Innovation Lag in Canada: It's the Culture

Another article came out today highlighting Canada's lag in innovation. Canada received a "D" in innovation and ranked 13th out of 16 peer countries. Its neighbor to the south received an "A" and ranked 3rd.

As an American ex-pat who moved to Canada in my thirties, it's not a mystery to me why Canada lags behind in innovation. I can understand why it's a puzzle to outsiders and to Canadians who haven't spent years living in the U.S. They may ponder why a wealthy country with a relatively healthy and stable economy, abundant natural resources, affordable and good education, and the benefits of living next to a world economic power isn't more innovative. I would tell them: It's the culture.

When we first moved to Canada from California in 2001, my husband (also an American) and I assumed it was going to be much like the U.S., only better, with fewer guns and universal healthcare. It didn't take long to notice just how big a cultural gap there really is between the two countries.

As university faculty we were used to institutions in which all faculty were treated like equals, regardless of rank. You were expected to speak your mind -- even as a student -- if you thought your question or idea had merit. And if it did, people were grateful, even if you challenged their thinking and their title happened to be more senior. If anything, junior faculty and students were even more likely than senior ones to be given the benefit of the doubt as having new ideas and insights to offer.

When I joined the University of Toronto, there was a palpable fear among junior faculty and students to challenge anyone senior, no matter how wrong they were or how damaging their behavior. I simply could not understand why my Canadian peers were so afraid to speak up and share their opinions and ideas. It was like the shadow of doom was always looming, and one slip would lead one to be forever struck off the "help this person's career" list. Some memorable public shamings of those so "arrogant" to challenge authority has helped me understand their fear.

At our first child's elementary school, parents seemed overly hesitant to "rock the boat" when a newly-hired teacher proved mentally ill and emotionally abusive. A fifth of the families simply pulled their kids out of the school, but a majority of those who remained seemed more concerned about protecting their own reputations as non-trouble-makers than the harm being done to the children. My husband and I were told it would be weeks before we could speak to the principal, so we wrote a letter outlining our concerns. That earned us an in-person scolding for not raising a tougher (5-year-old) child, and encouraging us to think about how we could be better parents and help our child endure adversity.

One of our children's teachers gave detention to students who questioned her. For example, a student who expressed concerns about the teacher's fairness toward other students was scolded for being disrespectful and given detention, rather than being asked where his concerns came from and talking him through them.

I could go on and on with similar examples. The norm of not speaking truth to power in Canada is very strong. At least compared to the U.S. I know from my MBA students from East and South Asia that Canada feels practically liberating, but compared to the peer countries Canada is compared to in innovation, maybe not.

Moreover, power and status in Canada are defined by title, not by merit. That's not to say that title and merit do not sometimes go together. It's just that title -- the packaging, the plaque on the door, the size of the office, the official authority conferred upon a person from above -- means a person has the right to ignore, shame, and silence those who disagree with them, no matter the merit of the two sides' ideas and contributions.

Quality tends to be assessed heuristically, after it has been anointed with official appointment, publication in a particular journal, or endorsement from a U.S. venture capitalist. I can't count how many times I've heard Canadians refer to the approval of, or prior affiliation with, a U.S. institution as a sign that someone or some idea has merit. There doesn't seem to be the kind of self-confidence in evaluating the inherent quality of ideas here as there was in the U.S. At UC-Berkeley, we read papers and discussed the merit of ideas to evaluate potential faculty. When I arrived at Toronto, senior faculty simply counted the number of publications applicants had in particular journals and talked about the prestige and power of the institutions or people they worked with.

When people are afraid of sharing new ideas and questioning authority, when the quality of ideas is assessed based on the title or associations of those providing them rather than the merit of their content, and when an entire system exists around not disturbing the status quo or challenging the person who appointed you, it's not difficult to see why innovation lags in Canada.