What is the future without innovation?

The public education system has countless problems, but the most harmful in the long run concerns the sabotage of innovation.

"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival." (W. Edwards Deming)

To survive in a world of increasing complexity, it is important to quickly learn what we do not know. But it is even more important to create new knowledge with which we will be able to respond to adaptive challenges and the so-called "new normal". Yesterday's solutions are today's problems, which, in order for us to solve them, require a new way of thinking (and the ever-present awareness that by solving them we will create new problems that will again require new ways of thinking - and so on and so on). Current mental models in organizations, which we had successfully used before, are now losing their validity in the context of diversity, growth and change management. Organizations of today need flexibility more than ever, and yet many of them are still clinging tightly to rigid structures that may have once meant stability, but are now crumbling.

"Acceptable ideas are no longer competent, and competent ideas are not yet acceptable." (Stafford Beer)

When the public education system prevents interdisciplinarity in ways which do not allow the students to make choices in accordance with a variety of their own affinities, the dynamics of the system result in the accumulation of untapped potential. In case you are interested in different subjects of different professions, you simply have to choose one direction, that one professional field, which you assume you will pursue for the rest of your life. A wrong decision is a costly mistake, both in terms of time and money, and the punishment is personal and professional failure.

The public education system and the labor market do not communicate purposefully, which creates a lot of redundancy and "idleness". That pretty much sums up the proverb “idle hands are the Devil's tools”. Such arbitrary limitation of professional activity sabotages interdisciplinarity, and consequently – innovation, which is crucial for survival in the increasingly complex times ahead of us.

*************************************************************************

Imagine the following hypothetical scenario:

Former FBI agent and non-verbal communication expert Joe Navarro is visiting Croatia to promote his book "Dangerous personalities: how to recognize them and protect yourself". According to the Croatian Psychology Profession Act, delivering education about personality is a “psychological activity”, and it may only be performed by licensed psychologists. Navarro is not a psychologist, which according to the Croatian Psychological Chamber means he could not do what he normally does because the Chamber does not recognize his right to perform “psychological activities” as a non-psychologist.

You can imagine what a huge loss that would be for the end users, including me, because I have learned from Navarro a number of things that are not taught in college.

*************************************************************************

Of course, this is just a hypothetical example to illustrate all the absurdity of pushing professions into strictly separate “drawers”. Psychologists who advocate the monopolization of “psychological activity” claim they are motivated by preserving the quality of our profession and protecting the end users. But is that really the case?

Monopoly eliminates competition, and that deteriorates quality. Competitiveness encourages quality. And the title of a licensed psychologist itself does not guarantee quality or expertise. Isn’t this attempt to monopolize “psychological activity” in reality just an attempt to legally fence off and secure a piece of the market for oneself, regardless of quality? As with any service provider, aren’t the end users actually those who should be deciding who to give their money to? Research has shown that the personality of the trainer contributes the most to the success of a workshop.

Thanks to our education system, we are often victims of a dangerous logical fallacy. We base the assumption of the expertise of others on our own experience of going through a system in which professions are strictly separated. So we take a firm position that everyone must complete formal education organized precisely in the existing prescribed way to successfully perform in only one of its segments.

Psychology has many fields that do not deal with mental health per se and for which there are no valid reasons in favor of strict regulations. Why would someone who wants to pursue the field of personality psychology have to finish college and learn about all the other fields of psychology?

Today the basics of anything can be learned online, oftentimes for free, from the world’s top lecturers. The game has changed. Those educational institutions which quickly and efficiently transferred their educational services online were able to maintain their competitive advantage in the face of the current pandemic. An example of such a successful adaptation in our country is Zagreb School of Economics and Management.

*************************************************************************

What would you choose assuming you would get the same knowledge of the subject of your interest?

A – a free online course of a world-famous university

B – at least three years of college (where the subject of your interest would be taught for one semester)

*************************************************************************

Why should someone who is not a licensed psychologist not be allowed to perform a “psychological activity”? Especially if he or she gets to share his or her own experience of excellence, based on scientific theories and evidence, and demonstrating it live in their performance. A good example of this is Chris Voss, also a former FBI agent, author of the book "Never split a difference."

What is the end goal?

First of all, "psychological activity" is a service. Our clients are not here because of us, we are here for our clients. The main purpose of our work should be our clients’ well-being. And our clients’ goals are to succeed in what is important to them; to gain the necessary insights, to acquire knowledge and skills; to preserve mental health - and to get value for money.

Before passing laws to monopolize the right to perform “psychological activities”, shouldn't we first ask ourselves whether or not it helps the end users to whom we are providing our services? Or are we just helping ourselves in the short run, oblivious to the long term harmfulness of our short-sightedness?

In general, over-regulated professions have too few degrees of freedom and as such do not offer enough room for innovation. Where there is no freedom to grow, innovation ceases. It is no surprise that America is far ahead of the European Union in innovation.

It is time to ask ourselves what kind of future do we really want? Do we want more freedom in education and professional work (as much as possible) so we can build a more innovative society to be able to cope with adaptive challenges or we will continue to undermine our chance of survival?

And the most important of all questions - do we have the knowledge, the will and the courage needed to change the existing reality??