I used to think that design thinking follows the divergent-convergent thinking model. Same for any kind of creative thinking where you are not following a script or a standard operating procedure.
But perhaps we can use another model to think (or rethink) about design and creative processes.
The fear is that technology will eventually replace most of our jobs. And those who prosper are going to be the elite few who own the machines. The rest of us will be left out.
But will that really happen?
As I’m surrounded by people who work in one job and in one company at any one time, it’s hard to imagine if multiple careers can be a viable, long-term plan.
Can we really have our cake and eat it too? Especially in a culture with working hours among the highest in the world?
Making career changes. Moving to a new city. Going back to school. Changing jobs. Switching to another company. Starting your own business. Going freelance. Going back to full-time employment. Moving back to your home country.
In the important decisions that we have to make while navigating our careers, few of them are ever final. Wrong decisions are seldom fatal. And we can always pivot and adjust our directions along the way if we find that we’ve made a wrong decision.
Traditional career planning tells us to identify the role we want to end up in eventually.
Want to be a neurosurgeon? An architect? A school principal? The pathways to getting there seem clear. If your dream career is crystal clear to you, great.
But I’m not sure if that applies to the majority of us.
What if you don’t have a clear vision of the role you want yet? And what if the role doesn’t even exist right now?
It worries me that many are calling for a blanket minimum wage policy in Singapore. Why should we argue for a policy that sounds good in theory but have not shown conclusive evidence of its success anywhere else in the world?
By appealing to our moral conscience (or perhaps ego when we feel good when we are championing social justice), ideas such as minimum wages have the potential to sneak socialism into our society.
And that’s what worries me more than the policy itself.
Millenial. Boomer. Gen X. Gen Z.
These titles are used to identify each generation of people. But the titles come with stereotypes. Each generation of people is believed to have certain unique traits belonging to that generation.
The problem is, we tend to use these differences between successive generations as a weapon to divide. It’s us vs them. Either my viewpoint is right. Or you are right.
When will we ever put aside our differences and meet in the middle?
Being part of the generation that grew up with technology, I’m used to getting things done fast. It doesn’t help that I grew up in a small city-state known, among other things, for its efficiency.
But we each have our own race to run.
In a culture that places unnecessary limelight on quick successes – be it people or businesses, we can be the ones who believe otherwise. We can take the long view. And believe that slow and steady can win the race.
If you can’t seem to learn, the problem might be having too much information. There are many different ways to pick up a particular skill. But it’s not going to help if you are pulled in several different directions.
What’s more important is to focus on something. Small but consistent practice can make all the difference.
Many governments around the world have provided financial support to their citizens this year. It’s a challenging year for many – definitely.
Some might think that the financial support we receive is not enough. Others might want the government to do more. And perhaps, even if we might not want to admit, we might even think that it’s nice to receive unemployment benefits to just sit at home all day.
The problem is, why should someone else take care of our own needs and wants? With more welfare and support, will our individual work ethic be eroded?