The Master doesn’t talk, he acts. When his work is done, the people say, “Amazing: We did it all by ourselves!” – Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
Innovative thinking is widely seen as the key to success in our rapidly changing world. Yet the great majority of organizations are not meeting their innovation goals. A recent survey by the consulting firm NTT Data states the problem in a nutshell: Of 1,000 executives surveyed in the U.S. and Canada, 96% identified innovation as a “primary source of growth over the next two years.” Yet only 21% said that their organizations had met innovation goals.
If innovation is critical, what prevents it from taking root? Here are three significant obstacles:
Fear of failure. Topping the list is the fear of failure. A full 85% of leaders identified fear – of failing, of being criticized, and of suffering career setbacks – as stifling efforts to innovate, according to McKinsey.
Hierarchy and authority. A top-down management structure can block innovative thinking from the start. The Harvard Business Review calls the problem “authority bias,” in which voices at the top of the pyramid drown out the rest. The authors state that authority bias is both pervasive and pernicious.
Cultural inertia. Another barrier is organizational inertia. A 2023 review paper published in the International Journal of Education and the Humanities identified “cultural inertia” – or resistance to change – as the reason 70% of all innovation efforts fail.
In this final part of the Innovative Thinking series, we will explore what leaders and organizations can do to encourage innovative thinking. In Part 1, we examined the foundations of innovative thinking and in Part 2, we considered ways to turn obstacles into opportunities.
“In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few.” So begins Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind by Shunryu Suzuki. The short quotation sums up both the problem and a way forward when faced with novel challenges.
Become a non-expert: The first step leaders can take toward innovative thinking is to acknowledge that they don’t always have all the answers. This seemingly self-evident point can cause even the best leaders to stumble.
Leaders typically come to their positions by being experts in one or more subjects. They lead by using their expertise to guide their teams toward optimal solutions. In most situations, the expert approach is efficient and leads to quick, decisive action.
But when faced with disruptive change, the “expert mind” can be limiting. By applying the concept of the beginner’s mind to business situations, leaders can adopt a more inclusive and flexible perspective.
Start by admitting there are no ready answers. Leaders can set the tone by acknowledging their own limitations and inviting the entire team to participate, both in defining the problem and in searching for answers. Any fear of failure needs to be addressed and put to rest. The leader should then start asking questions, be receptive to suggestions, and be willing to try new things.
By acknowledging limits, the leader becomes open to possibilities – with innovative thinking as the end result.
Leading without authority. Adaptive leadership is a term coined by Ronald Heifetz, of the Harvard Business School, and others. It is intended as an alternative to top-down, hierarchical decision making. The authors describe adaptive leadership as “leading without authority.”
Adaptive leadership begins by distinguishing “technical challenges” from “adaptive challenges.” Technical challenges may be difficult, but they arise from known causes and have known solutions. There is a playbook to follow. One person or team normally will be able to resolve these issues.
Adaptive challenges, on the other hand, may have unexplained causes and no clear solutions. The challenges may span the entire organization – or threaten its existence. No single person (or team) has the background or experience to tackle them alone. Adaptive challenges call for adaptive leadership, which has several defining characteristics:
Once leadership adopts innovative thinking habits, they can lead their organizations by fostering a culture of innovation. But it takes more than trendy co-working spaces and espresso machines to foster innovative thinking. Organizations benefit from matching freedom with accountability and experimentation with discipline.
Freedom with accountability. To stimulate innovative thinking among employees, organizations should follow the classic parenting advice to provide both “roots and wings,” according to Corning’s chief technologist, Waguih Ishak, writing for McKinsey. “Ground creative people in accountability for the organization’s objectives . . . [t]hen you give them broad discretion to work in service of those parameters.”
He advises organizations not to “obsess over budgets and deadlines,” which can kill innovation from the start. Once team members understand that they are accountable for delivering needed products and processes, you can trust them to deliver. That trust will begin to forge a culture of innovative thinking throughout the organization.
Experimentation with discipline. Economist and professor Gary P. Pisano offers complementary advice in the Harvard Business Review. He notes that organizations embracing experimentation are “comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity.” But that doesn’t mean anything goes.
Innovative organizations exercise discipline by selecting experiments to maximize learning, and designing them to provide as much useful data as possible. Based on the data obtained, they also set clear criteria for when to move forward, modify, or move on. Being disciplined allows organizations to try more things without draining their resources.
Flattening hierarchy while strengthening leadership. Pisano and Ishak agree that deferring to hierarchy for its own sake kills innovative thinking. Ishak recalls a time when he had to break rules and ignore protocol to secure resources for an engineer with a “passion project” involving laser technology. As a result of that rule-breaking, Corning was first to market with a breakthrough technology.
Pisano advocates for “culturally flat” organizations where information can flow as needed regardless of official titles and procedures. In these organizations, people have great latitude to make decisions, voice their opinions, and take action. “Deference is granted on the basis of competence, not title,” he writes.
Flatness can provide stronger leadership, not weaker. It allows senior leaders to stay close to operations and projects. But it also requires leaders to maintain a balance between articulating a compelling big-picture vision and staying current on technical issues.
When developing a culture of innovative thinking, the ultimate goal can be summed up by the quote at the beginning of this article: Lead so that everyone has a stake in the process, is invested in the outcome, and has the freedom to act.
================================
If you need to leverage the highly experienced consultants and seasoned management advisors at Wull to help create an innovation strategy, please contact us for further discussion. Thank you.
Copyright ©️ 2024 by Stephen Wullschleger. All rights reserved.
Leave a Reply