The easiest way to get a record deal from a major label is by already selling out tours, collaborating with major “brand name” artists and selling a million singles and albums. The easiest way to get a book deal is by having thousands of people already wanting a copy, already being a regular on Fox News and having a million dollars to spend on your book marketing campaign. The easiest way to get an internship is by already having an internship and the easiest way to get a promotion is by already taking on additional responsibilities and proving yourself in them. If you’re unemployed, there’s a bias against you and you aren’t as employable because you’re seen as risky. In other words, it’s easier to be more successful when you’re already successful because people are more willing to invest in you and feel less risk averse. It’s a catch 22.
I just watched the movie trailer for Thor 2, a film based off of a Marvel comic book series. Of course, there will be a Thor 3, 4, 5, etc. Hollywood will keep investing in films that are almost guaranteed to be profitable because of their fan base, top actors and well established brands. This is why books that sell millions of copies usually turn into movies. Even Inception, which some might consider a “risk” wasn’t really because they had Leonardo DiCaprio, an A-list actor. I’m still shocked that we haven’t seen a Wedding Crashers 2 or a Old School 2 but we probably will in the future.
Movies, books, bands and professionals who have huge potential usually won’t get invested in unless they are successful first. By the time they are successful, think of how much time has surpassed and how much talent was wasted. Candidates get filtered out of HR systems who are more than capable but don’t have the right keywords or haven’t had enough experience. This is similar to great movie idea that gets tossed out because it’s not a guarantee pay day.
I believe that we live in a world that is suffering from creativity because many of us don’t receive the same opportunities and aren’t given a fair chance. Think about the student who complained that all ivy league schools rejected her even though she was a near perfect student. If you aren’t the right person, at the right time, with the right background, you will suffer while the next person will thrive. This is why people complain that life is “unfair”. It’s unfair because it’s hard to unleash our creativity when people don’t invest in creativity unless it can make them money.
Social media has helped a lot of people get attention and advance based on creativity that “goes viral”. What about the creativity that doesn’t? What about all of those who have big ideas and thoughtful minds who won’t be heard? When I speak, I always mention that we have to think of ways to eliminate perceived risk as a way to get a job and advance in that job. If we don’t lower risk by taking on projects, even for free, and showing results, then we can end up unemployed and miserable.
In many ways, we have to play the game of “risk” until we achieve enough success to leverage that success and turn it into new opportunities. Of course there will be more obstacles, but it becomes easier to showcase your creative genius when people give you a platform, a job or a microphone. This is what we have to deal with in a bad economy when everyone is risk averse and those who don’t comply can easily be sidelined and their creativity lost.
It is my hope for the future that our systems and perspectives change, giving people a chance instead of filtering them out.
Pre-order Dan Schawbel’s highly anticipated new book,
Promote Yourself: The New Rules For Career Success.
Dan, Great post. I agree about record labels, movies, etc. But regarding careers, the web is bringing a breakdown that is actually a good thing. In our parents time, that Ivy League degree was very important to a career. Now, because of the web, anybody can make it much easier than before.
In my own case, I have never taken a marketing course or business course. I got a “C” in the only English class I ever took. There is no way I could have gotten a book deal in the old system. There is now way I would be invited to speak around the world if it was all about “credentials.” But today, because of the ability to publish on the web, even “losers” like me can win.
I think for many people an Ivy League degree can be a hinderance because of the expectations of society for them to take a certain path.
Thanks for a thought-provoking post! I do agree with David above that the web has been a great equalizer in terms of not having to be an ‘ivy leaguer’ to get ahead. However, that being said, many thousands have also tried and failed online.
I also agree with you that many talented people out there are missing out due to just needing someone to take that risk on them – I suspect this same complaint has been made across time. Sometimes the only thing you can do is take your future into your own hands and take the risk yourself on your own venture…(and in my experience if you want it badly enough you will find a way).
Dan,
Interesting find (via your newsletter) as I just recently watched a TED Talk asking whether or not Schools Kill Creativity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY. Makes you wonder what was more useful, being locked outside as a kid until dinner or dark to play with the neighbor kids as far as you could bike or hike (creativity make-do), or being driven to flute at 2:00, piano at 4:00, and dance at 6:00 (structured creativity). I guess that’s better than being driven to math tudor at 2:00, science tudor at 4:00 and engineering tudor at 6:00. But back to your recruitment example, having to work for book (and beer) money back home vs. taking an unpaid internship in Indiana (when from Boston) made getting the first job very creative. Telling the the HR director I’ll just pull a George Castanza and come in and work for the PR Director until someone notices me. Got me the interview, and eventually the job.
I agree with you Dan that the job landscape has shifted enormously and that creativity is not highly valued. In fact, the more we are in an environment of change, the more some employers revert to the status quo. Historically this has meant white men and a few white women. I am neither, and have been told I don’t fit the paradigm. And guess what, I never will nor do I wish to. And so, the only addition I would add is the need to reshift the dynamics. Your podcast puts the responsibility for change on the employer. I think in this day and age, potential employees have to be aggressive about seeking out opportunities and about rebranding themselves. I have multiple resumes and I seek feedback constantly on I’d they hit the mark. I’ve rewritten my résumé over 40 times in the last year. I am in constant tweak mode. The same for LinkedIn. Does it reflect where you want to go or simply describe where you’ve been? Finally, if you are using Twitter to tell the world that you are shopping or watching football– stop tweeting. Who cares! You will attract attention to yourself when you have something substantive to say. Also, remember tweets are public and your future employer can find those mindless tweets, so manage your online image well. Just my point of view. As for the WSJ article, I subtitled it “Angry at Diversity.” Rather than critically analyzing the admissions process as inherently flawed, the writer targeted minorities as the reason she didn’t get accepted into her Ivy League schools. Her assumption was that she would always be better than any minority who often have to be twice as excellent, and ironically didn’t see her dream seat as being occupied by student athletes or alumni offspring who may not have had her credentials. In the end, maybe the admissions people saw beneath her fake veneer of tolerance and decided that in a globally complex and diverse world, they need not waste their resources on such a closed minded student.
Dan, this is a timely post, indeed. As a Mom and a Grandmother, I am appalled at the way today’s society tramples on creative endeavors and punishes children for being creative. How important is it that a child be exposed to dance, music, art, and creativity – just as important as English, History and Math. Yet, our schools are trapped in mediocrity, in training for training’s sake, and pushing study for tests that measure how well one memorizes – while often causing such anxiety, the great kids don’t do as well as they could (or we think they ‘should’).
Life isn’t all about how well you do in school. It’s about living and learning and being a participant in the world around you. So, I agree that we live in a world that is intent, it seems, on squashing creativity, but I also think we, you, me, and the rest of us participating in this new world of ‘social’ have a duty to encourage all kids to explore their creativity – not for what it will do FOR them. But, instead, they should embrace art and music and all forms of learning, for what the sheer pleasure of it. Being human makes creativity a necessity. Being stuck in a chair at a desk all day, at school or work, negates the human nature to express freedom in ways other than pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard.
Ah! How we boomers miss those long summers outdoors – unstructured play – dirt under our nails – playing hopscotch or freeze tag. We learned a lot during those moments of play – and it wasn’t about becoming rich and famous when we grew up. It was about us and our environment and no schooling in the world can teach that.. without opening the door and letting you out.
Sorry for the tangent. Truth is – parents need to start rewarding creativity and demanding their kids get to experience it at school, also. And, we need to stop thinking book learning is the only learning there is. In the end, is it a risk adverse society that’s at fault… or is it the material world we created…that pushes us to risk adverse beliefs and actions?