What Kills Innovation?
October 26, 2007
Tough one? Easy answer may be “no one understands me or my innovation”, “I have been cut by pure financials decisions”, “I have been told it already exists”, “People are just not open to innovation”, “your idea is great but it is not part of our policy”. May be true, may be false.
Innovation is for each of us symbolized by a specific item or process For me it’s potentially the Personal Computer as I saw how it “simply” changed the way we work. For my aunt, leaving France and looking for a place to live in Canada, then in the United States in the 60s, it was the ability to quite cost-effectively visit family in France and fly over Atlantic within a day compare to a full week by boat in its first years of travels. For my little children, it’s the ability to see me on Skype when I’m far away from home (even if they don’t always manage to understand why we are not on the same time zone!). But it may also be more incremental, some call it minor innovations (others may not consider them as innovation at all) even in our day-to-day life. For instance, it’s the way we do things at work, most of the time because we’ve been used to do it that way “why change?”. As soon as arguing starts, innovators may be off quite quickly with any new idea they suggest! Why? Because it’s a matter of facts (people can expose you for hours how they got there and why it’s good) versus matter of future and expectations, a crystal ball!. Good sellers, marketers, passionate people may be good in arguing and make innovation happens but from my point of view it’s counterproductive! We should capitalize on their ability and manage innovation. Innovation and Re-engineering should be an on-going process. And that’s not new at all. It has been proposed and adopted by many people/organization for many years. But even innovators get trapped in their own paradigm since they may not be open to innovation themselves if its affect them.
So what kills innovation?
From my point of view this is a function (hey my engineering background is back!) of lack of open-mindedness and insecurity.
I think that open-mindedness is necessary and not only for skeptical people, it especially necessary for innovators, so they can accept constructive criticism and not try to push their idea only - period! It’s characterized by the ability to make the point but also always trying to let doors opened for discussions and, more importantly, for improvement (yes our innovation can –should - be improved). Why? Because innovation does not just happen one day, it’s a continuous process. Not convinced, (if you have time. Do you really have?) make a survey of the time required between a discovery (the basic of a new thing) and its characterization into a product or a service and then its acceptance by the market. You would be surprised (I have attended a conference on early stage VC in October 2006 and there was an interesting presentation on this topic – I’ll try to find it and will put it as comment later)! So if you close doors each time one says no, chances you’ll go nowhere are very high (many thanks to Richard B. on this one!).
Insecurity is the main reason people are skeptical toward innovation: How this is gonna affect me PERSONALLY? That’s really the question. If you are insecure, you’ll have bad time with innovation, I tell you! But perhaps less than if you try to innovate and face insecurity! And this is perhaps a normal reaction, a reaction to personal experience with innovation turning bad. I am not sure of that though … I have seen so many people “fighting” against “that new software that will make miracles”, and when implemented would not go back to previous one since “this product is so good, look what you can do!”. So what is it and what can we do? I don’t have much hint on that … Perhaps it’s a question of explaining (be patient it may required a long long time for people to understand), refining the innovation considering feedback and a question of confidence. This last one could explain how some people can manage to deploy innovation faster than others since they inspire confidence, or they have a serious track record. I’ll get back on this one since it might be a chicken-and-egg problem!
October 28, 2007 at 9:31 pm
A very interesting question, and a very complex one. A few thoughts:
-As you note we all are deeply identified with “our idea” or “our innovation”. It becomes “our baby”: we then need to defend it.
-Equally, we are identified with the status quo- the way things are now. In other words, we “own” not only our ideas, but our methods, habits, patterns, etc. They somehow become “ours”.
-This “mine” business becomes remarkably pervasive. It’s almost like a thin coating that covers most of our life- and it is a very sticky dust. So there is my innovation, my way of doing things, my stuff, my family, my company, my country… etc. And all the “mines” need to be protected and defended- BECAUSE we confuse these “mines” with “me”. That’s the definition of identification.
-So in order to embrace innovation (which could, as you point out, be MY idea, or your idea about MY idea) I need to able to dis-identify.
-Dis-identification means that I can step back. I can listen. I can hear. I can see. I’m not caught up in being right, or being smart, or being the best, or being respected- I’m actually just INTERESTED! The people who practice dialogue (see Senge, Fifth Discipline Field Book and Dialogos)call this substituting inquiry for advocacy.
-This is easier said than done. Watch what happens when one of your cherished ideas or principles is challenged. Watch what happens when a partner, a spouse, a child, or a colleague challenges even a small thing that you are identified with. Before you know it, an ancient mechanism is triggered, and if we are willing to look, we can see the response all through the body and mind. If we’re lucky, it stays there, but more likely than not, we feel compelled to share our reaction- often with an outcome that is less than satisfactory.
-So what blocks innovation: I believe the biggest block is this knee-jerk reaction- this protection of some ridiculous thing we have become identified with, this protection of a self-image: an image that we want to defend and project to the world.
-another very interesting question (not for today!) is this: how can we tell the difference between this “protective and defensive” routine, and a really important boundary that we feel must be defended? (Like I won’t stand for people speaking in a racist or sexist way at work?)
- how can we tell WHERE the resistance to the innovation is coming from? Perhaps we can take this up another day, or others would like to comment.