Innovation Deprivation

I feel increasingly disappointed lately; I am trying to find a job (the things with Summ()n don’t go well), and despite all the official talks about ‘revival of the economy’ and ‘hiring mood’ of the companies, I can’t say I see any traces of that, the jobs are still very scarce. What is ever more sad is this deep abyss between the officially proclaimed ‘open innovation’ and ‘creative approach’ to business and the grim reality with the companies and organizations installing the most rigid boxes where they try to squeeze the applicants to (ok, may be it’s not ‘good’ companies who do it, but ‘bad’ recruiters/HRMs, but on a recipient size it feels the same).

And of course all these blah-blah about ‘people-driven-customer-focussed’ business, that unfortunately remain exactly that, blah-blah. The least demanded jobs are of people researchers, of all sort – from traditional consumer and market researchers to social scientists, psychologist, ethnographers etc. And it’s not even my specific bad case, I hear similar complains from all all sorts of professionals in this area, who are also failing to find any signs of jobs for ages.

*sigh* It might be specifically Dutch case, or continental Europe case; I see more demand for these jobs in the US (but it also can be ‘grass is greener there’ a situation).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Innovation Deprivation

  1. Pingback: e-mediated nature « Playing Futures

  2. Alex says:

    least demanded jobs as they don’t solve CUSTOMER problems

  3. Alex says:

    “understanding” is a weak brand. nobody care. it’s like selling the “idea”

    • centralasian says:

      I agree that to only ‘understand’ is not enough, but without it you can’t make any changes either. In other words, it’s a necessary prerequisite, but alone is not enough. An alternative to good understanding is making tons of erratic efforts to ‘solve customer problems’ based on one’s assumptions of who are those ‘customers’ and what and why they do. It’s actually the same with your ‘idea’ example – to only have ‘idea’ is not enough, to run without an idea (at least a hypothesis) is plain stupid.

      I am also afraid that I didn’t make myself clear enough in the posting, or rather implicitly assumed that everyone would know my take on the ‘people research’ activities in the business. I refer here to my own practices, which were always more than mere ‘research’, but rather co-research with people leading to their involvement into co-design and eventually to co-creation. That I believe is very worth doing, and that, as I sadly see, is not happening enough. Without these next transformative steps research is indeed a waste of time and money.

      It is similar to psychotherapy: it’s pointless, dangerous even to undertake without psychodiagnostics; but just doing psychodiagnostics alone is pretty useless (unless you want to write another piece of ‘As discovered by the British psychologists’). When I refer to ‘people research’, I have in mind such an integral ‘think-do’ practice; but I am afraid this is not yet a common knowledge. I should write it more explicitly.

      Real Projects for Real People” could be a good example of such an integral approach. I though I write more often about such things, but alas.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s