New evidence has come to light that casts serious doubt on whether Curiosity did indeed kill the Cat. If Curiosity is released, as is commonly thought, then it is likely that Complacency will be brought in for questioning amid allegations of cat-slaughter. Curiosity’s solicitor has claimed that due to the Cat already surviving eight similar scares people had grown tired of Curiosity and had instead turned to Complacency, “it’s a sad fact that over time people lost patience with Curiosity when they needed her most”.
From empires to companies to teams to individuals; this story has been played out over history.
We need to build cultures that encourage fresh thinking and pro-activity; I believe that when we stop questioning what we do then what we do becomes questionable. If there aren’t any questions then we should ask why not.
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Monday, 1 February 2010
Stop talking about 'innovation'!
Academic definitions of innovation are pointless in organisations, along with clichés like “adding value”. They are hollow statements that lack relevance to anyone’s day job. Out of touch is the manager who boldly proclaims “go forth and add value for our customers in the name of innovation!”. Perhaps the problem with ‘innovation’ is that it means so many things that now it doesn’t mean anything – new products/services, different business models, adding functionality, increasing efficiency, reducing cost, product improvement, strategic innovation, small ideas, big ideas, ipods and Google. There have been a lot of books written on the topic and many academics devoting untold time to studying it, which is perhaps why there is such a disconnect with most people. The challenge facing managers who enjoy reading this literature (and I include myself in this) is how to translate the academic management speak to something that will resonate with the rest of the organisation, something that will inspire rather than send to sleep.
Many senior leaders looking for ‘culture change’, ‘transformative experiences’ or ‘a paradigm shift’ often make the assumption that it’s everyone else that needs to change. However most people in their jobs want to be recognised for their achievements and welcome the opportunity to improve the way things are done. If there is a culture that is fundamentally opposed to innovation (however it is defined by the leadership) that is generally due to the actions of the senior leadership in the past and present. So to create change they need to look at themselves first and question their own commitment, how much are they willing to invest to turn things round? What are they currently doing that prevents or discourages employees from demonstrating initiative (which is essentially what innovation is right?)?. What does the organisational architecture look like? How are new employees chosen – are they based on experience or ideas? Who gets promoted and why? What are the training programs on? What happens to people who make mistakes? How much flexibility and freedom do departments have? How much time do people have and how is it measured?
And yes, of course, their message needs to change and the strategy needs to change. But if the message is “we need to be more innovative” (subtext – “you need to be more innovative”) without a clear and compelling context then it is worthless. In Chip and Dan Heath’s book “Made to Stick” they make the excellent distinction between what JFK could have said: “Our mission is to become the international leader in the space industry through maximum team-centred innovation and strategically targeted aerospace initiatives” and what he did say: “put a man on the moon and return him safely by the end of the decade.” Overuse of words like ‘innovation’ and ‘value added’ rather than sounding cutting edge, like they perhaps once did, now sound more like the latest management fad that, rather than providing direction, actually distort it. If further evidence is needed then you can see that it has now entered into the playing cards for bullshit-bingo. A clearly presented target such as Microsoft’s “a computer on every desk in every home” doesn’t require the word ‘innovation’ to clearly demand it, and it is specific enough to provide direction and inspiration for employees to "go forth and innovate".
Whilst companies do need to keep on the front foot and encourage creative working practises without a doubt senior managers need first to look at what they are doing and how they are communicating it.
My New Year’s Resolution is to use the word ‘innovation’ a lot less in the hope that what I say instead will be far more interesting and relevant. I encourage you to join me.
Many senior leaders looking for ‘culture change’, ‘transformative experiences’ or ‘a paradigm shift’ often make the assumption that it’s everyone else that needs to change. However most people in their jobs want to be recognised for their achievements and welcome the opportunity to improve the way things are done. If there is a culture that is fundamentally opposed to innovation (however it is defined by the leadership) that is generally due to the actions of the senior leadership in the past and present. So to create change they need to look at themselves first and question their own commitment, how much are they willing to invest to turn things round? What are they currently doing that prevents or discourages employees from demonstrating initiative (which is essentially what innovation is right?)?. What does the organisational architecture look like? How are new employees chosen – are they based on experience or ideas? Who gets promoted and why? What are the training programs on? What happens to people who make mistakes? How much flexibility and freedom do departments have? How much time do people have and how is it measured?
And yes, of course, their message needs to change and the strategy needs to change. But if the message is “we need to be more innovative” (subtext – “you need to be more innovative”) without a clear and compelling context then it is worthless. In Chip and Dan Heath’s book “Made to Stick” they make the excellent distinction between what JFK could have said: “Our mission is to become the international leader in the space industry through maximum team-centred innovation and strategically targeted aerospace initiatives” and what he did say: “put a man on the moon and return him safely by the end of the decade.” Overuse of words like ‘innovation’ and ‘value added’ rather than sounding cutting edge, like they perhaps once did, now sound more like the latest management fad that, rather than providing direction, actually distort it. If further evidence is needed then you can see that it has now entered into the playing cards for bullshit-bingo. A clearly presented target such as Microsoft’s “a computer on every desk in every home” doesn’t require the word ‘innovation’ to clearly demand it, and it is specific enough to provide direction and inspiration for employees to "go forth and innovate".
Whilst companies do need to keep on the front foot and encourage creative working practises without a doubt senior managers need first to look at what they are doing and how they are communicating it.
My New Year’s Resolution is to use the word ‘innovation’ a lot less in the hope that what I say instead will be far more interesting and relevant. I encourage you to join me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
