The most obvious roadblock to an innovator is always personal problems. Regardless of how obvious this particular post can be, it is important to at least dimensionalize the issue by splitting some of the hairs that make it happen. As a good friend of mine taught me...the elements of destruction are present at creation. How does this relate? Essentially, knowing what is lying in wait to destroy you because of who your are, what your idea represents or the threats the new poses to the people and organization, one needs rules of thumb to help them "see" what lies in wait upon the road to success. This post will be short because the breakdown of personal issues is obvious.
They have issues with you personally: If someone doesn't like you chances are they won't like your ideas.
They have allies with issues with you: A touch more subtle, but sometimes you can lose your innovation head when it isn't your partner with the problem, but those lurking behind them who don't really value what you are doing. They can then INFLUENCE and destroy support you have. What is very difficult in this situation is it is like an innovation time bomb waiting to go off. For example, you have a great idea. You go to a partner/stakeholder/decision maker and sell them the idea. Let's say they are a person of action and relationships and they say I LOVE THIS IDEA let's move forward. Then two days later they are in the cafeteria having lunch with someone who doesn't really believe in the way you do things. They say...whoa be careful that innovator doesn't always do things the "right" way or perhaps its I don't know if I would trust them. Before you know it they have influenced your partner and you have started moving forward. This is a common and bad scenario that can happen to any of us. Sometimes the danger lies around you and not in front, thinking beyond the the partner and the direct line of those who will support your idea is something we often forget to do.
They have issues with people on their turf: Sadly, not everyone is a collaborator (again another topic). Some, actually, most people are self-serving when it comes to their career. And in some cases it makes sense, I gotta provide for my family too. That being said, as an innovator we are often very collaborative. I frankly don't understand this "bad behavior". I stand for trust and collaboration. These are the hallmarks of an innovation culture based upon trust. Be aware if people are territorial and don't want you there, they will keep you from succeeding. In this case, if it isn't there idea or they feel they own it they will react very negatively and try to stop you.
They distrust your motives or interests: Hey, relationships matter. Distrust can come from a number of things, but usually it is based upon how we like to innovate and the differences that exist between people. If you are a visionary who likes concepts and they are concrete and need to see things you will not be speaking the same language and thus they might distrust your motives or interests. Be aware of your differences with people and make sure you work on building trust with those around you. Every interaction counts and your behaviors today can effect your ability to influence tomorrow. If people don't trust you their behavior towards you will be negative and ultimately they will not support you or better yet try to stop you.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Politics Kill Innovation - Interest Issues
After poor influence and risk aversion comes the next reason politics kills innovation...Interests Issues. If you read my earlier post on what skills are critical to be a great innovator, you will see one of the key skills is negotiation. I had the pleasure of holding a job early in my career where I got do create, do and manage a lot of deals (a topic for another time) particularly licensing agreements. During what I consider one of the most critical times of learning during my journey to change agent, I received both formal and informal training around principled negotiation. In my opinion, negotiation is a science more than an art. Everyone likes to say they know how to negotiate, but after learning on the job AND learning the actual process for negotiating I started to see the value everywhere I looked. The first key step in principled negotiation centers around the concept of interests (may be redundant for many). That being said, understanding interests is one of the most important lessons. To align all (using operational definitions...another key innovation skill) interests in my view are taking the time to understand what your partner wants and is simply interested in. The thing about interests is that sometimes they are overt (explicitly said) and other times they are implicit (not really told to you). In any negotiation, aligning your interests with your partners is how deals happen. When it comes to innovating, however, using this principle to help you get your ideas across is the secret sauce to getting things going and maintaining one's momentum throughout the process. Interests change as innovation's are born, grow and thrive, so being aware of this at all times is critical and if you don't will lead to problems throughout the innovation lifecycle
How do interest issues get in the way?
They don't care about it: If those around you don't care about your innovative ideas, they their interests are not your interests and thus they won't support what you are doing. The ebb and flow of people's interests need to align and if people don't care about what you are doing you can't expect the to support your efforts.
They don't have the same agenda and won't work with you. Does this mean they will work hard to stop you in your tracks? Maybe it depends on how much their interest mesh with yours. When they don't care about it they don't care about you.
They don't have the same agenda: The politics in your office is about agenda and what each of us want to accomplish. If those around you don't have an agenda aligned with yours they can often come out against it strongly because they may be fighting for the same resources dollars or simply will do whatever it takes to see you fail. Not have the same agenda can be deadly because it can bring the worst behavior out in others around you. If your agenda is to collaborate for instance and some nearby wants to build an empire, this two personal agenda are like gas near a fire. The collaborative agenda is meant to empower while the empire agenda is meant to control. How can they go together? How will they both survive. You can be doing "good" for the organization, but those who seek to do evil can be doing something much more detrimental. Either way, it is this type of political misalignment that stops great ideas cold.
They don't have the capacity to support it: Sometimes people around you can understand your interests, but they simply don't have the time or resources AT THAT MOMENT to help you. This is important to recognize because if you don't understand this it can lead to aggravating a relationship. Knowing that this is happening kills your opportunity but it also is an opportunity. If people can't support it because of capacity you simply need to find another way around the situation or be patient (a virtue of success to be discussed)
They don't see the value versus other work: Very similar to capacity, seeing the value of your idea versus their other work is another way to lose ground in your quest to get things new implemented. In this case, however, you have the power to explain the value. Unfortunately, many times we as innovators communicate value in different ways than those who "manage" the store. So you better brush up on why those who may have influence can see the value versus the other work they do.
How do interest issues get in the way?
They don't care about it: If those around you don't care about your innovative ideas, they their interests are not your interests and thus they won't support what you are doing. The ebb and flow of people's interests need to align and if people don't care about what you are doing you can't expect the to support your efforts.
They don't have the same agenda and won't work with you. Does this mean they will work hard to stop you in your tracks? Maybe it depends on how much their interest mesh with yours. When they don't care about it they don't care about you.
They don't have the same agenda: The politics in your office is about agenda and what each of us want to accomplish. If those around you don't have an agenda aligned with yours they can often come out against it strongly because they may be fighting for the same resources dollars or simply will do whatever it takes to see you fail. Not have the same agenda can be deadly because it can bring the worst behavior out in others around you. If your agenda is to collaborate for instance and some nearby wants to build an empire, this two personal agenda are like gas near a fire. The collaborative agenda is meant to empower while the empire agenda is meant to control. How can they go together? How will they both survive. You can be doing "good" for the organization, but those who seek to do evil can be doing something much more detrimental. Either way, it is this type of political misalignment that stops great ideas cold.
They don't have the capacity to support it: Sometimes people around you can understand your interests, but they simply don't have the time or resources AT THAT MOMENT to help you. This is important to recognize because if you don't understand this it can lead to aggravating a relationship. Knowing that this is happening kills your opportunity but it also is an opportunity. If people can't support it because of capacity you simply need to find another way around the situation or be patient (a virtue of success to be discussed)
They don't see the value versus other work: Very similar to capacity, seeing the value of your idea versus their other work is another way to lose ground in your quest to get things new implemented. In this case, however, you have the power to explain the value. Unfortunately, many times we as innovators communicate value in different ways than those who "manage" the store. So you better brush up on why those who may have influence can see the value versus the other work they do.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Politics Kill Innovation - Risk Aversion
The second reason politics will kill innovation is due to Risk Aversion. This one is easy to understand as all of us whether we are pushing the envelope a little or a lot have encountered a scenario where risk hurt our chances for driving change. Risk aversion is something that is actually in many people's DNA. It is simply a factor that is built differently in all of us. The most important thing is to recognize when you and the person in front of you have a differing sense of risk. If you can begin to recognize when the issue is sitting in front of you, you will be able to get better prepared to handle this situation. Below are a few things to realize around what could happen in a risk aversion scenario so you can think a few steps ahead of your fearful opponent.
They have been influenced: Be wary of this. Many times we believe we have the cat in the bag (because those who like the change fight don't see risk) only to find out your sponsor changes their mind. This could be simply a third party who you can't see has been messing in your innovation kitchen. Think about the person you want to get on board and then think about who else could be lurking in the wings reminding them that their passion for your idea is really foolish. Forgetting who is around the person you are trying to influence is a surefire way to get blindsided by the fear of change.
They have a boss who is afraid of it: This is a little easier to deal with as there is only one person to be aware of. In this case, however, the road block is much more serious because they can stop things dead and for good. Always consider who is the decision maker behind the client is before you engage in your quest.
They fear the risk of innovation: Most of these principles make sense and are actually pretty obvious, but getting granular can also help you analyze your failures when you go back in for more. Sometimes it is just your client who is afraid. And if they are the doorway to your idea getting life, you need to know it and think about how to deal with it. Let's face people who see risk more than you will definitely fear what you believe is a perfectly sane plan.
They have had a bad experience: There are cases however, where the bad taste of innovation still sits on their tongue. They have been hurt by trying before and won't get hurt again. If you are not connected to your partner's history, you might misinterpret their NO for something far more difficult...the scars of trying. We have all had it and as we all make decision using either gut, data or experience, we cannot ignore how experience can stop new ideas before they started.
They have been influenced: Be wary of this. Many times we believe we have the cat in the bag (because those who like the change fight don't see risk) only to find out your sponsor changes their mind. This could be simply a third party who you can't see has been messing in your innovation kitchen. Think about the person you want to get on board and then think about who else could be lurking in the wings reminding them that their passion for your idea is really foolish. Forgetting who is around the person you are trying to influence is a surefire way to get blindsided by the fear of change.
They have a boss who is afraid of it: This is a little easier to deal with as there is only one person to be aware of. In this case, however, the road block is much more serious because they can stop things dead and for good. Always consider who is the decision maker behind the client is before you engage in your quest.
They fear the risk of innovation: Most of these principles make sense and are actually pretty obvious, but getting granular can also help you analyze your failures when you go back in for more. Sometimes it is just your client who is afraid. And if they are the doorway to your idea getting life, you need to know it and think about how to deal with it. Let's face people who see risk more than you will definitely fear what you believe is a perfectly sane plan.
They have had a bad experience: There are cases however, where the bad taste of innovation still sits on their tongue. They have been hurt by trying before and won't get hurt again. If you are not connected to your partner's history, you might misinterpret their NO for something far more difficult...the scars of trying. We have all had it and as we all make decision using either gut, data or experience, we cannot ignore how experience can stop new ideas before they started.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Politics Kill Innovation - Poor Influence
As one thinks about driving change within their organization you need to first understand what kills innovation. The first overarching area that seems to stop innovation in its tracks is Poor Influence. Why? Well, having great ideas is just that...great, but getting others to understand why those ideas are great and more importantly take up your cause to see those ideas live is another story altogether. If you are in the change business, getting clear on why you are not influencing others is critical to learning how to do it. Taking ownership of this outage in your journey is critical to learning how to combat your weakness. My good friend once told me that innovation isn't a team sport it is a contact sport. I never used to believe this, but until you are in the arena for a while and see how quickly you can get crushed, you will begin to believe. So what does poor influence mean when it comes to innovation failure?
They don't understand it: If they don't get it you don't get their support simply put. Making sure that people understand what they hell you are talking about seems pretty obvious, but getting clear that this is a real thing to be on the lookout for when selling is another. Always keep you radar up to know when your potential partner is lost in your vision, concept or approach (I have already written on the concept/approach principle earlier)
They don't see the value for them: Maybe your potential partner does "get" what you are selling them but there is no good reason for them to go out on a limb for you. As an innovator, when this happen this it is like getting stabbed twice, because if they don't understand it, you can accept that maybe you need to do better or they just don't get it. If they don't see value, this selfish moment on your potential partners' part hurts because as most innovators believe in trust and collaboration, this self serving behavior sucks. However, it is real and if you can create value for people they will come along...
They don't believe you are right: This scenario is a test of wills and when it happens you either need to deal with the issues (what problems they may have with you or your idea) and go back in for a second round. The other option is to build around your opponent (which will come later in why innovators are successful).
They don't have enough data: While this is a common issue, knowing what data someone needs before they can support your idea can be an easy or long road depending on how they like to innovate. But be aware for sure of this issue because unless you can meet the data hurdle set for you, your effort can stop dead in its tracks...
They don't understand it: If they don't get it you don't get their support simply put. Making sure that people understand what they hell you are talking about seems pretty obvious, but getting clear that this is a real thing to be on the lookout for when selling is another. Always keep you radar up to know when your potential partner is lost in your vision, concept or approach (I have already written on the concept/approach principle earlier)
They don't see the value for them: Maybe your potential partner does "get" what you are selling them but there is no good reason for them to go out on a limb for you. As an innovator, when this happen this it is like getting stabbed twice, because if they don't understand it, you can accept that maybe you need to do better or they just don't get it. If they don't see value, this selfish moment on your potential partners' part hurts because as most innovators believe in trust and collaboration, this self serving behavior sucks. However, it is real and if you can create value for people they will come along...
They don't believe you are right: This scenario is a test of wills and when it happens you either need to deal with the issues (what problems they may have with you or your idea) and go back in for a second round. The other option is to build around your opponent (which will come later in why innovators are successful).
They don't have enough data: While this is a common issue, knowing what data someone needs before they can support your idea can be an easy or long road depending on how they like to innovate. But be aware for sure of this issue because unless you can meet the data hurdle set for you, your effort can stop dead in its tracks...
Thursday, March 31, 2011
The politics of innovation introduction...
Without mincing words, politics kill innovation. If you are not careful, anyone's brilliant new idea can be squashed without one knowing it, realizing it is happening and in some cases you are standing right there when it happens in your face. You might say, boy that's obvious, politics is rampant and everywhere we look. I agree this is the case, but when you are thinking about being a change agent within any business the odds of politics killing your new ideas is always high.
Why? Because all organizations have their cultural attributes and morays and if you are challenging convention the opportunity for the organism to react to something different inherently feels much higher. Think about it...even if you live inside a relatively new culture, if you "go against the grain" you will have to make your case as effectively as you can to bring about change. It is easier, but politics will dictate whether you are successful or not.
Over my career, I have been extremely lucky to have had the opportunity to learn to be an innovator with no budget, authority, or people from the bottom, middle and top of the organization. And in the last few months, I have broadened that opportunity as I am now doing it at a small company with little resources at all. Having this chance to view driving change from all levels and sizes of organization has given me the chance to think about and formulate methods that enable one to think about any situation to enable them to "innovate in space" I will spend the next set of blog posts bringing the principles I use personally as an innovator from my politics of innovation deck into the blog. Much of the content in that deck was created a few years ago, but after utilizing these principles in my work life, I have had a chance to use them, teach them and refine them to a place that I have been surprised that they still hold water.
As I have stated in earlier blog posts, having broad rules of thumb or principles that help you in any situation are great ways to help you make decisions more quickly in tough situations both personally or professionally. To help you drive change of any kind, knowing what is happening around you at all times is ALWAYS the difference between success and failure to launch that change.
Why? Because all organizations have their cultural attributes and morays and if you are challenging convention the opportunity for the organism to react to something different inherently feels much higher. Think about it...even if you live inside a relatively new culture, if you "go against the grain" you will have to make your case as effectively as you can to bring about change. It is easier, but politics will dictate whether you are successful or not.
Over my career, I have been extremely lucky to have had the opportunity to learn to be an innovator with no budget, authority, or people from the bottom, middle and top of the organization. And in the last few months, I have broadened that opportunity as I am now doing it at a small company with little resources at all. Having this chance to view driving change from all levels and sizes of organization has given me the chance to think about and formulate methods that enable one to think about any situation to enable them to "innovate in space" I will spend the next set of blog posts bringing the principles I use personally as an innovator from my politics of innovation deck into the blog. Much of the content in that deck was created a few years ago, but after utilizing these principles in my work life, I have had a chance to use them, teach them and refine them to a place that I have been surprised that they still hold water.
As I have stated in earlier blog posts, having broad rules of thumb or principles that help you in any situation are great ways to help you make decisions more quickly in tough situations both personally or professionally. To help you drive change of any kind, knowing what is happening around you at all times is ALWAYS the difference between success and failure to launch that change.
Monday, March 28, 2011
The Bridge to Innovation - from theory to reality
When it comes to innovation, I never cease to hear people discuss how mushy it is. They often discuss how many of those in the innovation field make wild claims on what can be accomplished, but very few of them produce anything tangible. Why are innovators so easy to attack? I believe it stems from a variety of things, not the least of which is the issue that great innovation theory is too far away from the tangible results most corporate leaders look for and crave. Too many times we hear people at work say, "We are all in this to make money, right?" And this statement is usually follow up by a horrifying laugh that makes my skin crawl as the narrow minded financially focused belt on.
To best understand how to make a difference as a change agent, we need to get clear on how to think through things conceptually in order to be able to make real change happen. Below is one way to think about the link between theory and functional execution.
Essentially what this visual highlights is a simple way to think about each thing an organization needs to make a great innovation live. And more importantly, it gives the innovator a way to think about where they are in the process to best understand what step is next and what is missing.
Theory: This is the foundation for big innovation. Innovation theory is where great ideas are born. Theory can add great impact to anything, because when the net is cast wide enough it can catch a lot of fish. The problem with theoretical constructs is that really have low dollar value until they are distilled and ultimately proven correct. And while they are usually one of the most exciting things for an innovator to work on, its limited business value can often keep them from ever really getting off the biggest idea off the ground. Is it folly to be a person who loves theory, no! Theory is what brings many efforts into context and creates what are often the most powerful and scalable innovations. Without the theory of open innovation, the explosion in external partnering in the late 90's and 00's would have never happened. In this case it took theory to give people a way to think about the change.
Process: While more tangible, process does not always drive the bottom line. In this case, we are not talking about the process design to make a product, we are talking about business processes by which corporate scale is often created. As stated on this slide, process brings the needed order to things, but its downside is it often crushes the spirit of new ideas because "we have a process for doing this...and that is outside of it". We have all heard these dreaded words and they are usually involve the next level on the bridge (politics/culture), but without good process many innovations die in the one-off graveyard. Where process shines is in its ability to bring people together. Process can be the birth of corporate collaboration (the needed order). What is probably most intriguing to me is the way a process can help those involved defocus the personal and collaborate more professionally as a team.
Politics/Culture: This sits at the top of the bridge for a very simple reason...politics and culture are the difference between succeeding and failing in the change game. Every company or group has a methodology for doing things and those within the culture often fight to lead and get their ideas implemented. As someone who often is focused on changing either the structure or culture, knowing how to move between the cracks is essential. If you don't, change will die quickly, if you do it can speed everything up substantially. Being a student of politics and culture in the innovation/change agent game is critical to helping you accomplish the innovation goals any organization has for itself.
Organizational Structure: As you come down off the peak of innovation to organizational structure, you begin to come in contact with the more mundane structure of a organization. On the theory side you have process which is the needed order for how you drive change (the process). On the concrete side of things you have the organizational structure (the people). This can be a very difficult part of making innovation real. The what's your role and should you be doing this is where corporate turf wars live. On the other hand, knowing who does what can help the innovator focus on targeting the right part of the organism to affect change. Finding the right pressure point and then getting it do break ranks from the structure is a trick worth thinking about as you move forward as an innovator.
Functional Execution: Like the big thoughts of theory that have little impact on the bottom line, when you are executing innovation you are making it real. But at what expense? Often times when those who are great at making innovation tangible, often lose the vision of why it was created in the first place. This step can lead to a launch that delivers less that it should have because "the box" got it done, but did it get done right? Thinking ahead and planning for this is critical. It is where a scalable theory is critical, a good process for aligning people for the change is paramount, knowing which players can accelerate things, who needs to buy in so in the end the functional execution is done with excellence.
All part of the bridge are needed to make it real. Start to far to the right you will be only incremental. Stay on the theory side and nothing gets done. All five parts are key...but that being said, the politics of innovation are where a person ultimately succeeds or fails in their quest to become an expert change agent...
To best understand how to make a difference as a change agent, we need to get clear on how to think through things conceptually in order to be able to make real change happen. Below is one way to think about the link between theory and functional execution.
Essentially what this visual highlights is a simple way to think about each thing an organization needs to make a great innovation live. And more importantly, it gives the innovator a way to think about where they are in the process to best understand what step is next and what is missing.
Theory: This is the foundation for big innovation. Innovation theory is where great ideas are born. Theory can add great impact to anything, because when the net is cast wide enough it can catch a lot of fish. The problem with theoretical constructs is that really have low dollar value until they are distilled and ultimately proven correct. And while they are usually one of the most exciting things for an innovator to work on, its limited business value can often keep them from ever really getting off the biggest idea off the ground. Is it folly to be a person who loves theory, no! Theory is what brings many efforts into context and creates what are often the most powerful and scalable innovations. Without the theory of open innovation, the explosion in external partnering in the late 90's and 00's would have never happened. In this case it took theory to give people a way to think about the change.
Process: While more tangible, process does not always drive the bottom line. In this case, we are not talking about the process design to make a product, we are talking about business processes by which corporate scale is often created. As stated on this slide, process brings the needed order to things, but its downside is it often crushes the spirit of new ideas because "we have a process for doing this...and that is outside of it". We have all heard these dreaded words and they are usually involve the next level on the bridge (politics/culture), but without good process many innovations die in the one-off graveyard. Where process shines is in its ability to bring people together. Process can be the birth of corporate collaboration (the needed order). What is probably most intriguing to me is the way a process can help those involved defocus the personal and collaborate more professionally as a team.
Politics/Culture: This sits at the top of the bridge for a very simple reason...politics and culture are the difference between succeeding and failing in the change game. Every company or group has a methodology for doing things and those within the culture often fight to lead and get their ideas implemented. As someone who often is focused on changing either the structure or culture, knowing how to move between the cracks is essential. If you don't, change will die quickly, if you do it can speed everything up substantially. Being a student of politics and culture in the innovation/change agent game is critical to helping you accomplish the innovation goals any organization has for itself.
Organizational Structure: As you come down off the peak of innovation to organizational structure, you begin to come in contact with the more mundane structure of a organization. On the theory side you have process which is the needed order for how you drive change (the process). On the concrete side of things you have the organizational structure (the people). This can be a very difficult part of making innovation real. The what's your role and should you be doing this is where corporate turf wars live. On the other hand, knowing who does what can help the innovator focus on targeting the right part of the organism to affect change. Finding the right pressure point and then getting it do break ranks from the structure is a trick worth thinking about as you move forward as an innovator.
Functional Execution: Like the big thoughts of theory that have little impact on the bottom line, when you are executing innovation you are making it real. But at what expense? Often times when those who are great at making innovation tangible, often lose the vision of why it was created in the first place. This step can lead to a launch that delivers less that it should have because "the box" got it done, but did it get done right? Thinking ahead and planning for this is critical. It is where a scalable theory is critical, a good process for aligning people for the change is paramount, knowing which players can accelerate things, who needs to buy in so in the end the functional execution is done with excellence.
All part of the bridge are needed to make it real. Start to far to the right you will be only incremental. Stay on the theory side and nothing gets done. All five parts are key...but that being said, the politics of innovation are where a person ultimately succeeds or fails in their quest to become an expert change agent...
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Innovation is to pupa as Change Agent is to butterfly
What is an innovator really? For many years being considered innovative was primary to my goals. Whether this meant working on the front end of the business, being the person people would turn to for "different ideas", or simply being the square peg in a round hole for whatever company I worked for, I relished the thought. And above that, leading an innovation effort was my real interest. Actually, I am not sure why this was my quest, but seeing new ideas and methods come alive was what I enjoyed and all that really interested me. And I guess the ME at the end of the last sentence really highlights the issue that needed to be overcome.
After many years of looking for the opportunity, my chance to lead an innovation program came to pass when I become global vice president of innovation at Daymon Worldwide. During my early days at Daymon, something happened. I am not totally sure when it occurred or how it occurred, but when I was in a position of "innovation leadership" it became clear that the innovation mantra was overrated. The more respect I received because I was in a position of authority on the subject of innovation, the more I saw it as my job to help others see why no single person can own an innovation effort. Don't get me wrong, I always wanted to have a chance to impact a lot of people by making their job fun and work as a place of self discovery, but not for my own ego's sake. In fact, after starting my twitter stream in 2009, I wrote something that helped me externalize what was happening.
Early in my learning this new social media technology, I wrote something that struck me as interesting...
Simply put...Innovation is to pupa as change agent is to butterfly.
Read it again...Innovation is to pupa as change agent is to butterfly.
Think about it. After writing it, it made perfect sense to me.
Innovation is merely an amorphous thing that people spend a lot of time fighting to define. How many of you innovators sit around defending your corporate existence arguing about how your efforts directly impact the bottom line? You can scream till your blue in the face about your efforts, but someone who is way more concrete than you will always argue that what you are pointing to is, "not innovative at all". They might go on and say its all our job to be innovative and what makes what you do any more innovative than what I do? And thus the merry go round goes round again. And again. Innovation is a great thing when it happens. It can be so obvious when it comes to life. That being said, I feel that what most innovators miss is how we can have the most impact on everyone.
And the word EVERYONE at the end of the last sentence is the point of this blogpost. After writing that twitter post, I began to realize that I was changing as an innovator. I realized that the concept of innovation, in my opinion, was merely a subset of the being a change agent. Change Agents (often referred to as innovation champions) operate on an entirely different plane. I began to recognize that if everyone could be about 5% more innovative the impact to the company would be so much greater than if my small team was 200% more innovative. The power of helping others see why they owned innovation became the focus, not the ideas or even the products/services. Our concrete friends are right, it is everyone's job and everyone is innovating everyday. What they fail to see however, some people use their culture, their process or their loyalty to how things are done are the seeds of where innovation stops and the need for change agency starts. It is only when a leadership team takes on the goal of showing everyone the power of having a culture of innovation that is based upon trust that true change can happen. And when I could see the power of culture and people as a key part of my role did I know I could always have an impact where ever I worked.
I recently received a complement I won't soon forget. I was having a conversation with a colleague who wanted to know more about what I had done at Daymon Worldwide. And as I shared with him some of my thoughts on how to build an innovation culture based upon trust, he listened attentively. After a back and forth discussion for about 15 minutes, he stopped me. He looked at me across the table and told me that my approach was different and that he really saw the power in the concept of innovator as change agent. I was very curious why he said this. I truly believe in the work I do, but like any good leader, I am always wary of my ego and hubris, because over my career when ever I feel like I am really doing great, someone always knocks me off my pedestal. So I asked him what I had said during our conversation that made him say this. He looked back at me and very directly told me. You know, I have sat in front of many innovators in my day, most of them always throw around the words innovation and strategy. You are one of the only ones who used the words people and culture. In fact, you didn't say innovation or strategy at all and that approach is different and refreshing. And at that moment I realized I had hatched from my cocoon and become a butterfly.
After many years of looking for the opportunity, my chance to lead an innovation program came to pass when I become global vice president of innovation at Daymon Worldwide. During my early days at Daymon, something happened. I am not totally sure when it occurred or how it occurred, but when I was in a position of "innovation leadership" it became clear that the innovation mantra was overrated. The more respect I received because I was in a position of authority on the subject of innovation, the more I saw it as my job to help others see why no single person can own an innovation effort. Don't get me wrong, I always wanted to have a chance to impact a lot of people by making their job fun and work as a place of self discovery, but not for my own ego's sake. In fact, after starting my twitter stream in 2009, I wrote something that helped me externalize what was happening.
Early in my learning this new social media technology, I wrote something that struck me as interesting...
Simply put...Innovation is to pupa as change agent is to butterfly.
Read it again...Innovation is to pupa as change agent is to butterfly.
Think about it. After writing it, it made perfect sense to me.
Innovation is merely an amorphous thing that people spend a lot of time fighting to define. How many of you innovators sit around defending your corporate existence arguing about how your efforts directly impact the bottom line? You can scream till your blue in the face about your efforts, but someone who is way more concrete than you will always argue that what you are pointing to is, "not innovative at all". They might go on and say its all our job to be innovative and what makes what you do any more innovative than what I do? And thus the merry go round goes round again. And again. Innovation is a great thing when it happens. It can be so obvious when it comes to life. That being said, I feel that what most innovators miss is how we can have the most impact on everyone.
And the word EVERYONE at the end of the last sentence is the point of this blogpost. After writing that twitter post, I began to realize that I was changing as an innovator. I realized that the concept of innovation, in my opinion, was merely a subset of the being a change agent. Change Agents (often referred to as innovation champions) operate on an entirely different plane. I began to recognize that if everyone could be about 5% more innovative the impact to the company would be so much greater than if my small team was 200% more innovative. The power of helping others see why they owned innovation became the focus, not the ideas or even the products/services. Our concrete friends are right, it is everyone's job and everyone is innovating everyday. What they fail to see however, some people use their culture, their process or their loyalty to how things are done are the seeds of where innovation stops and the need for change agency starts. It is only when a leadership team takes on the goal of showing everyone the power of having a culture of innovation that is based upon trust that true change can happen. And when I could see the power of culture and people as a key part of my role did I know I could always have an impact where ever I worked.
I recently received a complement I won't soon forget. I was having a conversation with a colleague who wanted to know more about what I had done at Daymon Worldwide. And as I shared with him some of my thoughts on how to build an innovation culture based upon trust, he listened attentively. After a back and forth discussion for about 15 minutes, he stopped me. He looked at me across the table and told me that my approach was different and that he really saw the power in the concept of innovator as change agent. I was very curious why he said this. I truly believe in the work I do, but like any good leader, I am always wary of my ego and hubris, because over my career when ever I feel like I am really doing great, someone always knocks me off my pedestal. So I asked him what I had said during our conversation that made him say this. He looked back at me and very directly told me. You know, I have sat in front of many innovators in my day, most of them always throw around the words innovation and strategy. You are one of the only ones who used the words people and culture. In fact, you didn't say innovation or strategy at all and that approach is different and refreshing. And at that moment I realized I had hatched from my cocoon and become a butterfly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)