couple Newsweek pieces. The feature article is entitled "The Decline of Western Innovation: Why America is Falling Behind and How to Fix it." Hmmm. In another article, columnist and international expert Fareed Zakaria asks, "Is America Losing Its Mojo?" His answer: Though we still lead in technological achievement and are still seen as innovative abroad, "America's reputation is stronger than the hard data warrant."

I'm particularly impressed by Zakaria's article, which aptly covers how the U.S. has failed to make the innovation imperative the priority it needs to be, particularly compared to other countries. One ranking shows the U.S. has made the least progress in innovation capacity out of 39 countries. He traces the three waves of history that gave the U.S. clear advantage: Post-WWII economic dominance, the influx of European immigrants, and massive government spending that led to breakthroughs like the Internet. Those great waves have started to ebb and now the U.S. is falling behind in one key resource: human capital. We no longer have as many foreign brains (both due to U.S. restrictive policies and more opportunities in their home countries) contributing, and, he writes, "America is not producing the kinds of workers needed in a knowledge-based economy."

Which brings me to some intriguing findings about education from the NEWSWEEK-Intel Global Innovation Survey that accompanies these articles. The survey reveals, according to Newsweek, that "Americans have real doubts about their ability to maintain their edge in innovation, even as they agree that technological innovation is more important than ever" (Nearly 80%--see graph below). Nevertheless, other countries, including China, still give the U.S. high marks for technological innovation.

But note this fascinating insight about education. We usually assume that our main driver of innovation success will be STEM education--Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. Clearly those skills need to be improved and are indeed the origin of some of our most important economic breakthroughs. But only 9% of Chinese parents (compared to more than half of American parents--click on chart above to find this graph) believe such skills are needed to drive innovation. The Chinese name the following innovation-driving skills as more important than Americans do:
1. Creative Approaches to Problem Solving (45% to 18%)
2. Knowledge of World's Cultures (18% to only 4%)
3. Entrepreneurial and Business Skills (23% to 16%)

Along with STEM, those look like some good courses we should be teaching, right now, at all ages, in order to slow our "decline."