"The function of education is not to make you fit into the social pattern; on the contrary, it is to help you to understand completely, deeply, fully, and thereby break away from the social pattern, so that you are an individual without that arrogance of self; but you have confidence because you are really innocent."
That's Krishnamurti talking about self-confidence as "the capacity to succeed within the social structure," versus confidence without a sense of self-importance, which is "the confidence of a child who is so completely innocent he will try anything."
I went back to look up this quote after listening to Sir Ken Robinson's witty and comedic intro on The Commonwealth Fund. I highly recommend it.
He talks about America as a society acknowledging that a standardized educational system creates standardized automatons. It's doing what it's built to do, so why should we be surprised by the outcome?
We rarely expose kids to the options they have. Budget cuts eliminate art and music programs, technology class and creative writing, foreign language and sports. The focus remains on the hard sciences and english, missing out on opportunities to introduce children to a variety of professions.
Not being able to try other career options without taking enormous risks continues through adulthood. Whether because of debt constraints, family responsibility, or simply a risk-averse personality, too many people live "actively disengaged" lives because they don't get exposed to what they may like and excel at.
There are two approaches towards change: 1) re-engineer the current educational system to be less standardized and more diverse in its teaching curriculum, and 2) create risk-free opportunities through internships, externships, sabbaticals, temporary leaves, 20% time, and paid volunteer hours for people to explore other options.
The first approach is a political issue and is slowly being disrupted by the entrepreneurial community through maker movements, online education, and new learning profile models of teaching.
The second approach is considered unrealistic since employers are highly unlikely to release their clutch on workers they've trained (but not necessarily cultivated). I consider training a sunk cost when the employee has no personal interest or curiosity in their work. What kind of production value comes from someone who inherently doesn't care about what they are doing and are simply waiting for the weekend to come around?
The payoff in allowing your employees to explore their options is other individuals will explore your company as an option. Highly motivated, engaged and curious individuals willing to treat work at your company as rewarding in and of itself will apply and get involved. 9-5'ers won't come in at 9:01 and leave at 4:59. They'll be thinking about "work" outside of a set time schedule because to them it's a part of who they are.
If the positive side isn't a good sell, consider saving all the money spent on workforce development programs and morale-boosting in-services and wellness programs geared towards mental health. Treating symptoms is costlier than striking at the root.
I'm curious whether there are companies thinking innovatively about HR, from recruitment to retention. What startups are working to build the new HR? Which entrepreneur is building a conduit for people to explore other options?