
Yikes. According to a report just released last week by The Conference Board of Canada, Canada is in big trouble. How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada compares Canada’s performance in several areas to other OECD countries and tries to come up with relative ratings and a national strategy.
The good news is that they gave Canada an “A” grade for education and skills training, claiming that Canada’s education system “works well for mainstream participants” but that it doesn’t serve the needs of the highly educated or innovative. From my experience, I agree. That’s better in some ways than systems that can’t even fulfill basic needs. But America has a thriving private school system and a system of scholarships that accompany it to reward excellence and encourage cutting edge thinking.
America’s education system produced 58% of the world’s Nobel prizes in science between 1950 and 2006: 206 awards. Despite criticism of America’s public system at the lower levels, it is firing on all cylinders at this higher level. Canada’s system produced a measly 6 Nobel prizes in science in the same 56 year period, a rate of only one prize every 9 years or so. Canada’s system produced as many winners as Australia, a country with only 60% of Canada’s population. Canada was beaten by Sweden, a country of only 9 million people (versus Canada’s 33 million). I’m being a tad provocative here, but so what if we’ve got good basic education? It just means we are graduating a bunch of highly educated bank tellers, franchise workers, and wait staff.
Canada’s education system is stuck in the middle tiers of mediocrity. It teaches mediocrity and it rewards mediocrity. It isn’t completely bad, it’s just not innovative. It doesn’t take many risks and it encourages students not to take risks. I’m puzzled about how that system can get an “A” grade. The big reason seems to be that a lot of people move through the system and get their secondary and post-secondary degrees, yet I think we need higher standards than that. This isn’t a world where having your high school diploma guarantees you anything anymore. Maybe a job working at Subway.
So that’s the good news.
Let’s move on to the not-so-good ratings. They give a “B ” rating to the Health system. I like what the Report had to write about Health, but think they are too generous to an outmoded system. But hey, they need to be politically astute. I don’t.
They cite a number of statistics to show that Canada provides a good basic level of universal health care, which it does. They also seem to factor in that Canadians think they have a great health care system. This conveniently ignores the truth: they’re misguided. Canadians also think that Americans suffer with a terrible health care system. But the Canadian system is on the verge of a breakdown, with wait times in emergency wards around me approaching 6 hours, insane delays for appointments with specialists and criminally long waitlists for important surgeries like heart bypass surgery. The care I got with the most basic HMO in Chicago completely kicked the lauded Canadian health care system’s butt. Basic care for diseases like cancer is okay according to the report, but not amazing. Now think about that. When you can afford the care (and that’s a big “if”, but bear with me) and it is you or someone you love that has cancer, I can only think that you want amazing care, not just sufficient care. In Canada, you can’t even buy better care if you want it. That’s illegal, and that’s nutso. The report finds that innovation is sorely lacking in health care, and is a key to its revival and success. Innovation is their common theme.
Now, to the really bad news. Among other things, Canada is not managing child poverty well at all; that issue is getting out of hand. Dashing the safe and happy Canada image portrayed in movies like Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore, Canada has high burglary and assault rates. Organized crime is out of control in major cities. The country has a crime problem that no one wants to discuss.
And worst of all for future generations, Canada gets a D in terms of how it is managing its Environment. While there are some decent achievements in environmental protection, overall Canada deserves an F, not a D. Only two countries contribute more greenhouse gases per capita than the supposedly green Canadians: America and Australia. The Conference Board again makes a stand for innovation, saying that with the right initiatives, Canada could be building a green economy that would lead to all sorts of benefits. I think they’re right.
The bottom line is Canada’s D in innovation. Canada ranks far behind smaller counties like Switzerland, Sweden, and Finland, and behind powerhouse economies like America and Germany. Canada has been depending on its natural resources for far too long and is squandering its greatest resource: a highly educated and well-trained workforce. Many countries have done much more with less. It’s a cultural problem. A problem of motivation. As the report says “This culture holds Canada back in entrepreneurial and technological innovation.” Across the board, the system punishes risk takers and encourages mediocrity.
Canada’s performance across all measures of innovation is “consistently poor.” As the report says, that poor performance is beginning to seep into every other aspect of Canadians’ lives. It has a direct impact on the economy. It leads to an aging and outmoded health care system and weaker social services. It shows up in a mediocre, risk averse education system. And old methods and a reliance on outdated technology mean a dirtier and unsafe environment.
The report says that Canada desperately needs a “national vision” that will encourage innovative behavior. I couldn’t agree more. And a good place to start would be Canadian business schools. As I learned in my last two years teaching MBAs in Toronto, Canada has outstanding students with excellent basic skills and lots of good ideas. As I raised the bar on them, they could handle most of what I threw at them. In the span of a semester, they achieved great things like creating new products (in a few cases suggesting new industries), estimating demand for entirely new products, using innovative methods like netnography and visual metaphor elicitation to get a read on current trends and insight into consumers’ tacit needs, and editing consumer videographies. They received b-school education at the highest levels.
Unfortunately, most of them weren’t rewarded with the great jobs they deserved. I taught them cutting edge marketing and management techniques that most of them simply were not able to apply in their Canadian jobs, because the scope of those jobs was so limited. It wasn’t simply a function of their management level, either. My MBAs from University of Wisconsin and Northwestern simply had more choices of jobs with much wider and more innovative marketing scope.
One of the reasons I chose to come back to Canada and work at the Schulich School was the high rankings and attention that Schulich was getting for its emphasis on integrating environmental and social issues into a business school curriculum. For some details, see the recent Beyond Grey Pinstripes report. But it’s crucially important that the students get good jobs so that they can apply that worldview and use those techniques.
I’m currently working on three initiatives to try to make progress for our students by working with industry and with the school to come up with new programs to teach and help implement innovation. These programs need to work with industry to ensure a relevant education and that we have good placements for students when they are done. We want the education to have real impact, impact that can be realized.
Canada isn’t the only country in trouble. I think that what the report is saying in general applies well to almost every nation, maybe to our entire species. We need new thinking and new governance systems. Across the board. We need innovations that will help us rapidly change our culture and our systems to a more sustainable social system. We need a nimble and innovative global economy, and a cultural system that helps us use resources wisely and live within our means.
In a previous post, I had an idea that would help consumers to see environmental impacts of the products and service they buy. Imagine the kinds of innovation such a system would begin to spur. Imagine the other innovations we could come up with and implement if we put our minds to it.
Education has a huge part to play in all of this. So does business. Academics, particularly those in business schools, are well placed to have an impact on these matters. I welcome collaborators in all of these areas from next door and from across the world. And as always I welcome your comments.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 19, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Great post!
1) I think there’s a great opportunity for building Canada’s green economy via innovation. Specifically coming out from the overlap between design, business and sustainability, however, not necessarily Corporate Social Responsibility [CSR]. One thing I have observed is that various organizations put up a CSR front, perhaps because green is the new gold, proclaiming policies and procedures that assert a commitment to environmental responsibility. The challenge is that most are missing the opportunity to move beyond “risk management” towards “innovation management”; pro-actively developing new products and/or services that first and foremost meet consumer needs for functionality, while aligned with CSR. In the Stanford Social Innovation Review article, The Other CSR, the authors demonstrated that consumers are eager to seek out products that meet functional needs, however, are not willing to compromise on functionality for features of social responsibility. I agree that consumers cannot be sold on CSR claims alone, and there is a heightened value proposition for business in connecting emotionally with people in a way that promotes behaviour change, while enhancing economic prosperity. Perhaps a great example of this would be serial sustainable entrepreneur Chef Jamie Kennedy who takes a slow-food approach to food, advocating local food choices as part of his brand proposition. In a recent Toronto Life [July 2007] article Kennedy said “We can change the way people source their food – not by preaching, but by making it delicious.” That for example, focusing on consumers’ desirability and functionality of food is a route towards change through emotional and needs-based responses, rather than force-feeding CSR messages. There is something to be said for making things delicious…
2) The three initiatives sound exciting! Specifically the course on new product development and innovation. Sounds familiar to courses being offered through Stanford’s d.school and Rotman’s Designworks centre, which have students taking an empathetic approach to innovation; having spoken with Heather Fraser of Designworks where she demonstrated how storytelling, visual thinking were leveraged for a collaborative project with Princess Margaret Hospital, developing patient waiting rooms to be human-centered. I am curious to see these schools apply the lens of sustainability.
I am hopeful and excited to see what’s to come, despite some of those dreary report findings!
June 21, 2007 at 9:58 am
Thanks for these great comments. You are so right that there is all sort of low-hanging fruit now that meets consumer needs for better products, services, and experiences, and also does so in a way that is more sustainable and green. Food is a great example. Eating less processed food, fresher, less contaminated food is not only healthier, but it’s tastier. It feels better.
Kennedy is definitely tapping into this. The problem is all the ideological and legislative baggage that goes along with organic food. Our institutions are so firmly in place that it makes the rapid change required (isn’t that innovation almost by definition?) difficult or impossible. What will it take to get institutions to innovate and change? Individuals are one matter, but they are to many degrees at the mercy of their institutions. Until they agree to change them. Or they change because they must.I think that these changes have to be both top-down and bottom-up.
I have been passionately advocating for almost 20 years that the key innovations we need are environmental. We really don’t need any new flavors of Special K. We need sustainable packages, sustainable farm practices, sustainable lawn care and home heating.
Keep that great feedback coming.