the downside of innovation
Hi all
This was a very funny presentation at the Fortune Innovation conference on the downside of innovation by Stanley Bing; summarised by someone who attended:
Consider the basic equation: Innovation = Constant Change = Pain. There are various sources of this pain -- meetings where nothing gets done, the constant demand for ideas, the competition for mental shelf space, creativity ("this is a pain"), initiative, the obnoxious pressure for gratuitous change and... consultants. Innovative organizations are over-run by consultants, but consultants always come with body bags.
Innovation takes an emotional toll -- anxiety/depression; feelings of inadequacy; triumph of shallow change agents; disrespect for process; idiotic disregard for tradition; promotion of wrong people; marginalization of true experts. "If don't buy the flavor of the day, you're a Luddite." "If you don't adopt the newest innovation, you're all going to die!" According to the media, all innovation is going to kill the existing business model.
Take a look at the great innovators throughout history... Hannibal, Gutenberg, Galileo, George Washington ("invented guerilla warfare, which led to the Vietnam War"), Louis Pasteur ("invented germs"), Albert Einstein ("invented the theory of relativity, which led to the atomic bomb"), and Bill Gates.
What is the true value of innovation? Like any new toy, the value, both real and perceived, declines over time. With innovation, there are benefits as well as liabilities. The liabilities include creativity, dysfunction and stupidity, and change for change's sake. There are alternatives to harmful and pointless innovation: pleasant stasis, gradual change, periodic invention of helpful things, knowing where everything is located all the time; a business plan that is comprehensible to everybody and... a corned beef sandwich.
The conclusion: Innovation has its place (i.e. "around San Francisco"). "Innovation leads to organizations run by children and idiotic crazies." Any questions?
This was a very funny presentation at the Fortune Innovation conference on the downside of innovation by Stanley Bing; summarised by someone who attended:
Consider the basic equation: Innovation = Constant Change = Pain. There are various sources of this pain -- meetings where nothing gets done, the constant demand for ideas, the competition for mental shelf space, creativity ("this is a pain"), initiative, the obnoxious pressure for gratuitous change and... consultants. Innovative organizations are over-run by consultants, but consultants always come with body bags.
Innovation takes an emotional toll -- anxiety/depression; feelings of inadequacy; triumph of shallow change agents; disrespect for process; idiotic disregard for tradition; promotion of wrong people; marginalization of true experts. "If don't buy the flavor of the day, you're a Luddite." "If you don't adopt the newest innovation, you're all going to die!" According to the media, all innovation is going to kill the existing business model.
Take a look at the great innovators throughout history... Hannibal, Gutenberg, Galileo, George Washington ("invented guerilla warfare, which led to the Vietnam War"), Louis Pasteur ("invented germs"), Albert Einstein ("invented the theory of relativity, which led to the atomic bomb"), and Bill Gates.
What is the true value of innovation? Like any new toy, the value, both real and perceived, declines over time. With innovation, there are benefits as well as liabilities. The liabilities include creativity, dysfunction and stupidity, and change for change's sake. There are alternatives to harmful and pointless innovation: pleasant stasis, gradual change, periodic invention of helpful things, knowing where everything is located all the time; a business plan that is comprehensible to everybody and... a corned beef sandwich.
The conclusion: Innovation has its place (i.e. "around San Francisco"). "Innovation leads to organizations run by children and idiotic crazies." Any questions?
posted by ROInnovation at 5:02 AM
4 Comments:
I love this description of innovation! It is wonderful reverse psychology.
It leaves me with two questions:
1. Are those of us who embrace this "realist" definition highly functional or highly dysfunctional? What does it say about my mental state that I want to fail, be non-conformist, be seen as an idiot (occasionally), take uncalculated risks, and experience fear and anxiety?
2. Is Bill Gates really an innovator? He bought what became the Windows operating system from another company, and Microsoft has been second, third or last to market with products in almost all of its leading categories. What makes someone an "innovator"?
1. yes, I think the point is that we're all taught to think like this, but ironically its conformism within organisations that stops ideas from forming.
2. I don't think anyone sees Bill Gates as an innovator anymore - maybe he was at first - but now all I hear is criticisms of how lacking in innovation Microsoft are.
3. I think innovators are the people who make risky decisions, many of which fail, but some succeed because they've answered a need in culture. By its nature though, innovation requires failure and success, so safe decisions will never be innovative.
Pam
Pam - I think your points are spot on... especially the fact that to innovate, an individual or company must be willing to take risks.
That raises an interesting counterpoint... the business community embraces innovation (at least on the surface). As we've all seen, it's heavily featured in news articles, mission statements, blogs, etc. However, can businesses and business leaders live up to their innovation potential? The stock market does not reward failure... and stock price is the most common measure of executive success. So, can an executive afford to make risky decisions when failure is unacceptable? Does that force a lowest-common-denominator approach to developing new products and services?
The small firms that are not afraid to take risks (cause they're usually private and have a lot less to lose) are the ones making the breakthroughs (and also failing left and right). How can a large firm get away with a small firm mentality? No easy answers here, but working this out addresses Hamel's argument for more fundamental, management innovation.
Hi Scott - yes, I agree and don't know the answer. The only thing I've heard said is that a CEO should be willing to tell the stock market that success and results will not happen in a short time. Apparently there are companies who've said to the market "for 3 years we will fail, but then you wll see us grow". So long as they are given the reasons behind the need for risks and failure, and can see their way past it by trusting in the overall strategy, they have in the past accepted the longer term view, and not expected results yearly.
Post a Comment
<< Home