Tenet of Innovation #4: Accept that hierarchy and position are irrelevant and may be the enemy
Creation is more important than title. I give credit here to the company IDEO for demonstrating this on film better than any words can do. See the Nightline video. (This is Part 1 of the full version. Parts 2 and 3 are also found on YouTube.) See also The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm, by Tom Kelley, Crown Business, 2001. The video gives us a glimpse into the world of one of the most innovative firms on the planet, as the news program Nightline proposed a project and then followed IDEO through the process of creating a next-generation shopping cart. If you have not seen this video, it is available from the online ABCNewstore and is well worth viewing. Among its many messages is that creativity doesn’t care that you are the boss. In fact, throwing your title around is likely to kill the innovative process. (I found this video so interesting that I read two books from Tom Kelly, co-founder of IDEO. Check out The Art of Innovation and The Ten Faces of Innovation. I can certainly recommend them as great reads for those interested in innovation.)
In an innovative environment, the leader must come to grips with the fact that not only are the leader’s ideas not necessarily better, that not only should we guard against weighting them more heavily, but that the greatest ideas will come from the most unlikely places. In a highly innovative environment, leaders must let go of ego and let the creative process happen, often apart from them. And the best leaders are proud of this fact, taking pride in the environment that they have created. Not only will they welcome ideas from all levels in the organization, but those ideas will be given the same consideration no matter where they come from.
What processes do you have that allow the maximum level of generation and consideration of ideas from all levels?
But it’s more than that. Leaders hoping to create a highly innovative environment must recognize that opinions from those in power positions can kill an idea—even the entire innovative process. In fact, environments where this doesn’t happen are rare. More commonly, once the leader offers an opinion, others involved in the conversation become more reluctant to offer opposing views. The discussion is over; the leader has spoken.
I was once privileged to work for one of the world leaders in the field of study in which I was engaged. This was a tremendous thought leader, a deeply analytical thinker who was definitely more at home with discovery and developing technology than with managing people. Most of us were in awe of his technical prowess. And over time, we were all stunted by his presence. Another manager, although perhaps less knowledgeable in the field, would have encouraged the development of those working for him or her out of necessity. A great leader would have highlighted the successes of others, like a proud father or teacher. But as it happened, our ability to contribute at any significant level was called into question over time, usually from within ourselves. The result was that some self-selected out, finding other jobs, and those remaining gave more and more “floor” to this great technologist. Eventually, there was really only one voice heard—the voice of the expert.
Now the question to you is this: How do you get the greatest level of innovation? Is it from giving one thought leader the floor? Or is it from making new copies of a great technologist and encouraging independent thought? (This is one of the reasons I remain convinced that it is best to avoid placing the sharpest technologist in charge of a group working in his or her field of expertise.)
Hierarchy is not only irrelevant to producing greater creativity; it may actually be the enemy. The message to leaders is clear: If you want an innovative environment, recognize your position power and use it carefully.
Larry Pendergrass commented:
In response to Eric Niemi: Thanks for the recommendation and comment Eric.
.
I had to think a bit about your comment “don’t confuse creativity with innovation”. I think many people use these terms interchangeably, and perhaps I have been guilty of this at times as well. But some pundits that I could find on the web say they are different. I think this is your point. Might I offer a possible difference and ask that you verify your thinking? Perhaps we can think of innovation as the changing an existing thing (a process, a product, etc.) in new and novel ways, where creativity is the creation of something new.
.
Having made this distinction, I would claim that the ideas in these 10 Tenets of Innovation apply to developing either an innovative or a creative environment. The difference is a matter of degrees. If you disagree, I would love for you to expound on your thoughts more for us.
.
Regarding “The Medici Effect”, I have not read the book yet, but scanned its contents. Perhaps our readers would like a short excerpt from the book:
.
“The idea behind this book is simple: When you step into an intersection of fields, disciplines, or cultures, you can combine existing concepts into a large number of extraordinary new ideas. The name I have given this phenomenon, the Medici Effect, comes from a remarkable burst of creativity in fifteenth-century Italy.”
.
It sounds like a very interesting book. And the concept sounds a lot like one of my tenets coming up. I will enjoy reading it. Thanks for the recommendation. And thank you for your comment Eric.
.
Larry Pendergrass
Larry Pendergrass commented:
In response to Don Sauer: I am a big Dilbert fan. I have always been amazed at how well he can paint a caricature of the life in most companies, even though it has been many years since he worked in these companies. How does he stay so in touch with the challenges of modern contributors to science, engineer and business? His work is very funny, and at times a very sad commentary on our work lives.
.
I am curious about your comment of a political team being more respected than talent. I guess this thought can mean many things. But let me take a stab at it and suggest… though perhaps this is a bit off the topic of creating an innovative environment… that an organization is a lot like an organism. There is a great deal of interaction between this organism and any part of it, or any new entry into it. And the results of this interaction, although it may follow definite laws, these laws are too complex to fully understand and use to predict the outcome. You might say that in an organization, there is significant non-linear impact of people working with people.
.
Although “politics” in the work place has come to have a very divisive and underhanded meaning, I don’t think it needs to be so. To me, a “political team” means a team that has learned to better predict the reactions of this organism, and therefore learned to work better within it. This doesn’t preclude the fact that the team could be composed of highly innovative, highly talented people. But this team may have a greater chance of taking that innovation and seeing it through to its eventual use… such as commercialization.
.
One field of thought that applies here is called “Emotional Intelligence”. It has been argued that in the work place and in life, EI is more important for a successful overall outcome than IQ. So you need to be smart and talented… that’s the basic hurdle to do the science and engineering we require. But you also need to know how to read the tea leaves and get stuff done.
.
In other words Don, I think that there are many kinds of talent. One of these is the skill to navigate the organism, the organization, the system, to accomplish the task. This is one reason why some writers say that in R/D you need the innovators, but you also need to surround them with idea refiners, with project executors, and with a collection of others with skills that fill in the holes to take the good idea and make it see the light of day.
.
If I have misunderstood your thought, please write some more! And thanks for commenting Don.
.
Larry Pendergrass
Eric Niemi commented:
Don't confuse Creativity with Innovation. I would suggest this book (Frans Johansson (2006). The Medici Effect: What Elephants & Epidemics Can Teach Us About Innovation? Harvard Business School Press ISBN 13: 978-1-4221-0282-4 ). It also references IDEO and how you can develop your own "Intersection".
Don Sauer commented:
Seems to me that the challenge is being creative and innovative while working inside a Dilbert Cartoon. From my experience, a political team can be much more respected than talent.
