Stacie Bloom on What Makes a World Class Science Institution

In Chapter 13 of 18 in her 2012 Capture Your Flag interview, Neuroscience Institute Executive Director Stacie Grossman Bloom answers "What Is Your Experience Teaching You About What It Takes to Build a World Class Scientific Organization?"  Bloom notes it requires being 1) Global; 2) Excellent; and 3) Multi-Sectoral.  Bloom notes "world class" requires working across global cultural boundaries, across scientific disciplines, and doing so  while consistently performing at the top quartile or better of a peer group. 

Stacie Grossman Bloom is Executive Director for the Neuroscience Institute at the NYU Langone Medical Center.  Previously, she was VP and Scientific Director at the New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) and, before that, held editorial roles at the Journal of Clinical Investigation and Nature Medicine.  She earned her BA in chemistry and psychology from the University of Delaware, her PhD in Neurobiology and Cell Biology at Georgetown University and did post-doctoral training in Paul Greengard's Nobel Laboratory of Molecular & Cellular Neuroscience at Rockefeller University. 

Transcript: 

Erik Michielsen:  What is your experience teaching you about what it takes to build a world-class scientific organization? 

Stacie Grossman Bloom:  I think in order to be really a world-class institution, you know it’s very easy to tout yourself as, oh, we’re world-class, to be truly world-class, you have to really be global, and you have to be excellent, and you have to be multi-sectoral. I think that you can’t really have a world-class institution or you can’t call yourself a world-class institution if you’re very isolated or insular or siloed you have to work across boundaries, scientific boundaries, cultural boundaries, you have to be metric oriented, you have to prove yourself to be in the top quartile of performers, internationally. And I think only then can you say that you’re really world-class. 

Stacie Bloom on How Increasing Diversity Improves Communities

In Chapter 15 of 18 in her 2012 Capture Your Flag interview, Neuroscience Institute Executive Director Stacie Grossman Bloom answers "What Have You Found to Be the Keys to Build More Effective Communities?"  Bloom feels more effective communities can be built with multi-sector stakeholders.  The background diversity helps the community learn from each other from its different backgrounds, experiences and problem solving approaches. 

Stacie Grossman Bloom is Executive Director for the Neuroscience Institute at the NYU Langone Medical Center.  Previously, she was VP and Scientific Director at the New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) and, before that, held editorial roles at the Journal of Clinical Investigation and Nature Medicine.  She earned her BA in chemistry and psychology from the University of Delaware, her PhD in Neurobiology and Cell Biology at Georgetown University and did post-doctoral training in Paul Greengard's Nobel Laboratory of Molecular & Cellular Neuroscience at Rockefeller University. 

Transcript: 

Erik Michielsen:  What have you found to be the keys to building more effective communities?

Stacie Grossman Bloom:  I think more effective communities are built when you bring multi-sector stakeholders to the table. I think an effective community is one that comprises individuals with all sorts of backgrounds who can bring their own experiences and their own perspectives to the table. I think usually that’s a community who can really learn from each other, who really represent a broad spectrum of ideas and experiences and problem solving techniques, so those multi-sector communities, I think are really the most effective.

Stacie Bloom on Managing Across Work Disciplines

In Chapter 16 of 18 in her 2012 Capture Your Flag interview, Neuroscience Institute Executive Director Stacie Grossman Bloom answers "How Are You Learning to Work More Effectively Across Different Disciplines?"  For Bloom it starts with respecting the different cultures within each discipline.  This allows her to then find better ways to encourage and support collaboration across disciplines.  She shares her experience doing so encouraging translational research between basic scientists and clinical scientists. 

Stacie Grossman Bloom is Executive Director for the Neuroscience Institute at the NYU Langone Medical Center.  Previously, she was VP and Scientific Director at the New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) and, before that, held editorial roles at the Journal of Clinical Investigation and Nature Medicine.  She earned her BA in chemistry and psychology from the University of Delaware, her PhD in Neurobiology and Cell Biology at Georgetown University and did post-doctoral training in Paul Greengard's Nobel Laboratory of Molecular & Cellular Neuroscience at Rockefeller University. 

Transcript: 

Erik Michielsen:  How are you learning to work more effectively across different disciplines?

Stacie Grossman Bloom:  I think I’m learning to work more effectively across different disciplines simply by virtue of having a better understanding of the perspectives of those different disciplines. Understanding that different disciplines have different cultures, and learning as a supervisor or a manager how to serve role with that, how to adapt my expectations to that, how to encourage collaborations between people who have different perspectives.

You know, one specific example is, and it’s funny, it’s just very timely, so we had this meeting last week, it was called the translational interface committee, and this is a group of department chairs, from the basic science side and from the clinical side, so the chairman of Neurology and a Neuroscience researcher, a big meeting, and we talked a lot about how do we encourage translational research, how can we get clinicians into the labs, to understand the basic science so that they can go back and treat the patient with schizophrenia or Parkinson’s disease. 

Those cultures are really different, the culture of a clinical scientist is very different from the culture of a basic scientist, and it’s very interesting to put those populations of people together. It’s usually very successful, it’s very collaborative, it’s—ends up being very collegial but there might be a little bit hesitance on the clinician’s part to go into the lab because the science can be a little bit intimidating. These are very smart people but it’s a different training, it’s a little bit of a different background and from the basic scientist part, the clinician may be a little bit intimidating, you know, that’s the person who’s going head-to-head with the patient and solving the problems in the clinic. 

So I think breaking down that wall and showing people that what you, sort of what you perceive to be intimidating or what you perceive to be a cultural difference, you know, in reality when you get two people in a room they’re usually okay.

Stacie Bloom on How Life Science Career Paths Are Changing

In Chapter 17 of 18 in her 2012 Capture Your Flag interview, Neuroscience Institute Executive Director Stacie Grossman Bloom answers "What Has Your Experience Taught You About How Science Careers are Changing?"  Bloom notes that with more life science PhDs being awarded then ever before, there is a supply and demand mismatch for purely academic jobs.  Bloom notes that people trained as scientists are not aware what else they can do with a PhD.  Bloom calls for more scientific or education training for alternative science careers. 

Stacie Grossman Bloom is Executive Director for the Neuroscience Institute at the NYU Langone Medical Center.  Previously, she was VP and Scientific Director at the New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) and, before that, held editorial roles at the Journal of Clinical Investigation and Nature Medicine.  She earned her BA in chemistry and psychology from the University of Delaware, her PhD in Neurobiology and Cell Biology at Georgetown University and did post-doctoral training in Paul Greengard's Nobel Laboratory of Molecular & Cellular Neuroscience at Rockefeller University. 

Transcript: 

Erik Michielsen:  What has your experience taught you about how science careers are changing?

Stacie Grossman Bloom:  I think my experiences just being involved in the scientific fields, especially in life science, has shown me that we’re awarding more PhD’s than ever before, there are a lot of people who just by virtue of sheer numbers cannot follow that traditional academic path, cannot end up in that in that ivory tower, and there are a lot of people who are there for either by choice or simply by virtue of the fact that they just can’t compete off looking for alternative types of careers, and by alternative I just mean anything outside of the traditional lab, whether it be academic or pharmaceutical company, biotech, what I see and sort of what I hear is that people trained as scientists aren’t really aware of what the possibilities are for them. What else can you do with a PhD and the truth is you can do a lot, but having the ability to take your skill set and adjust it for a new career, people with PhD’s aren’t being trained to do that, and the academic institutions may be a little bit hesitant to provide that training because the head of the lab wants to train the next Nobel prize winner, I don’t know if they’re as interested in training the next executive director of  the NYU Neuroscience Institute, or the next editor of Nature Medicine, they want to get the biggest return on their investment in you, and they’re investing a lot in you, so I think that there’s a great need to educate people with science backgrounds on other things that they can do, alternative types of careers and I don’t think we’re really providing enough of that just yet. 

Erik Michielsen:  What do you think would help get that process started?

Stacie Grossman Bloom:  So that process is starting a little bit. So when you go to a large scientific meeting, there’s usually one session about alternative careers and the room is usually packed and I’ve been a speaker at a lot of these. At NYU, we have a bi-annual event called “What can you be with a PHD” where there are panels of people who are doing really interesting other things, and that event is attended by almost 2,000 people, I think, the last one. So there’s obviously this great need for it and I think also some of the big scientific journals like Nature, I know for example has nature jobs network that’s not just focused on, you know, where to get a postdoc, where to get a professorship, so it’s starting, and I think as more of us end up in high-profile alternative careers and can be mentors to other people, you know, you hope that you’re the beginning of a larger group that’s going to encourage this kind of thing.

Stacie Bloom on Planning a STEM Career in Scientific Research

In Chapter 18 of 18 in her 2012 Capture Your Flag interview, Neuroscience Institute Executive Director Stacie Grossman Bloom answers "What Opportunities Do You See to Better Encourage People to Careers in the Sciences?"  Bloom notes the push toward promoting STEM - science, technology, engineering, and math - careers.  She also notes the need for role models.  She then details the distinct challenges presented in scientific research careers, from the competitive education constraints to the financial constraints of National Institute of Health (NIH) early career salaries. 

Stacie Grossman Bloom is Executive Director for the Neuroscience Institute at the NYU Langone Medical Center.  Previously, she was VP and Scientific Director at the New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) and, before that, held editorial roles at the Journal of Clinical Investigation and Nature Medicine.  She earned her BA in chemistry and psychology from the University of Delaware, her PhD in Neurobiology and Cell Biology at Georgetown University and did post-doctoral training in Paul Greengard's Nobel Laboratory of Molecular & Cellular Neuroscience at Rockefeller University.

Transcript: 

Erik Michielsen:  What opportunities do you see to better encourage people to pursue careers in the sciences? 

Stacie Grossman Bloom:  So, you know, in this country, I think there’s a big emphasis now on trying to improve STEM: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education in younger people. I think that in order to pursue a career in research, there have to be role models and incentives, it’s not the same as law or finance or business where you know that you can go out and become a very successful person. A life in scientific research is unbelievably daunting and challenging, for a lot of reasons, I mean first of all, it’s hard. You go to school for a very long time, but when you get out of school, after 5 years, for doing a PhD, at that point, you’re generally about 30 years old, sometimes older, sometimes younger, you still have to go and do a postdoc, and postdoc salaries are really dictated by the NIH, by the National Institutes of Health. And those salaries are very hard to live on. 

So a starting postdoc, a 30-year-old person with a PhD might be making $42,000 a year, and you can see why many people maybe wouldn’t choose that path, but even if you do choose that path, and you are gonna live on $42,000 a year in a place like New York City, which—a lot of people do it. Obviously I did it. And at the time, not even making $42,000 a year, I think my salary was $33,000 a year. You know, you still have a very challenging future ahead of you if you’re on the track that where you’re pursuing the traditional scientific career, where you do a postdoc, maybe you do a second postdoc, and then you interview for an assistant professor, tenure track assistant professor job, and get on, you know, the path to a tenured full professor position, maybe even a chairman position. 

There’s a big drop off at the postdoc stage because making that transition to the next phase is really, really difficult because you have to be unbelievably successful scientifically, you have to publish your work. It would be great if you were funded independently as a researcher, and then those positions for assistant professors, associate professors, full professors, they just don’t come up very often. So it’s hard to be positively reinforced I think, and it’s hard to succeed. I mean it’s hard to compete with the giant pool of postdocs that are out there.

Erik Michielsen:  Where’s the inflection point, how do you make it easier?

Stacie Grossman Bloom:  I don’t think it’s going to become easier until the NIH changes their funding structure. The budget for the NIH has been basically flat for a while, which doesn’t give you a lot of incentive to go that route. I mean the success of your grand proposal is not very promising. I think there have to be big changes in the way that we support scientists and fund scientists in this country.

Simon Sinek on How Parents Support Career Change Decision

In Chapter 1 of 16 in his 2012 Capture Your Flag interview, author and public speaker Simon Sinek answers "Where Has Your Family Been Most Supportive in Your Career Development?"  Sinek talks about his time studying law in London and deciding to drop out of law school for a career in advertising.  He notes that while his parents did much to influence Sinek to stay in school, ultimately they gave him space to make his own decision and, once decided, supported him in that decision.  Simon Sinek teaches leaders and organizations how to inspire people.  His goal is to "inspire people to do the things that inspire them" and help others find fulfillment in their work.  Sinek is the author of "Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action".  He works regularly with the United States Military, United States Congress, and many organizations, agencies and entrepreneurs.  Sinek is an adjunct professor at Columbia University and an adjunct staff member at the think tank RAND Corporation.  Sinek earned a BA in Cultural Anthropology from Brandeis University.

Transcript

Erik Michielsen:  Where has your family been most supportive in your career development?

Simon Sinek:  When I graduated college, I went to law school. And after not quite a year of law school, I realized that I didn’t wanna be a lawyer. And so I decided that I was gonna drop out of law school. And I never fought so much with my parents than during this time and to make it even worse, I was living in London, going to law school there, and so they—I didn’t see them everything was over the phone, and I remember my parents tried everything. They played good cop-bad cop. They tried bribing me. They tried saying, we’re your parents and you’re gonna do this. They tried being my friend like, look, just get your law degree, then you can do anything you want. I mean, every strategy that exists, they tried, right? They tried ganging up on me, they tried leaving me alone. I mean, everything. You name it.

And my dad came to—And at the time I wanted to go in to marketing. I wanted to go into—join the ad world, right? And my dad was in England on a business trip, at about the time that I had to re-enroll, and he sits down with me, and says, so? I remember it. We were sitting in our friend’s house, a mutual friend of his, we were sitting in their house in their living room. I remember this scene exactly. And he says to me, so? And I said, I didn’t re-enroll. And the first words out of his mouth were, right, let’s get you into advertising then.

My parents were 100% against me until the decision was made, then after that point they’re 100% supportive and never, ever, ever raised it ever again. They never said, wouldn’t it have been nice or I guess this was—they literally never mentioned it again. And so I have to say, my—I’ve been very lucky in my life which is my parents will give advice, my parents will give strong advice, my parents will try and push and move you know where they would like their children to go but ultimately, once the kids have made the decision they’re 100% supportive. And so I’ve been very lucky.

Simon Sinek on How to Make Better Choices and Live More Fully

In Chapter 11 of 16 in his 2012 Capture Your Flag interview, author and public speaker Simon Sinek answers "How Are You Learning to Make Better Decisions?"  To Sinek, decision making comes down to using personalized filters that help him achieve outcomes in line with his purpose.  He shares an example from choosing classes in college and how the outcome - good class vs. bad class, engaged learning vs. boredom - helped him start to shape his approach.  Simon Sinek teaches leaders and organizations how to inspire people.  His goal is to "inspire people to do the things that inspire them" and help others find fulfillment in their work.  Sinek is the author of "Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action".  He works regularly with the United States Military, United States Congress, and many organizations, agencies and entrepreneurs.  Sinek is an adjunct professor at Columbia University and an adjunct staff member at the think tank RAND Corporation.  Sinek earned a BA in Cultural Anthropology from Brandeis University.

Transcript

Erik Michielsen:  How are you learning to make better decisions?

Simon Sinek:  Decision-making is a process. The question is what filters are you using to make decisions? Are you making decisions based on the financial rewards? Are you making decisions based on how easy the work will be? I remember in college, they would give you this book where they –all the students would rate the classes and they would rate things like how easy the class was and how much they liked the professor. And, you know, the first year, I picked all my classes based on workload, and I picked everything a low workload, you know? And pretty bored, didn’t work very hard, which was fine, but nothing was dynamic, and nothing really excited me, and I, thank goodness, learned that. And so the second year, I picked all my classes by professor rating, regardless of the workload, so every class I had, I had these dynamic amazing incredible human beings passing on their knowledge and you were excited to work hard for them.

And so again, the question is what are the filters we’re using, and so if you’re only chasing the mighty dollar, then you’ll have jobs that’ll pay you a little more than the last but are you enjoying yourself? And I talked to a guy recently who was in a—he’s in bad shape like he really hates his life and he’s really depressed, and he doesn’t know what to do. And so we’re going through all his old jobs, you know, and I said, give me a job that you’ve loved, and he hadn’t, every single job he’s chosen out of college, he picked because of the money, and if something offered him more somewhere else, he took it. You know? Regardless. And the amazing thing is he plateaued because if you’re only chasing the result, if you’re only chasing the thing that makes it easy, right? Then eventually you will get bored, or they’ll get bored of you, right? And you plateau. In other words, chasing the almighty dollar, if that’s your only thing, it eventually flattens out, whereas if you’re chasing the thing that excites you, the human beings to be around, the work that excites you, the stuff that you know, you can get passionate about, the irony is, is you’ll actually make way, way more, right?

Because you’re excited and they appreciate your excitement and they reward your excitement, and you’re better at your work because you wanna work harder and all of that stuff. You don’t have the strain to work harder. So decision-making is simply a matter of filters. And so I’ve made decisions in my life that I would rather be happy than right, I’d rather do good than get rich. And so the decisions I make put me in positions where when I leave any engagement, when I leave any meeting, I feel that I’ve contributed, right? Rare are the times any more where you walk around going, just think of the money, just think of the money, think of the money, because it doesn’t feel nice. And the experience I have I don’t enjoy traveling to them and I don’t enjoy traveling home, where if I have an amazing experience, I’m looking forward to getting there and I’m excited when I leave. So it’s just decision—decision-making is just a matter of what filters you use, and if you’re good about keeping those filters up and clear then make your decision. I don’t judge anybody by how—if they choose to use different filters, these are just the filters I choose to live my life. Not right or wrong, just those are my decisions. That’s my filter.

Using Journalism Education in a Business Career - Ross Floate

In Chapter 5 of 20 in his 2012 interview, branding and design strategist Ross Floate answers "How Has Your Journalism Education Been Useful in Your Business Career?"  For Floate, journalism skills that teach finding out the fundamentals of a particular issue is hugely useful.  Additionally, the problem solving skills and also the inquisitive skills that come with finding the truth prove very helpful in business settings.  Ross Floate is a principal at Melbourne, Australia-based Floate Design Partners.  Experienced in branding, design and both online and offline publishing, Floate and his team provide marketing services to clients seeking to better communicate business and culture goals via image, messaging, and story. He is a graduate of RMIT University.

How to Fix Entrepreneurship Skill Gaps in Education - Richard Moross

In Chapter 8 of 17 in his 2012 interview, London entrepreneur and Moo.com CEO Richard Moross answers "How Can the Education System Better Prepare Entrepreneurs?"  Moross notes the high occurrence of the education system failing to educate entrepreneurs.  He notes the importance of education teaching core skills such as how to argue, how to make a case and how to plan strategy.  He finds it is less about teaching students how to start companies and more about providing access and training to core skills, especially programming or writing code, as well as a broader cultural education that starting a company is a viable career option.  Moross is founder and CEO of Moo.com and a leader in the London startup scene.  Before starting Moo.com, an award-winning online print business, Moross was a strategist at Imagination, the world's largest independent design company.  He graduated from the University of Sussex, where he majored in philosophy and politics.

Joe stump on How an Entrepreneur Learns the Startup Investing Game

In Chapter 12 of 14 in his 2012 interview, Internet entrepreneur Joe Stump answers "How Have Your Entrepreneurial Pursuits Taught You to Be a Better Investor?"  After raising money for three companies, advising a venture capital firm and investing his own money in three companies, Stump shares what he has learned about startup investing.  He describes the portfolio theory approach VC firms take and how as an entrepreneur he has learned to compete as a portfolio firm.  He learns the mechanics of angel, seed, series A and series B investing and how to negotiate contract terms.  Joe Stump is a serial entrepreneur based in Portland, OR. He is CEO and co-founder of Sprint.ly, a product management software company.  Previously he founded SimpleGeo, which was sold to Urban Airship in October 2011.  He advises several startups - including attachments.me and ngmoco:) - as well as VC firm Freestyle Capital.  He earned a BBA in Computer Information Systems (CIS) from Eastern Michigan University. 

Transcript:

Erik Michielsen: How have your entrepreneurial pursuits taught you to be a better investor?

Joe Stump: So, I've been involved in a number of ways with venture capital, raising money. I've raised money now for two companies myself and I've helped a third company raise money as well. I'm a fund adviser for Freestyle Capital and I've invested my own money into three companies now. And the things that I have learned are that there are billions of dollars that are being deployed in what at times appears to be a very chaotic manner.

VCs work off of portfolio theory. They invest in a hundred companies and they expect 95 of them to fail for the most part. And what that lesson taught me as an entrepreneur is if you're one of those 95, guess what, you are competing with 95 other people for probably 20 percent of their time because they're spending the other 80 percent of their time on the five winners. So, that’s a harsh reality to learn but it's good to know and I think that there are times when getting the attention of your VC and your investors can actually be a bad thing. I mean, not that they're bad people or whatever, but it's nice to sometimes work without having the pressure.

So, I know founders that will withhold good information for just a little while longer so that they can have a little bit more breathing room and then they're like, “Ta-Da! We're one of the five!” and then the VCs are like, herd over. And they’re like …  and they bear hug them, you know, and they’re like oh god. It's like when your mom gives you a hug, you're like, “Mom, stop.” You know.

So, that’s been interesting to learn about. The way that... What's been really fascinating to me is like someone like me that dress like me, looks like me, says the F word as much as I do, can walk into a guy’s office who manages billions of dollars and then I’ll show him -- well, with my last company, I didn’t even have a PowerPoint presentation. I didn’t even have a presentation. I had a financial model in Google Docs, a product document, and a prototype and they were just like, “Oh yeah. Let me pull out the check book, and just write you a giant check with lots of commas in it” and you're like, “Really?” It seems -- Growing up in a blue color family in the Midwest, it seems like you're cheating somehow, like you're stealing money or whatever. So, that’s been really interesting.

A lot of people on the outside view it as like oh this – that the firms don’t really talk with each other and that they're always competing and they do compete for deals. But it's not really like that at all. They talk a lot to each other, they will actually -- I won’t say fully collude but I mean there are a lot of times that the VCs are back channeling with each other a lot more than entrepreneurs really realize. And then you just learn the basic mechanics like I know now that Angel investors, depending on the Angel investor, they want between a half a point and one and a half percent. They want enough that we’ll take their $20,000 to $100,000 investment and turn it into a million dollars, right? If you're the first point and a half in, that can happen if it’s one of those five companies.

I now know that seed stage, they generally want between 12.5% and 17% of the company. I know that the series A wants 20 percent, series B, things start going back down because hopefully by then you're making money and what not then looking at more anywhere between 10% and 20% and the C is definitely kind of in the 10% range. So the basic mechanics of understanding how that game is played has been invaluable to me.

I've been able to negotiate better terms for myself, I have been able to…I advise a number of companies, I've been able to return sheets over and tell them, “Hey! Maybe we shouldn’t do that. Maybe we should do this,” and getting clear insight into how the VCs interact with each other and who likes who and who doesn’t like who and how they work together has made me a much stronger -- I won’t say opponent, but like when I go into the ring with those guys, like I know who’s going to say what to who and how that’s going to all work out. And knowing the players in the game makes you a better player.

I almost feel like one of the best defensive basketball players of all time: Dennis Rodman. That man watched hundreds of thousands of hours of video and it was all so that he could know his players, his opponents inside and out. And being an adviser, being a fund adviser, investing my money, et cetera, that’s my way in to understanding the game and my opponents and who I'm going to be going up against as far as the next -- who goes on down the line and getting insight into their mentality.

I read an interview once about Dennis Rodman and they were talking about how much of a fanatic he was about watching tapes and he got so good at it that he could literally say by the time the guy flicked his wrist – so you’re talking about the ball is maybe one-third of the way to the rim. He will be like, “That’s going to bounce off the back of the rim off the left side. That’s going to bounce off the front of the rim straight down the lane.” That’s how good he was. Doing that has taken me from being a blue-collar kid that grew up in a cornfield to somebody who can negotiate contracts with some of the best MBAs that our country has and it's really fun.

Jon Kolko on What Makes Design Work Meaningful

In Chapter 2 of 21 in his 2012 Capture Your Flag interview, design educator Jon Kolko answers "What Makes Your Work Meaningful?"  Kolko finds meaningful work in design work that is done well.  He understands all projects may not be meaningful to him but still finds meaning in the process of design and problem.  In his initiative starting a design school, Kolko pushes the conversation to understand how to encapsulate meaning in a way that makes sense for all people in a group and the social entrepreneurship methodology helping to enable it. 

Jon Kolko the founder and director of the Austin Center for Design.  He has authored multiple books on design, including "Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving."  Previously he has held senior roles at venture accelerator Thinktiv and frog design and was a professor of Interactive and Industrial Design at the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD).  Kolko earned his Masters in Human Computer Interaction (MHI) and BFA in Design from Carnegie Mellon University.

Transcript: 

Erik Michielsen: What makes your work meaningful?

Jon Kolko: For me, meaningful work is extremely simple. It’s design work that’s done well and in a weird sort of way, I can feel that way about work that is meaningless and I feel bad about it. 

And so as an example, I can pick up contract work, and I have over the last three or four years – for let's call it like giant conglomerate company that sells ringtones or big, fat, company that sells computer parts, and screens, and LCDs and stuff. And that’s meaningless work. But I can lose myself in it as in any other design or creative sense and it will be meaningful to me. I will feel great as a result of doing it. It's only when you take that sort of step back and go, “What am I'm doing? Why is this worth it? Why is this worth my time?” 

So the larger conversation that we have at AC4D a lot is around how do you encapsulate meaning in a way that makes sense for all of the people that are part of that group? And we've come to this very simple tool that we stole from policy and fields of social entrepreneurship called “Theory of Change” and a theory of change is a logic model. It's a way of saying that the world will be better if. It's a hypothesis. The world will be better if there were no homeless people. Ok, that’s a statement. It's probably impossible for me to ever achieve that goal in my life and I don’t even try. But if we back off of that, you can say, well, in order to get to a point where that is true, homeless people need to have houses and feel empowered to get jobs and stop doing self-destructive behavior. Ok, well either -- any of those three are too big to think so let's back off of that. Alright, self-empower, how do we get there? Well, I can start to think about how design can drive something to help somebody be self-empowered. So that’s a theory of change. 

And so, I can start to vet projects within that theory of change and say do they support that logic model or not? And if they do, then that’s work worth doing and that’s meaningful. And if they don’t, then it's not.

Jon Kolko on Finding Joy Changing Careers From Business to Teaching

In Chapter 3 of 21 in his 2012 Capture Your Flag interview, design educator Jon Kolko answers "What Do You Enjoy Most About What You Do?"  Kolko discusses making the transition working as a design professional to teaching design at the school he founded.  He discusses the rush he gets in the classroom and across parts of the "ivory tower" experience such as reading, researching and writing about complex problems. 

Jon Kolko the founder and director of the Austin Center for Design.  He has authored multiple books on design, including "Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving."  Previously he has held senior roles at venture accelerator Thinktiv and frog design and was a professor of Interactive and Industrial Design at the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD).  Kolko earned his Masters in Human Computer Interaction (MHI) and BFA in Design from Carnegie Mellon University.

Transcript: 

Erik Michielsen: What do you enjoy most about what you do?

Jon Kolko: I loved everything about design. I just love being a designer doing creative design work, making things. I've sort of transitioned in the last couple of years. So being called an academic has always sort of stung me like ah, that’s bad. In the last three years, I've decided that in fact, I am an academic and it's good. And so, I think in the same sort of excitement and personal rush that you get from doing creative design work. I also now get from teaching. And so, that’s sort of have been a revelation to me that it's okay to live in an intellectual ivory tower to some degree as long as you make that ivory tower accessible. I don’t feel bad that I enjoy reading and writing and thinking about complex problems. And so, for me, that’s been something that’s been making me really, really happy recently is any time I can spend actually teaching in a classroom. Weirdly, I'm spending less and less time teaching in a classroom because as the Austin Center for Design is more successful, there's more administrative crap to do. I don’t mind doing the crap. It's called crap because it's not fun but it's also not bad because it's still my baby. I'm still really enjoying it. I could see in the future that would definitely be something for somebody else to do but for the time being, anything that’s related to teaching and design is really, really giving me a lot of pleasure.

Jon Kolko: Why Entrepreneurial Leadership Starts With Passion

In Chapter 5 of 21 in his 2012 Capture Your Flag interview, design educator Jon Kolko answers "What Does It Mean to Be a Leader in What You Do?"  Kolko looks at what he has learned about developing as a leader through the lens of his students.  For him, he sees drive, passion, resiliency and curiosity form the foundation that help select entrepreneurs thrive professionally and lead in their respective fields.  Jon Kolko the founder and director of the Austin Center for Design.  He has authored multiple books on design, including "Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving."  Previously he has held senior roles at venture accelerator Thinktiv and frog design and was a professor of Interactive and Industrial Design at the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD).  Kolko earned his Masters in Human Computer Interaction (MHI) and BFA in Design from Carnegie Mellon University.

Transcript: 

Erik Michielsen: What does it mean to be a leader in what you do?

Jon Kolko: I think that there are a lot of things around confidence that play into leadership. I think there’s qualities of charisma but I don’t know. I feel like those are ancillary. I feel like there's something else at the core and it might actually have to do with drive and passion. I have a hard time looking at myself through that lens. 

So maybe we could look in some of my students through that lens and the students that are most successful in starting companies, meaning in becoming leaders, seem to have an unending passion for whatever it is they're doing. And so, when you do anything in design or business, it's a constant struggle. When you start your own company, which you know it's a huge constant struggle and it almost feels from one perspective like anything that can go wrong will go wrong over and over and over, and it takes a certain unending passion to get through that because it's very easy and it's almost like the logical thing to do is to give up and at some point to just throw in the towel and say it's easier to go to work for somebody else or do something else. But I've just seen in the students that have graduated that have formed these companies and then going on to be successful, each time something sort of difficult or complicated comes at them or a reason why they should give up, the ones that are truly passionate about it don’t and use it to somehow gain leverage on a situation to turn it into something positive. 

That probably begs the question of what is passion and I'm not sure I have like a ready flip answer for it, but it does seem like just a massive curiosity and a need to know things, and that passion in the context of a business is contained within the business. But generally it's just a thirst to know how the world works right? And how people are and why things are the way they are.

Jon Kolko on How Reflecting Benefits a Creative Career

In Chapter 6 of 21 in his 2012 Capture Your Flag interview, design educator Jon Kolko answers "How Has Reflection Contributed to Your Leadership Development?"  Kolko begins by discussing how he has incorporated reflection into the curriculum experience for his design students.  He continues detailing is own reflective process and why it is important to have the inner dialogue before making bold, provocative statements. 

Jon Kolko the founder and director of the Austin Center for Design.  He has authored multiple books on design, including "Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving."  Previously he has held senior roles at venture accelerator Thinktiv and frog design and was a professor of Interactive and Industrial Design at the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD).  Kolko earned his Masters in Human Computer Interaction (MHI) and BFA in Design from Carnegie Mellon University.

Transcript: 

Erik Michielsen: How has reflection contributed to you leadership development?

Jon Kolko: It plays a huge role in the process of design sort of outside of my own personal experiences. We bake into the curriculum constant reflection from the students at Austin Center for Design. So a typical agile MVP or always in beta process is one where you do stuff and then you test it and then there has to be a moment where you stop and you go like, “What just happened?” And that is reflection and it’s incredibly easy to skip that and to simply impulsively respond to data rather than interpreting it. 

Reflection is a form of interpretation and so it's an assignment of meaning and it's going to be wrong sometimes. And so, it's easy to skip and simply use the data at face value which will also be wrong sometimes but it feels safer. I have found that the more interpretation and reflection that occurs, the more risky it is to build on that reflection but when you do build on it, the more likely it is to lead to large and magical, and powerful changes. 

And so we do a couple of things formally in our curriculum that drive toward reflection, like I have the students do a, it was called something much more academic and they changed to a peak of the week, so a p.o.w. every week. So they film themselves and they say, “What did you this week about entrepreneurship?” And, “What did you learn this week about entrepreneurship?” And simply saying it is often just enough to provoke that reflection. Actually, watching it is huge. For me, I think I'm overly contemplative because one, I have that constant just self-doubt that I'm not doing enough and I'm not doing as good as I could and I could always be doing more and then second, there's this idea that if I'm going to go out there and say large, provocative statements, damn it, I better be right. 

And I feel like I owe it at least to myself to have that sort of inner dialogue about saying things like problems worth solving and abandon your day job at a big corporation or consultancy and go work on poverty and nutrition. Those are aggressive statements even to me. And so I should really have thought deeply about what it is that I'm talking about. I do like to think of active reflection versus passive. Many designers that I know struggle with internal mood disorders and that’s a path and form of reflection. It's self-destructive and it doesn’t go anywhere. There's a form of active reflection through making where you can -- as simple as writing down your thoughts is a form of it but you can also diagram your thoughts and you can draw them, and you can create art and things like that. It's a much healthier form of reflection. And so, I try to personally lead to the second.

Jon Kolko on How to Make Social Impact Jobs a Design Career Choice

In Chapter 10 of 21 in his 2012 Capture Your Flag interview, design educator Jon Kolko answers "What Made You Decide to Write a Book on Wicked Problems?"  Kolko writes the book as a call to action for practicing designers and the educators who teach them.  The book, available for free at www.wickedproblems.com, offers innovative approaches to the evolving design career options. 

Jon Kolko the founder and director of the Austin Center for Design.  He has authored multiple books on design, including "Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving."  Previously he has held senior roles at venture accelerator Thinktiv and frog design and was a professor of Interactive and Industrial Design at the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD).  Kolko earned his Masters in Human Computer Interaction (MHI) and BFA in Design from Carnegie Mellon University.

Transcript: 

Erik Michielsen: What made you decide to write a book on Wicked Problems?

Jon Kolko: Wicked Problems, the book, is a call to action for practicing designers. I would like to see all designers start to question not just the quality of the work they're doing, but what problems they're actually working on. And so, the initial thought was what kind of project can we do at Austin Center for Design to get the word out about the curriculum we're teaching, the types of projects we're launching, and companies we're starting. And so, it was like alright, we’ll do a book, maybe some videos and then the thought was like why not just give it away for free? And so, the whole project is available at WickedProblems.com and my hope is that there's a couple different tiers of designers, like sort of segments of designers that will find it interesting. 

The most immediate is design educators. There's a tiny, tiny number of design educators in the world. And so, if five of them changed their curriculum, suddenly we've affected a lot of practicing designers to be in 10 years. And so, like, here's a curriculum for you, it's cut and dry, it's already done, now you just have the easy task of pushing it through a curriculum council which is another 10 years at some places. But it's to set a precedent for them. 

Another audience is for practicing designers and for practicing designers that are five and six years out, they really start to hit a wall with a huge degree of regularity and they're looking for both examples of what other things they could be doing and also permission to do it. And I found it really effective to just say that to younger junior designers like it's okay to exit the corporate consultancy game. It's okay. There are other things you can do. You can take design and take it policy. You can take it to finance. You can take it to film. You can take it to art. You can take it to Wicked Problems. You can do a lot of things with design. It doesn’t have to be jammed into business. And that’s really, really refreshing, I think for them to hear or so it has been in my experience. 

The last audience is for designers who are right now like seniors in college who are about to graduate and they're scratching their head going, “You know what? I don’t want to work at --“name your Fortune 20 company, “and these flashy consultancies. I don’t want to work there either.” Those used to be rogue designers and design programs. They're the norm now and they have grown up with a set of ideals that it's part of them to work on things that matter. Well, like, Okay, cool. Here's your handbook. Go work on things that matter and make the world a better place.

Jon Kolko on Teaching Venture Capitalist Thinking to Creative Students

In Chapter 17 of 21 in his 2012 Capture Your Flag interview, design educator Jon Kolko answers "How Has Working at a Startup Incubator Taught You to Better Teach Entrepreneurship?"  Kolko shares how his experience taught him the language of business and entrepreneurship and how to talk about products and services from a venture capitalist perspective.  For example, Kolko notes venture capitalists look not only at how a product might sell, but also the product intellectual property value. 

Jon Kolko is the founder and director of the Austin Center for Design.  He has authored multiple books on design, including "Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving."  Previously he has held senior roles at venture accelerator Thinktiv and frog design and was a professor of Interactive and Industrial Design at the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD).  Kolko earned his Masters in Human Computer Interaction (MHI) and BFA in Design from Carnegie Mellon University.

Transcript: 

Erik Michielsen: How has working at a startup incubator taught you to better teach entrepreneurship?

Jon Kolko: It's definitely led me to understand the vocabulary around VCs and financing and how that game works around funding. It is a game and those involved in it will actually gleefully describe it is a game. And so, I think working at sort of the heart of that helps me understand both what that mentality is like and how to leverage it if you want to or how to completely avoid it if you don’t like it.

It is literally a different language and I don’t just mean in terms of vocabulary and jargon. Yeah, there's a ton of jargon and that takes a little getting used to but it's also just a very different way of talking about products and services.

And I’ll give you a very quick example. When a designer creates something new, irrespective of social entrepreneurship or anything else, they think of the value of that thing to a user. And typically, a good VC, will when they look at something new, will think of the IP value of that beyond the simple investment. Meaning yeah, that’s great. I obviously have to get my 10X return over three to five years. And then how can we continue to leverage the intellectual property that’s inherent in this invention well beyond me actually owning -- you know, having a full stake in this company because that will allow me to sort of tweak up that valuation. The notion of an invention having monetary value outside of its sales price and outside of the value for a user is 100 percent missing in the world of design, for better or worse, and I don’t really care to argue the value or non-value of IP right now. But it's just that it doesn’t cross any designer’s mind I've ever worked with in my life. And it's like the first thing that most good VCs will think about.

And so as an example then, if you're trying to teach a student how to present their work during a pitch, one of the things they need to understand is that the person looking at their thing is not thinking about how much is it going to sell for on the shelves of Best Buy, right? There's this second market of IP that they're considering which is totally in a third plane. That designers are like, “I don’t even know what words you're saying.” And that’s just an example. There’s tons of those. There’s tons of different ways of thinking about stuff.

Ask a designer what derivatives trading means. And it's not just that they don’t know because they're inexperienced. They don’t know because their brain doesn’t work that way. It's the same way when you ask somebody who’s in financial services to draw a teapot. They’ll say they can't but it's literally like their brain will not allow them yet to draw that teapot. And I think the closer, the sooner students realize that, the sooner they can decide if they want to overcome that hump or not.

Jon Kolko: How Design Career Choices are Changing

In Chapter 19 of 21 in his 2012 Capture Your Flag interview, design educator Jon Kolko answers "How Do You See Design Career Choices Changing?"  Kolko notes how design careers in the United States are going through a massive overhaul.  For the very top craftsman, there will be jobs in furniture design, graphic design and industrial design.  For the majority, however, students career choices benefit from changing design programs, including interaction design, interactive design, service design, systems thinking and organizational management.  

Jon Kolko is the founder and director of the Austin Center for Design.  He has authored multiple books on design, including "Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving."  Previously he has held senior roles at venture accelerator Thinktiv and frog design and was a professor of Interactive and Industrial Design at the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD).  Kolko earned his Masters in Human Computer Interaction (MHI) and BFA in Design from Carnegie Mellon University.

Transcript: 

Erik Michielsen: How do you see design career choices changing?

Jon Kolko: So, design as a whole in the US is undergoing a massive overhaul whether it wants to or not. And so, typical professions like graphic design, and industrial design, and furniture design still exist and for those in the 1% and 0.01% percent who are just exceptional craftsmen will get awesome jobs doing them and will get awesome jobs and be happy forever after. But there’s always been sort of a middle ground of, the mid-60 percent in the Bell Curve of designers who just aren’t very good. They're not bad, they're just not very good and they will not be able to get jobs doing graphic design, industrial design, and furniture design anymore. And they may or may not have been taught to do anything else, in which case they’re sort of shit out of luck, which is awful. It's a huge disservice to them because when you're 22 years old, you don’t know any better. You trust your professors and you trust the program you're going through. That the stuff I'm learning is relevant, right? Well, you wouldn’t be teaching it to me if it wasn’t, right? 

So, consequently and probably a decade too late, but still consequently all of the programs in the US are starting to reevaluate what they're teaching. And so you're starting to see programs in interaction design, programs in interactive design, programs in service design and systems thinking, and amorphous programs and design management and organizational change, all of which probably have a component of this design thinking stuff and also still this design-making stuff but the making is really, really, different. 

Service design, which I've always thought of as part of interaction design but I realized I'm in a huge minority and that’s probably a topic for a different point. Service design is poised to be the most needed thing in the United States as we transform into an entirely services-based economy. And so, you go like, “Fine, we're not going to do manufacturing anymore and we still have 300 changed million people, like what are they going to do for a living? Well, they're going to provide services. 

And so, somebody’s going to have to design those services and then train them how to do it. And service could mean anything from service in a healthcare capacity, just walk into the hospital and what happens, start to finish, or it can mean the really menial, like McDonald’s service worker, both of which are designed and both of which need a team of designers and all the agencies and consultancies and advertising, all that horse shit that comes with it to support it. And so, that’s what we're starting to see creep up in design schools and you're seeing it, you know, at the name schools but all of the community colleges and all of the state schools will follow.

Jon Kolko on Using Evaluation and Testing to Improve a Design School

In Chapter 20 of 21 in his 2012 Capture Your Flag interview, design educator Jon Kolko answers "What Roles Have Evaluation and Testing Played in Building Your Design Graduate Program?"  Kolko details how testing, evaluation, assessment and feedback are honing the Austin Center for Design program.  Kolko details the iterative and collaborative process that is taking place in Austin as the school matures and improves how it operates and educates. 

Jon Kolko is the founder and director of the Austin School for Design.  He has authored multiple books on design, including "Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving."  Previously he has held senior roles at venture accelerator Thinktiv and frog design and was a professor of Interactive and Industrial Design at the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD).  Kolko earned his Masters in Human Computer Interaction (MHI) and BFA in Design from Carnegie Mellon University.

Transcript: 

Erik Michielsen: What roles have evaluation and testing played in building your design graduate program?

Jon Kolko: So we've treated the building of Austin Center for Design as an iterative design exercise and part of that process is testing it with real people. And so, we treated our first cohort as co-designers and to their faces I called them co-founders and I think that the majority of them would agree that they're co-founders in the venture. The venture is a non-profit. They don’t literally own equity in it and neither do I, but they own decision-making power. And it wasn’t all democratic but there was certainly a lot of things that we changed as a result of both explicit feedback, implicit feedback, observation assessment.

And so I think testing—so testing means different things to different contexts but I think it always means trying something, and learning from it and then iterating on it. And in this case, we tested the pedagogy: how we were actually going about teaching and learning. We tested the entrepreneurial idea, the notion that when you leave the program, you’ve started a company. We tested some professors who had never taught before. We tested some course content that had never been sort of used before. And like anything else with testing, we failed a bunch of times and that’s the point. I mean, so, arguably it's better this year and arguably it will be better next year.

What's really nice about being a new school is that if you're not dealing with bureaucratic organizations like accrediting bodies, you can change on a dime. That changes when you're dealing with those organizational bodies and probably in my future, I will deal with those organizational bodies because there's a huge benefit to them. But at least for the time being, it means that I can hone this program, content notwithstanding because the content is always going to change but I can hone the structure of the program until I feel like there's evidence for it being really, really good. As always with evaluation, you sort of take it with a grain of salt. And so, there’s things that I just have pushed back on as changes that were suggested and there’s things that I completely didn’t think of that students were like, “Hey! We should be doing it like this. Why aren’t we doing it like this?” So now we're doing it like that.”

There is something sort of really, really nice about building a program together with the people that are benefiting from it. I wasn’t expecting that at all when I started it. I never really thought of this as like, I guess I do think of it as like, it's my thing but I've never felt overly protective of it from outside feedback but I was not ready for how much benefit I got from that outside feedback, I think is what I'm trying to say.