-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.