|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Notes from the 1999 Innovation Study... The Scarlett O’Hara Syndrome—Is There a Link Between Identifying Innovation Challenges and Risk Taking? Is your company paralyzed by change, overcome by an attack of "the vapors?" These are acute symptoms of the Scarlett O’Hara Syndrome, an obstacle to sustained innovation. It happens when people revel in the drama of change, as Scarlett did, and use that drama to stay put. You know you have this syndrome when you say, "We can’t move on this because (there’s a merger coming up, we have three new people coming on, or the rebranding issue will change everything)." In actuality, change can be a driver of opportunities—if organizations leverage change, using it as an opportunity to take risks and experiment, the creative chaos that results can churn up all sorts of new things. But organizations have to be willing to act, and even take risks. As every strategist knows, effective action in business requires alignment with organizational goals, priorities and strategies. This requires defining your challenges specifically. And when you are working to build an innovative workplace, this step is crucial. It’s imperative that you understand where you have the greatest need for innovation, or the greatest opportunity. Often those needs and opportunities arise out of change—such as increased competition due to new economy players entering your market; consolidation and streamlining due to mergers and acquisitions; or shifting relationships and priorities as suppliers become both competitors and customers. Defining innovation challenges through the lens of change can lead to some unexpected opportunities. Once you’ve defined your challenges, you have to be willing to act on them, even if the time doesn’t seem exactly right. Plans are made to be changed, and acting on plans leads to learning that should bring you back to refining your plan and changing it if necessary. The idea is to be fluid in your planning and your action, not so rigidly focused on predetermined outcomes that you miss unexpected opportunities. The risk-taking factor comes into play in lots of different ways. In some companies, simply being willing to voice new ideas is considered risky. In others, moving on a new program or initiative whose outcome is uncertain may be considered a risk. While definitions and levels of risk may differ in organizations, our recent study on Leadership and Innovation found one constant among innovative companies—risk acceptance and an understanding that inevitable mistakes and even failures are often the basis for innovation. As we thought about this, we got interested in the link between defining challenges and risk taking. So we looked at how the respondents answered questions 3 and 4. (Question 3: To what extent have you defined challenges specifically? Question 4: To what extent have you minimized fear of failure?) We hypothesized to ourselves that those who were doing well in defining challenges might also be doing well in minimizing fear of failure (so as to accept risk taking), and vice versa. We had noticed that the response pattern in these questions was similar (34% of respondents picked "3" on question 3, and 32% picked "3" on question 4…were these the same people?). What we found was that they often were the same people. 14% of respondents answered "3" to both questions; another 11% selected "3" on question 3 and "4" on question 4; and about 10% selected "4" on question 3 and "3" on question 4. That adds up to 35% of the sample. By contrast, about 13% selected a combination of "1" and "2" on both questions (we’d call these the leaders whose organizations are afflicted with the Scarlett O’Hara Syndrome), and about 20% selected a combination of "4" and "5" on both questions (these would be the organizations who have escaped the Scarlett Syndrome). Most of our sample, then, is doing "average" when it comes to the Scarlett O’Hara Syndrome. Time and again, ideas and innovations are not cultivated and nurtured by focused, well-conceived action plans, but put on the "back burner" until change goes away. But change never goes away. So when the Scarlett O’Hara Syndrome infiltrates an organization, inaction and procrastination causes stagnation. Forget "tomorrow is another day." There is no innovation without action, and no better time for action than the present. Do it now. The Link between Enhancing Creativity and Defining Innovation The words "creativity" and "innovation" are often used interchangeably in business, but they are really two different things. Creativity, an exploratory thinking and discovery process, involves generating ideas and options and making connections to come up with something new. Innovation is an outcome--what occurs once you've zeroed in effective ideas and found ways to put those ideas into action. Innovation generates value. Creativity, then, is one component of innovation. To have an innovative workplace, you need creativity, but not all creativity leads to innovation--that is, ideas must go through development and selection processes to weed out those that simply won't work or that are unrealistic. Do organizations understand this difference? Generally, we find they don't, and that is one of the barriers to building an innovative workplace. Notebook entry #2 discusses the importance of defining creativity so that people know what is expected of them; but it is even more important for organizations to understand what innovation means-that is, each organization needs to define what it means by innovation. That is the first step in the process of building a strategic foundation for innovation: knowing what you want to achieve, what you are driving for. To better understand how companies are doing in terms of separating creativity from innovation, we took a look at how respondents in our study answered questions 6 and 1. (Question 6: To what extent have you taken deliberate, observable steps to enhance creativity? Question 1: To what extent have you defined innovation to take out the mystery?) We wanted to see if respondents answers on question 6 correlated to their responses on question 1. We found that the same respondents who rated themselves "low" on question 6 (selecting response 1 or 2 on the 1-5 scale) also rated themselves low on question 1. In other words, those who were doing a poor job of enhancing creativity had also not concisely defined innovation based on organizational goals, strategies and culture. This group made up more than 38% of the entire sample. Another way to look at this was to see how many respondents who rated themselves low on enhancing creativity rated themselves high on defining innovation--the number was zero.Similarly, when we looked at the respondents who rated themselves high (4 or 5 on the 1-5 scale) on enhancing creativity, to see how many of them rated themselves low in the area of defining innovation, we found only 1%. However, we did NOT find that the respondents who were strong on enhancing creativity were also strong on defining innovation. Respondents who placed themselves in the 4-5 range on question 6 tended to place themselves in the 2-4 range on question 1. The correlation that exists among respondents who ranked themselves low on these two questions suggests to us that organizations who don't work on creativity have not raised their awareness levels in terms of innovation; therefore, there is a chance that, like many organizations, they have not defined either of these, and may be equating creativity with innovation. The lack of correlation among respondents who ranked themselves high on question 6 suggests that these organizations, as well, have not made the distinction between being creative and the job and delivering the value that comes from an innovation. The important thing, of course, is not that organizations spend time defining things, but that they put in place a strategic framework that integrates innovation throughout. Creating such a framework requires thought and consideration, and defining innovation is the first step. In other words, to grow the innovative organization, leaders must start with their own definition of innovation. In different organizations, innovation means different things. It means understanding your market, your industry, your internal and external constraints and parameters, so that you know where you need to go. It means understanding the areas of the business that need innovation the most. That’s why "Innovation by best-seller" doesn’t work. The key to sustainable innovation is having a customized, systemic approach that aligns innovation with an organization’s strategy and goals. Creativity…What’s up with THAT? Our study on Leadership and Innovation uncovered 7 key success factors. Number 5: Emphasis on and tangible support for exploratory thinking, idea generation and experimentation. How do you achieve this success factor? With CREATIVITY. Leaders must help individuals get past their stereotypical ideas of what creativity is, and lead their people onto a path of discovery of their own creative abilities, and they also must enhance those abilities on an ongoing basis. They need to LEVERAGE the creativity of each person to ensure high quality thinking across the organization. They need to understand and communicate just what "creativity" is, and what the expectations are. The good news: We are all creative, with the ability to look at things with new perspectives and generate fresh solutions. The bad news: Leaders aren’t effectively utilizing their people’s creative abilities to their fullest potential. Creativity in business tends to be viewed across a spectrum of two extremes. At one end, creativity is the "gravy" organizations get when they bring on individuals who HAPPEN to have skills that are generally seen as "creative"—often these skills have to do with verbal or artistic ability. At the opposite end of the spectrum is creativity as a mandated activity—"Be creative"—within a set of strict parameters, some concrete (such as budget), some nebulous (such as the boss’s or client’s ego).Leaders who bypass this spectrum and really take the time to discover and understand the creative abilities of their people know that creativity isn’t "gravy." It’s not a lucky extra, but a required competency for business survival. Unfortunately, not many leaders are doing the work of assessment and discovery—only 2% of respondents in our study said they were consistently and effectively working in this area, and 22% said they weren’t doing it at all. Moreover, leaders who deliberately work to enhance the creative abilities of their people know it’s ineffective to say, "Be creative." Leaders should never assume that people know that creativity is expected of them, nor should they assume that people understand what such a directive really means in concrete terms. Our study found that leaders are not consistently and effectively working to enhance creativity. Only 5% said they’ve introduced models for thinking, tools that foster innovation, or techniques/training to build skills. The picture got bleaker when we asked, Did leaders who failed to discover creative abilities also fail to enhance creativity? AND Were leaders who were strong on discovery also strong on enhancement? We found that the leaders who are not working to discover creative abilities also are not working to enhance creativity. When ranking themselves on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (consistently and effectively), the majority of those who chose 1 or 2 on the discovery question also chose 1 or 2 on the enhancement question. For these leaders, creativity may be seen as an inessential "extra" on the side. Those leaders who are consistently working to discover creative abilities do not appear to be working to the same degree to enhance creativity in their organizations. Those who selected "5" on the discovery question placed themselves in the middle (3 or 4) on enhancement. Beyond "gravy" and "mandate" there is another possibility for how leaders can view and work with creativity. It is a process that requires certain modes of behavior, and the outcome of the process is unknown before the process is put in place. We describe that process as realigning or recombining two or more elements (things or ideas) into new relationships that didn’t previously exist. It’s a process that requires re-thinking, experimenting, living with a bit of chaos, and it requires commitment—of time and discipline (practice). We live in the Age of Assessment. At every turn, there are methods, tools and opportunities for measuring and understanding skill levels and capabilities. If you want to understand the creative strengths or gaps of your people, there are plenty of ways to do it. But assessment is nothing without a way to leverage the information that is generated from it. Leaders who pull the assessments out of the personnel files throw the information on the table, sift through it with their teams to get a comprehensive picture of the collective brainpower—and then take the next step, to enhancing what’s there, filling the gaps and putting in place a structured process for thinking creatively on the job. Tigers, Clowns and Trapeze Artists: Innovation as a Three-Ring Circus Our study on Leadership and Innovation uncovered 7 key success factors. Number 2: Strategic alignment of innovation initiatives with business goals, policies and processes. Picture the innovation of Company X as a three-ring circus. In Ring One, the massive and graceful tigers are jumping through hoops faster and faster every moment, racing against one another at such a pace that they can focus only on the exact spot their front feet will land next, and then positioning themselves just firmly enough for the next leap. In Ring Two, clowns fall over one another in a haphazard comedy of errors, mistakes and miscommunications. In Ring Three, two trapeze artists gracefully appear to fly through the air in a breathtaking performance that looks deceptively simple and capture the attention of everyone in the audience for one moment. This scene may describe perfection when literally referring to a circus, but as a metaphor for Company X, it spells disaster. Three separate and distinct sets of activity are going on, with three distinct outcomes. In Ring One, we see individuals driven by the need to move as quickly as possible, driven by external constraints that keep them myopically focused on the short-term. In Ring Two, we see a hit-and-miss atmosphere with no formal communication or feedback channels, lots of misplaced competitiveness, and very little positive team effort. Only in Ring Three do we see the grace and performance that come of a committed, well-aligned team—and that lasts for only a few minutes. If each ring represents a different part of an organization—marketing, operations and R&D, for example—then Company X is at risk. Why?
Notes from our Study on Leadership and Innovation:Our study on Leadership and Innovation asked leaders: To what extent have you defined innovation to take out the mystery? and To what extent have you linked innovation to business goals? A key finding was that most leaders do not see themselves as consistently and effectively demonstrating behaviors that set the stage of innovative behavior and thinking to occur—most especially, defining innovation and linking innovation to business goals. We took a closer look at the responses to those questions and asked, how did those who answered "1" or "2" (indicating "not at all" and "minimally," respectively) to the question on defining innovation answer the question on linking innovation to business goals? And, likewise, how did those answering "4" or "5" (meaning "mostly" and "consistently and effectively," respectively) on the first question answer the second question? We found that the responses did correlate—that is, those who answered 1 or 2 on the first question were likely to answer the second question the same way. Moreover, those who answered 4 or 5 on both questions was a very small number (only 2%). What does this mean? It indicated to us that most leaders are not being strategic about innovation—very few have defined innovation and those who have not defined it also have not linked it to business goals. That is, they have not yet stepped up and moved beyond thinking of innovation as a breakthrough idea that leads to a lucky hit in the marketplace. For a company to be innovative, its leaders must grow the innovative organization. Innovation needs a deliberate, customized model to become integrated across the enterprise. Historically this framework has not existed—organizations have innovated haphazardly in silos, on a project-by-project basis that doesn’t allow innovation to be leveraged. This means taking innovation beyond the laboratory, the leadership retreat and the brainstorming room and weaving it into the strategy. In the new economy, relying on the "magic" of an innovative breakthrough is as dangerous as flying on the trapeze without a net. You may be the center of attention for a few breathtaking moments, but you won’t be taking the crucial leap that will help you achieve market dominance for decades—leveraging the changing marketplace by continuously anticipating needs, and ensuring all your people are alert to innovation opportunities. Read about our Sustaining Innovation service to learn how we can help you create a strategic framework for innovation in your organization! |
|||||||
The driving
force behind Innovation is Leadership. Leaders who demonstrate the following
competencies and behaviors are also demonstrating a commitment that will drive the
integration of innovation throughout an organization:
The Thunderbolt Thinking Leadership and Innovation Study sought to probe the issue of Leadership in Innovation. This qualitative study is concerned with the behaviors and practices of leaders in bringing about innovation. Study Objectives:
|
|||||||
Method: 74% of the 189 individuals surveyed were in top executive or senior management positions (President, CEO, Managing Director, Senior Vice President, Vice President, etc.). Through a nine-question self-assessment tool, we gathered feedback on day to day actions and practices that operationalize the Innovation Success Factors outlined above. In addition, secondary research was conducted. Together, the survey results and findings from the secondary research were analyzed to create an overall picture of the state of Leadership and Innovation. The questions on this survey related to steps that leaders can take to build an innovative workplace, including development of definitions and models; systematic integration of innovation practices; strategic alignment of innovation and business objectives; and enhancing creativity, planning and communication. Thunderbolt Thinking, Inc. distributed the surveys through direct mail, electronic mail, fax, the Internet and face-to-face presentations. |
|||||||
| 5 Key Findings | |||||||
The five key
findings of the study include the following:
Most leaders do not see themselves as consistently and effectively demonstrating the behaviors described in the questions of the Thunderbolt Thinking Innovation Survey. Few respondents in the Thunderbolt Thinking Leadership and Innovation Study answered "consistently and effectively" (5) to the questions in the survey. "Consistently and effectively" was selected, on average, by only 7% of the respondents, while "Not at all" (1) was selected, on average, by 11%. Most leaders do not see themselves as consistently and effectively demonstrating behaviors that set the stage for innovative behavior and thinking to occur—defining innovation, linking innovation to business goals, and discovering the creative abilities of individuals. There are many definitions for innovation in the workplace, and many different perceptions of what being innovative really means. Some organizations see innovation as a top-down, integrated element that is embedded in all strategy, processes, goals, training initiatives and communications; however, others view innovation as an incentive program that rewards employees for submitting cost-saving ideas, or as an effort to enhance creativity. In order for an organization to successfully integrate innovation, leaders must ensure that teams and individuals understand how innovation is defined within their organizations. Yet more than half of respondents (54%) place themselves on the low end of the scale when asked to assess the extent to which they have defined innovation within their organization. Further, only 7% of respondents said they were consistently and effectively linking innovation to business goals. Finally, an environment conducive to creativity has been identified as a crucial component of innovation in any organization. Yet, 52% of respondents placed themselves at the low end of the scale when it comes to discovering the creative abilities of team members. More than twice as many leaders see themselves as not at all working to enhance creativity in their organization as the number who say they do so consistently and effectively. Not only did few respondents indicate that they undertake efforts to uncover creative abilities and strengths in their teams or organizations, but few are working to enhance creativity. Only 5% of respondents indicated that they are "consistently and effectively" developing action plans that systematically introduce new models for thinking; techniques/tools that foster innovation; or training to enhance creativity. The good news is that a majority of respondents in the Thunderbolt Thinking Leadership and Innovation Study did indicate that they are facilitating discussion, setting up lines of communication, and working to develop cross-functional communication. This is the only question that garnered more responses at the high end of the scale (70%) than at the low end (9%). In each of 4 questions relating to leaders’ taking action and initiative in order to be innovative and support innovation, more than 30% of respondents placed themselves in the center of the scale. There is no innovation without action. And effective action requires effective analytical thinking—e.g., setting criteria, judging and evaluating ideas and solutions against quantitative data, narrowing down possibilities to a realistic number—as well as motivation to move and willingness to be flexible and rework action plans constantly. When asked to report their behavior in the areas of identifying, prioritizing, and allocating resources for meeting important challenges with innovative solutions, 34% selected option 3 on the 1-5 scale. 32% chose 3 when asked to assess their action in creating procedures for handling mistakes and failures so that they become learning opportunities. When asked to rate their behavior in the area of setting examples by enhancing their own creative skills and incorporating creative behaviors into their day to day work, 34% selected option 3. Finally, when asked to report on their behavior in facilitating action in order to convert creative ideas into specific innovative strategies, through systematic action plans, 35% chose option 3.
|
|||||||
| 7 Success Factors | |||||||
Secondary research
and field work by Thunderbolt Thinking, Inc., have revealed 7 Innovation Success Factors:
This research suggests that leaders are excelling in pockets of the competency areas that support and sustain innovation, but that few, if any, are consistently and effectively practicing a comprehensive set of behaviors. Building an innovative workplace and achieving the success factors above requires a commitment and a deliberate effort from leaders. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
