Shreyas Bakshi

  Happy Teachers' Day to all those who teach—professionally or socially. Over the past decade or so, I have had the opportunity to interact with quite a few people who teach as a profession. Based on these interactions, today I find myself wondering: Have we designed an education system worthy of the value it creates for all? Teaching is widely regarded as a noble profession. And rightly so! But somewhere along the way, have we made noble = selfless = less money?   We often hear that people choose teaching because they want to “ give back to society ”. There is nothing wrong with that motivation. In fact, it is admirable. But should choosing to contribute to society mean choosing a profession that pays less? Perhaps the question goes beyond teachers’ compensation. It takes us to some deeply embedded beliefs about what education is, what students and parents pay for, how institutions are assessed and compensated, and so on. These beliefs may vary across region...

We have been talking about learning to learn for decades. Research on metacognition, learner autonomy and lifelong learning has established its importance. Education systems are also evolving to respond to changing skills and market needs. So, this is not about introducing a new idea. It is about asking a different question: Have we designed our education systems to systematically help people become better at learning? Much of our effort has gone into making education more relevant to a changing world.  Curricula are updated, new skills are introduced and people are encouraged to reskill or recertify. But if the world keeps changing as rapidly as we know it has in recent times, how long can we keep updating what people need to know? Perhaps we should also make learners more capable of adapting to a changing world. That means developing learning competency : the ability to identify what they need to learn, seek and comprehend relevant knowledge, contextualise and a...

  In my previous article, I posed a simple question:     "We already innovate!" …Enough?! The answer depends on how leaders assess innovation. Most organisations measure innovation by what they have achieved. Successful innovation leaders also measure how those achievements are strengthening their ability to innovate in the future. That subtle shift changes the conversation from measuring innovation outcomes to building innovation capability. But how do you know whether your organisation is genuinely becoming more innovative? The number of ideas generated doesn't answer that question. Neither do the number of patents filed, products launched or AI tools implemented. Innovation leaders need a way of assessing whether their innovation capability is actually improving. That's where the MijS Innovation Compass ™, one of the frameworks within the MijS Discipline of Innovation ™, comes in. The same Compass can be applied at multiple levels—individual, ...

  During my initial discussions with leaders, one statement comes up almost invariably: “We already innovate!” And this is typically followed by statements like: "We've implemented the latest AI tools." "We've launched new features." "We've improved our processes." "We've automated operations." The leaders who consistently deliver innovation-led disproportionate outcomes ask a very different question. Do we innovate enough?! Enough to stay ahead. Enough to create meaningful differentiation. Enough to shape tomorrow rather than simply improve today. That single shift in thinking changes everything. That's why innovation leaders are never satisfied. Not because they fail to appreciate success. But because every success has an expiry date.  Every innovation raises the bar. The next one must raise it again. Innovation leadership isn't about proving that you innovate. It's ...

  During a recent innovation workshop, the team had generated many ideas. Yet they seemed underwhelmed. When I asked why, one participant said: "We are trying to find implementable ideas." I had heard similar statements before: "Let's focus on practical ideas." "We need something we can actually implement." My immediate response was: "The job of innovators is not to find implementable ideas. The job of innovators is to make ideas implementable." The room paused. Because that simple distinction changes the way we approach innovation. Many organisations approach innovation as a search exercise. The objective is to find ideas that fit existing technologies, current budgets, available resources and established processes. But if innovation is only about finding ideas that already fit the system, how much innovation are we likely to get? Perhaps the real challenge is not finding implementable ideas … but making valua...