Barrier:
The Way We Train Ph.D.s Drapes A Large, Cold, Wet Blanket Over Our Ability to Innovate Higher Education Infrastructure

Aaron -

Thanks for posting this. You have very valid points. Let me add a few things to reiterate what you said.

1. Every degree has its place. In his book, Henry Mintzberg showcased that MBA programs don't create managers. But neither do PhD programs. Yet, we appoint PhDs to run universities. PhDs shouldn't run universities. They should do research, which is what their degrees are designed for and what they are trained to do.

2. PhD is a degree in philosophy. PhDs know how to come up with ideas but don't know how to implement them. After all, philosophy is about talking, not implementation.

3. Because the PhD program relies heavily on research based on hard data, it draws lots of extremely detail oriented people. Those who aren't detail oriented, either drop out of their programs, fail, or stretch as much as they can to become detail oriented. As the Kirkton Adaptive Innovative Inventory states, people can either be detail oriented or innovative, but not both. This implies that PhDs simply can't be innovative.

Our educational system is a great living proof of what you are talking about. My research shows that students forget 80% of what they learn in school and can only apply less than half of what they do remember. There are techniques to overcome these problems. These techniques have existed for fifty years. Yet, schools don't want to implement them. Why bother changing if students believe in the status quo?

We all like to be copycats. Harvard created a system we use today. Back than it didn't matter. People believed so much in the Harvard brand that no one considered the effectiveness of Harvard's model. Because everyone took Harvard for granted, other universities copied Harvard and run their programs the same way. Now, 100 years later, no one wants to change.

Here's something interesting... I put together a framework that teaches universities how to be more effective. I pitched this framework to a dozen or so universities. When I talk to admissions people (who have no PhDs), they love the idea and are thankful that someone finally put something together than makes their product (education) meaningful. They all understand that they "sell" services with little or no value. However, when I talk to professors, deans, or people that design programs, they push back with all kinds of excuses for why they can't implement my framework. The most typical excuse is that their university is too bureaucratic or the fact that their brand already sells and they have no reason to change. One person who happened to be a program director in charge of a Master's program in a tier-1 business school told me that he hopes no one ever finds out about my framework. He further asked that I never contact anyone in his school again. Let me re-phrase the meaning of what he said: "I know our program sucks, but I am happy no one knows this besides you and we'll make sure no one ever finds out."

I think the reason this is true is because universities are run by PhDs. If we were to appoint business people with P&L responsibilities, they would reinvent the entire industry once every decade, just like I am trying to reinvent it right now.

BTW, a thought crossed my mind that maybe professors don't talk to me because they think my framework is fluff. Fortunately corporate universities are interested in talking to me, which is yet another proof that you need the right people to take charge of learning.

Hello Aaron,

I am not an authority - only a dilletante who enjoys the possible and emergence of Reality.

Your barrier made sense. The institution of PhDs has been around for too long to smell of roses. There is something very mechanical about it now as though it is not meant to be intelligent. It is possible the thought invested was pioneering for an age that is now past. What time has left us is a cog in a wheel.

Take the concept of Knowledge Management for instance. It was exciting in the 90s era when frontiers were expanding in multiple directions. Anything seemed possible with technology including the elimination of mistakes: if human error could be tagged heaven would follow. It did not, though possibly 80% of the MNCs invested in the concept. Time taught that first there was the concept of Team Learning that had to be realized and then personnel had to develop the skill of going beyond the mistake to understanding its Symptoms and finally tracking back - often in time - to the Root Cause. Signposts created by Patterns helped in the tracking. Unfortunately, all this application of Knowledge is complex to understand in a trice. Managements find it easier to follow the fad of Knowledge Management. There is safety in numbers and in doing the obvious. It is much easier to swat the fly that zings about and get respite for a few minutes than analyze what attracted it and remove the cause.

I conclude: PhD is an easy starting point for catching a particular kind of talent. The concept may not imply progress in a particular direction as you probably wish it to but it does fit into the way of things. It may be waste of an excellent opportunity but wheels turn and everyone is happy.

Hi Aaron

I have read your hack with the following criteria in mind:
- The need is to evolve out of Command & Control. Does the hack define an alternative?
- The alternative must be compelling. It must recognize the need to overcome the constraints of time, energy and motivation.
- An alternative without the use of technology is unlikely to succeed.
- The alternative must create a constructive collective by intrinsic means, i.e., desist from 'brain-washing' personnel for discipline and organization.

Your barrier highlights the problem with PhD training. I could not quite understand how the problem is related to the evolution of Management in general for raising innovation, and migration away from the Command & Control system in particular for enthusing the participation of personnel.

It is possible you see PhD's as potentially heavy contributors to innovation. I wish to make the following points:
- With all their focus and Research in an area of activity PhD's can at most have a link with invention. Innovation is a vastly different animal. It usually is a melding of multiple inventions brought together by a science. Even for inventions, Development is required. Perhaps the focus of a PhD program is pure Research, i.e., creation of Knowledge, and not its application.

- I do not think we can design education qualifications for innovation. Attitude, commitment and devotion are rather important considerations which cannot be incorporated in a degree. On the contrary, perhaps institutions can take on the responsibility of granting academic recognition to established innovators. This will enhance the exploitation of their expertise.

- I also do not think we should try to make a category like the PhD responsible for progressing innovation. They will presumably be paid for this expectation. This implies a lower expectation of innovation from the others. Not only would that be unhealthy but also insulting and rather unrealistic.

In conclusion it appears much more than just musing is needed to review the PhD program and the case to tie its future with innovation is rather weak.

Aaron, I was particularly interested in this topic and in the discussion surrounding it here. You make valid points about the need to reconfiguration. I was asked to address this topic recently in an annual keynote for the University of Kingston in Jamaica and I posted my 2-bits on a few considerations from where I sit here. http://www.brainleadersandlearners.com/multiple-intelligences/higher-edu...

In addition I will be helping to create a new online MBA program soon, because I wonderful young man I taught leadership to in his master program - went on to do a PhD and is now chair of the leadership program. It takes discourse like the exchange here, and it takes many talents to come together to make change happen in ways that are both meaningful and sustainable. Thanks for raising this topic and I’d love to see you add to it as you continue to reflect on the problems with solutions in mind! Think of the impact to an innovation generation, Aaron!