Organizations should be born in innovation and should be run in innovation if they are to be continuously effective and create a lasting impact on society. The founder must start with an innovative, distinctive idea, and the team must also be innovative in all their operations, no matter what they are doing.
As we have seen, the status quo in Africa is just to follow others blindly. There is little shame in just copying the next person without the least bit of effort in thought or self-differentiation. Most people do not realize that this really is a confession that they are unable to think for themselves, that they are only capable of following another person’s thoughts; without him they are lost. There is nothing worse than such a statement about yourself.
This lack of shame for lack of thought in our culture goes beyond just business or organizational innovation. This is evident even when one talks to people about their political “ideas.” It takes only a few minutes before you realize that the person is saying the same things the last person you talked to was saying and the person before that, ad infinitum. It is very rare to meet a person who sounds like they have thought deeply about their position.
So, when you ask someone what they think Zambia needs to do to develop, the predictable answers you will hear are: “You know, we need to invest in agriculture. That’s what we need. This country doesn’t take agriculture seriously.”
And before you ask further, they quickly add “Oh, and we need good leaders, not these selfish leaders we have. We need good leaders and we need to get serious about corruption.”
Right. But that’s what you heard someone else say; are you able to develop the thought any further than what you heard from Jim or Jack? It doesn’t even have to be a right idea, but can you add your own idea?
Whenever we are watching the news, we can usually predict what the “official” at a public function is about to say. If it is someone from Ministry of Technology, they will say something like “Technology is very important, the world is changing fast and we need to adapt,…” etc. If the event has to do with education, it will be “Education is very important, a country can not survive without education, our children are the future leaders, …”…etc. Ministry of Environment? “We need to protect our environment, our environment is very important …” OK, but what’s new about that? Why is it on the NEWS? Is there anything in the speech that is unique to this speaker?
If the person is not from the government, their speech will read “Our appeal to the government is that they must find means and ways to solve this problem because it is very important …” You will never hear any thoughtful suggestions or solutions from them, just “appeals to the government” to find solutions.
If the interview is with an expert just before the annual budget presentation, the answer is always “You know, we expect to see a pro-poor budget. These statistics of economic growth are just figures, the poverty out there is still deep, so we need a pro-poor budget.” Well, OK, which is what the other person said before last year’s budget, and the year before that. Anything else? Why are we even interviewing you if you’re just regurgitating the same old statements?
And of course the news reporters don’t get bored reporting on the same speeches and statements; they look genuinely impressed with the same repeated answer each time.
Even their questions as reporters are predictable. At the start of a studio interview, no matter how simple the subject is, they will usually begin, “For the sake of our viewers out there, can you define what ‘climate change’ means (or whatever the subject is)”? (Have you ever heard Christianne Armanpour ask that?). Don’t just ask the question because it is asked by everyone, think first if a definition is required, especially if it’s a well-known subject.
At the end of an interview, we are likely to hear the question: “So what is your appeal to the people out there?” Or “Any last words?” which, again, is a confession by the interviewer that they can’t actually think of an interesting question: a confession of lack of thought, lack of a focused consciousness.
The most disappointing “thinkers,” of course, are the University of Zambia (UNZA) graduates from the Humanities and “Social Sciences”. Ask them the same question about what we need to develop as a nation. I guarantee that the answer will be: “You know, we need to fight this neocolonialism of the imperialist West. These white people (or Chinese) control everything, you know? They come here and take everything just like they did in colonial times and our government is just watching…” It’s either that or they will repeat the other rant about selfish leaders, agriculture, etc.
If you’ve talked to one of them, you’ve talked to almost all of them, because they automatically parrot the ideas of a few “Afrocentric” lecturers who have been teaching there for many years – and even they just parrot other people they’ve read, which is why it is the same arguments you hear whether you speak to a graduate of UNZA or any other African University. The narrative is identical, and yet they are incredibly passionate when rehashing these same identical ideas – which is quite fascinating. How can you be so proud of imitating someone else? Can’t you at least even find a new way of explaining that same point, in a way that is unique to you?
How do we expect people who are trained to parrot the lecturer (or the text book) to ever be innovative when they finally start their jobs or businesses?