A question that I’ve increasingly been asked lately by individuals whether or not they participate in the startup ecosystem is the importance of adversity in innovation. What has caused the rise in the questioning of how much adversity is really necessary in innovation?
There are many reasons but the primary driver for this increased discussion surrounding adversity is the general sense that we as a society are entering uncertain and fundamentally difficult times. The stability that our parent’s generation enjoyed is rapidly disappearing thanks to a number of fundamental changes in society.
These changes including the increasing prevalence of automation and artificial intelligence in the workplace, greater and more rapid competition thanks to not only globalization but technology and new business models as well and the rise of old and new urgent societal issues to the forefront are creating an unstable era for global society. To many, no matter where they look, society is seemingly coming apart at the seams and creating instability and barriers where there were once none. Hence the interest in whether adversity plays a role in innovation.
The question is a very nuanced and difficult one to answer. There is no question that adversity has powered humanity to the greatest of achievements. From sanitation to nuclear energy, humanity has managed to make leaps in scientific and technological knowledge that no one thought possible. Unfortunately, though, those advancements have come at a tremendous cost. Not only in terms of human lives lost but in terms of untapped potential.
On the opposite side, many argue that without some level of adversity, humanity is doomed to decadence and decay. There are some who believe that without some level of difficulty, individuals are incapable of building the skills required to succeed such as perseverance and creativity. These skills force the human mind to find alternatives when roadblocks appear and in some instances those alternative paths prove to be even more successful than originally intended.
However, what level of adversity is too much? Indeed, if we look closely at today’s social battles, they rest on what level of adversity is appropriate not only for individuals to tolerate but society to tolerate as well.
While one can expand this to a societal question and what is a tolerable level of adversity for each and every individual, a narrower focus will be applied to the startup ecosystem and business in general. There are many phrases that are constantly used in the startup ecosystem and in business in general that emphasize the fondness those communities have for adversity.
Sweat equity ensures that investors see that founders have “skin in the game”. Founders need to be “hungry” via short funding runways to ensure they are “focused on what counts” namely growth and meeting market demand. Investors and advisors may swear by these phrases but startup founders and perhaps even society may wonder if such phrases and mentalities are really allowing the best startups and startup ideas to thrive.
What some in Silicon Valley and in the general business world have forgotten thanks to the growing use of automation and artificial intelligence is the fact that humans are not “biological machines”. While Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba, may praise the “996” work ethic where individuals will work from 9AM to 9PM, 6 days a week, it is the antithesis of the original Silicon Valley ethos and innovation itself.
Ignoring innovation that is created due to warfare at the moment and only innovation created in peacetime, true innovation can only occur in conditions where individuals are nurtured to think long-term versus short-term. What that means is that they are able to think and live beyond their immediate circumstance and are allowed to dream and envision what can be versus having to live in the moment. Unfortunately, and increasingly, there are too many individuals and governments creating policies that are forcing us back to an age of short-termism and ultimately the death of true innovation.
They are making innovation harder by creating more adversity for both individuals. Whether it is through creating artificial barriers or reducing programs to encourage growth and diversity, they are planting the seeds of a society that is continually only focused on survival versus thinking about the future. That lack of thinking about the future will prevent us from laying the required foundations for the next leap in innovation.
Indeed, in order to keep the innovation engine going, we must not solely focus on the short-term we must focus on the long-term as well. Something that is sometimes forgotten in our societal obsession on profitability and revenues.
Without investments in technologies such as TCP/IP and personal computers, we would not have the Internet. Nowadays, we look think investments in Internet technology is a foregone conclusion. However, it took individuals with foresight and leadership to make those, at the time, risky investments in unproven technologies.
We also forget that those future thinking individuals were given the opportunity to make those life changing decisions because we were not extreme in our thinking of what level of adversity is appropriate. Those individuals were able to grow up relatively disease free with good medical care and a good education. When they started their careers, they were able to start it without significant debt and had a relatively intact society safety net to enable to them to experiment and take risks. Ultimately, we must remember that at the core of innovation is the human individual not the machine and it is human who will drive what the right level of adversity is in order for innovation to thrive.
Leave a Reply