No psychologist should pretend to understand what he does not understand… Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand nothing.
- Anton Chekhov
Why explore the impact of psychology on innovation?
Organization psychology examines the relations between the individual and the tasks he or she is posed, between the individual and the surrounding social context in which he or she find themselves, and between the individual and the formal organizational structure. The practice of innovation, the creation and invention of new products, services, business models is very much at the heart of organizations seeking to increase their long-term success. The psychology of organizations plays a primary role in the effectiveness innovation practices and outcomes.
Also, when we consider a psychological framework for innovation it is also vital to include a broader understanding of social psychology. Social psychology is the scientific study of how people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by others; regardless of whether or not that presence is actual, imagined, or implied. This influence is especially important when we factor in the influences on innovation of open source models which reach beyond the formal boundaries of organizations.
In order to create a wider understanding of the psychology underpinning innovation in the next few weeks and months regular posts will focus on those aspects of psychology that hold sway in the practice of innovation (whether we choose to acknowledge them or not.) Topics will include anchoring, heuristics, and biases, as well as cognition, group dynamics and resilience. The intent is to unlock their power and influence and improve their management in the development of robust innovation cultures.
For an innovation culture to be successfully created and fostered over time, it is a necessity to have a better sense of how people interact and engage. So let’s explore…
Filed under Innovation, Organization Culture, Social Psychology · Tagged with collaboration, communication, concentration, creativity, fundamental attribution error, Innovation, insight, learning, meaning, organization, primed, priming, systems, thinking, Trust, understanding
The watch words for innovation at present are “open innovation” and “customer-centricity”. The idea that the customer should not only be invited into the innovation process, they should be at its very heart, is of paramount significance. The oft-quoted Henry Ford, “If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse,” for years held sway over product development. The thinking was that customers don’t know what they want until we tell them and sell them. That may have worked in the era of Mad Men, but customers’ access to data and ability to wield it to their own purposes means that that they can be excluded from product and service innovation at a producer’s peril.
We don’t know what we don’t know
If you’re not serving the customer, you’d better be serving someone who is.
- Karl Albrecht
The fact remains that most companies producing products and services have only a limited perspective on their customers’ needs (as those needs relate to their set of offerings). Which means often the stewards of innovation are flying blind. Recently April Dunford, of Rocket Watcher, posted on why it might be important to run a customer advisory board. Her directives speak to the need to include a customer perspective in the mix that not only provides insight into the customer experience of your products and services, but one that also reaches beyond the horizon to provide a glimpse into potential new markets.
Without customers’ perspectives it is very hard to know limits of what you do and do not know. Inviting them into the mix means that even if you can’t name the dragons at the end of your world (read: market) you can at least see them. The other opportunity to be created by including customers’ views in your thinking is that not only will the community that they form will feed you new ideas and innovation options, that same community will also generate the goodwill that comes from an expanded network. You can create the opportunity for customers to share and network with each other, which may not have an immediate benefit to you, but you better believe it will have a positive return.
One of my personal guides as I ventured into the world of consulting services many years, Nancy Truitt Pierce (the Founder and CEO of Woods Creek Consulting Company in the Seattle, Washington state area) was a great proponent of the customer advisory council. She actually turned the advisory council concept on its head and made networking the heart of its reason for being. She now has a model of consortia that encompass the needs of her customers: technology sector executive peers, senior executive peers, sales executive peers, and CFO’s. Each group meets to share insights, advise each other, and Nancy moderates. Long term many members have become Nancy’s clients and she brings their insights back into her firm to innovate her service offerings
Our customers don’t know but they can show us
Be everywhere, do everything, and never fail to astonish the customer.
- Marshall Field
For many companies though, the customer cannot conceive what they need because they are too close to their issues. No matter how hard they might try to articulate their concerns they fall short. This leads to poor communication and inadequate responses on the part of market to meeting their needs. This is not satisfactory for anyone.
Again, the key is to get closer to the customer so that the path to innovation is as pain-free as possible. The design power-house, IDEO, when working on product design opportunities for their clients uses ethnographic study (targeted, field-based observation) to achieve this end very readily. They have perfected a multi-layered approach to observing the customer experience, that may include questioning, but more often than not involves direct experience of customer’s challenges live, in real-time. Sometimes it involves their staff essentially moving into the home of a customer in order to glean first-hand experience. One of IDEO’s partners, Proctor & Gamble has actually adopted this concept and uses it to drive their own innovation processes.
P&G’s approach is called the “Living It” program. Living It creates opportunities for P&G’s ethnographers to live with customers (willing participants), to observe how they go about their everyday lives. The ethnographers get to rapidly identify customers’ needs first hand by seeing what their customers are trying to do, and how they might be hampered by their environment or the inadequacy of their tools. They can then use these insights to identify potential new products that would make customers’ everyday lives easier. This focus on understanding customers’ needs through jobs and desired outcomes is absent from the question and answer-based innovation process that passes for customer involvement in many companies today.
Opening innovation to the customer experience
The purpose of business is to create and keep a customer.
- Peter F. Drucker
The next step beyond experiencing the customer live and in real-time is to actually open the innovation process so that they are not passively observed; open innovation brings customers into the mix to co-create and design solutions that meet their needs without the filter of internal enterprise interpretation. This kind of inclusion would have been considered nightmarish in past generations. “Invite the customer to develop their own products?! Why the heck would I do that?!” might have crossed the mind of more than one researcher or product developer. The inherent fears at play driving that reaction were loss of control and like Nosferatu, once they were invited into the process they might never leave. The shock was that not only did customers behave themselves, but given their vested interest in the design outcome, they were enthusiastic collaborators.
Stefan Lindegaard, the founder of innovation consultancy 15inno based in Copenhagen, is one of the most vocal proponents of the open innovation model. His advocacy for open innovation is breaking open the discussion about its utility for all types of companies. Previously open innovation was reserved as the practice of larger companies with the funds to develop a customer engagement model (see P&G above), yet Stefan is making the case that open innovation should not only be embraced by all companies, no matter how small, but that it should tap the widest global network possible. His reasoning, why limit yourself when who knows where you might make the best solution connection?
Not every suggestion warrants action (but they all warrant a response)
Innovation comes from the producer — not from the customer.
- W. Edwards Deming
What happens when your open innovation network comes with ideas that are not the right fit for your organization? One of the failings of inviting the customer into the innovation experience is that companies do not actively manage that experience. If you think a customer having a poor purchasing experience can cause havoc you haven’t seen anything until you have seen a customer relationship poorly managed when it is invited into a closer discussion about product development and is ignored, or worse yet, discounted.
Including the customer in your innovation processes requires just as much planning and management as your marketing and sales management processes. To neglect this preparation, or poorly implement the management of the customer experience as you bring them into your organization’s systems and processes can not only damage the immediate client relationship it can actually damage their total lifetime value to your enterprise.
Before a customer suggests an idea that you know you cannot and will not implement, develop a plan to address that potential problem. Either, remove the circumstances in which that request might be formed by developing a set of clearly defined and constantly visible expectations against which you can manage their experience. Or, develop contingent strategies that acknowledge their contribution and defuse its impact. Failure to do so might result in disastrous consequences. Losing customers while trying to meet their needs is certainly not a good result from your innovation efforts.
After all, you are trying to meet their needs not create new ones that they will seek another provider to solve!
Filed under Innovation, Social Psychology · Tagged with communication, community, concentration, focus, goals, Innovation, insight, leadership, open source, organization, product development, shared learning, strategy, Trust, understanding
A genius looks at something that others are stuck on and gets the world unstuck.
- Seth Godin, Linchpin
Genius Marketer Markets Book Ingeniously
If Seth Godin was doing anything with his past books it was perhaps leading a trail of breadcrumbs to this current book, Linchpin. Where Tribes (2008) was a call to finding a following and to stake out a territory as a leader, Linchpin, released today (January 26th – Happy Australia* Day and Happy Republic Day in India, by the way) is more a call to arms. It reaches out, grabs your lapels (or collar, if you don’t have lapels, or neck if you don’t have a collar) and gives you a good shake. Linchpin directly addresses the anxiety of our time and offers a self-directed path away from that experience. It points toward a future where we can control how and where and with whom we will make meaning. And it does so with a joy and enthusiasm that are all Seth’s own.
I’ve long been an avid reader of Seth (to call him Mr. Godin, while proper, seems inappropriate given the long acquaintance we have had, however one-sided as it has been.) I’ve succumbed to the Ideavirus; I’ve Dipped; and, I’ve fallen for a Purple Cow. When the opportunity arose to make a donation to The Acumen Fund (established by Jacqueline Novogratz – featured at the number two slot on the book jacket blurb) in order to receive an advance copy of this book, I jumped at the chance. Contribute to a good cause? Read the latest from a favored author? What’s not to love? The genius of this is that I talked about the unique promotion of the book widely. I talked about my anticipation as I awaited my advance copy. I talked to people as I read the book. And now, I’m fulfilling my final obligation (willingly) as part of the original promotional bargain, I’m writing about the book. Like I said, ingenious genius.
Recognizing that what worked isn’t any longer
I have a background in education and have long recognized that the structure of much Western education continues to represent a response to the needs of the newly Industrial Age. I cannot begin to count the number of ages that have been (and gone) since that time. When Linchpin identified that educational indoctrination as something that prevents as from achieving our potential, in all its self-fulfilling messiness, I crowed. Finally, arguments long had in academic circles were to receive a wider airing and I couldn’t be happier.
If an aversion to risk is hardwired into us, taking that to its extreme and designing and living a system of education that only prepares us for managing that risk is a crying shame. Seth’s response, that we have created and continue to create a dispensable, interchangeable workforce when the present cries out for something much more robust, is refreshing to say the least. If we are what we do, then let’s do something new, because what we used to do won’t do any more. In short, Seth is inviting us to each become a “linchpin”.
Choosing to be something new and true
Keith Ferrazzi in his book, Never Eat Alone, talked about the power of abundance and notes that, “the currency of real networking is not greed but generosity.” Seth takes this concept of the power of generosity and, instead of applying it to networking, he applies it to personal insight, productivity and market growth. Being generous, being capable, and being indispensable – in short, being a linchpin – “leads to more opportunities and ultimately a payoff for everyone involved.”
In this book, Seth wrestles with what it means to be a linchpin. It isn’t glamorous. It isn’t necessarily singular. What it is, is essential to organizational success. With the linchpin an organization frays and begins to fall (in some cases fly) apart. Linchpins, through their perseverance, talent and charm, create organizational momentum. Their self-awareness of their capabilities, combined with the application of that knowledge and the soundness of their judgments make their contribution to organizations exponential in terms of impact.
On the benefit of hard labor
Perhaps where Linchpin seemed to really come into its own for me was when Seth began to re-frame the concept of work. He offers up the concept of hard work as something physical, or boring, or mundane; then he concludes that perhaps the important work, the investment of our emotional selves in our efforts, is a more important form of hard work. The emotional life of the workforce is often relegated to the backwaters of Human Resources practices, something around which everyone should tread lightly. Seth, gloriously wades into the middle of this and calls out emotional labor for what it is.
Having done my share of work both in the human resources domain and in the volunteer world, where emotional laboring is the order of the day, to have someone describe that work accurately as “a gift” is wonderful. It requires engagement. It demands the best of us. It draws on our creativity, or passions, our insight, our willingness to take risks and to be generous. I love that this kind of work lies at the heart of being a linchpin in Seth’s eyes.
The job is not your work; what you do with your heart and soul is the work.
- Seth Godin, Linchpin
Make your own way – make art through connection
One of the only challenges I would have had with the linchpin concept was that for all its generosity of spirit this was obviously only going to be an individualized call to action. What I wanted, certainly needed, was an understanding of how being a linchpin connected to others. After all, that’s what a linchpin does, it holds stuff together. Just when was getting worried, I was granted comfort when read into the chapter “The Culture of Connection” with the lead sub-header, “The Linchpin Can’t Succeed in Isolation.”
After all, for a linchpin to be effective, they need the connection of others. Because if they are not connecting, and giving, what the heck are they doing? Take a look at Linchpin, I think this book is not only an invaluable tool I think it is a great and necessary call to action.
*The Sir Donald Bradman reference (p.62) was especially appreciated, Seth.
Filed under Innovation, Organization Culture, Social Psychology · Tagged with behaviors, communication, concentration, focus, goals, Innovation, insight, leadership, meaning, primed, reality, self-awareness, shared learning, thinking, Trust, understanding
Gates: This is my second annual letter. The focus of this year’s letter is innovation and how it can make the difference between a bleak future and a bright one.
2009 was the first year my full-time work was as co-chair of the foundation, along with Melinda and my dad. It’s been an incredible year and I enjoyed having lots of time to meet with the innovators working on some of the world’s most important problems. I got to go out and talk with people making progress in the field, ranging from teachers in North Carolina to health workers fighting polio in India to dairy farmers in Kenya. Seeing the work firsthand reminds me of how urgent the needs are as well as how challenging it is to get all the right pieces to come together. I love my new job and feel lucky to get to focus my time on these problems. The full letter is here.
Filed under Asides, Innovation · Tagged with communication, focus, goals, Innovation, leadership, meaning, organization, priming, shared learning, systems, thinking, Trust
“Don’t undertake a project unless it is manifestly important and nearly impossible.” – Edwin Land, founder of the Polaroid Corporation. Among other things, he invented inexpensive filters for polarizing light, a practical system of in-camera instant photography, and his retinex theory of color vision.
Accountability – the currency of social innovation
This post is to trigger dialogue on innovation in the moderated Twitter #innochat on Thursday, December 17 at Noon, EST (USA) – all interested parties are welcome to join in. Follow #innochat to join at that time.
“The ancient Romans had a tradition: whenever one of their engineers constructed an arch, as the capstone was hoisted into place, the engineer assumed accountability for his work in the most profound way possible: he stood under the arch.” – Michael Armstrong
In its most elemental form, accountability is the state of being accountable, liable, or answerable; the state of being held, or holding oneself, to account. Yet, accountability as a concept is relatively new.
The term only came into wider usage a little more than two hundred years ago with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. The later part of the 18th century began a marked shift in large sectors of Great Britain’s previously manual labor–based economy towards machine-based manufacturing. With this shift production, which previously had been personal, was now delegated not to one but several people in environments owned by others. The concept of accountability was literally tied to the formal process of physically accounting for labor and output. Answering the questions of: who contributed what and how?
What does accountability mean in the present context of innovation?
Accountability within innovation must navigate two primary challenges. The first is that as innovation
is the introduction of something new the manner for measuring its performance may not be readily apparent. Without clear performance measures there may be limits to what someone may be held to account.
The second is the way in which organizations increasingly develop innovation through teams of people, both internal and external to an organization, that cross that organization’s formal lines of responsibility and authority. Unless there are replacement methods for linking individual and group performance to innovation outcomes accountability may also fall by the wayside.
In light of this, here are three questions for consideration to kick off the #innochat:
1. What does it mean to hold people to account for innovation?
2. What systems or processes need to be considered to support accountability?
3. What does the practice of accountability look like in your organization?
For a more detailed exploration of some of the facets of individual and mutual accountability and organization design in their support the following articles provide some additional (read: detailed) food for thought:
Organizing for Innovation in the 21st Century. By Deborah Dougherty – Professor, Management and Global Business Dept, Rutgers Business School.
Teams versus individual accountability: solving multitask problems through job design. By Kenneth S. Corts
Filed under Asides, Innovation · Tagged with behaviors, collaboration, communication, community, Innovation, shared learning, teams, thinking, Trust, understanding
Phil McKinney’s latest blog post nails the way in which we are primed to think that creativity and innovation are domains reserved for the “gifted and talented”. So many times our ideas are beaten down by our own ruthless self-censorship, denial and embarrassment-induced conformity. McKinney notes that, “We are a race of innovators – born to use our imagination to create not only solutions to our most pressing problems (polio vaccine) but to also create the fun in our lives (pet rocks). We only have to look as far as our kids to rediscover that fundamental draw to use our imagination to create something out of nothing. Children are naturally superb innovators. They can create the most amazing toys from normal household items. Who would have thought of all the uses for a paper towel roll?…[For adults] It is demeaning to be called unoriginal, conventional or traditional (boring). We thrill at the idea of being the one that breaks the rule, being the one that creates the next big thing. But many people have a hard time seeing themselves in that role. In the process of growing up, they lost that ability to see themselves as creative.”
Filed under Asides, Innovation, Social Psychology · Tagged with behaviors, fundamental attribution error, meaning, primed, priming, self-awareness, thinking, Trust, understanding
I think we do need to move very swiftly in creating value for consumers and reacting to the economics.
- Brian Becker
On BusinessWeek’s website recently (November 9, 2009), Vivek Wadhwa posted a ViewPoint column focused on the implication of globally outsourced innovation. While what he reviewed was not necessarily earth-shattering in its revelations it did highlight a series of long-held but little discussed ways for the USA (or any country) to position itself in the new exchange of research and development ideas.
Wadhwa catalogued the inherent risks in the present shifting innovation landscape: over 50% of US companies have developed outsourced innovation initiatives; US inflexibility in partnering with offshore resources is negatively impacting domestic innovation performance; cost may have been the initial driver for embracing outsourced solutions, but tapping global talent is the new fundamental necessity; and, the support roles previously outsourced have been superseded by much more complex jobs involving complex thinking, research, and solution design. If the most complex jobs are moving off-shore, what remains of the innovation-driven US economy?
In response he offered four approaches to help the US retain its innovation edge:
1. Increase the global awareness of American workers as they will be looking off-shore for ideas to apply at home in new and interesting ways, to drive the US economy domestically and globally,
2. Mid-tier companies cannot afford to outsource so better policies need to be developed to make it easier for them to use technology and provide them tax breaks for research,
3. Outsourcing is inherently disruptive so we must upgrade our investment in workforce training and development and make these items more of a corporate priority (as well as a national one akin to Singapore’s approach, perhaps?), and,
4. As early-stage ventures create the highest percentage of value per capita during the lifespan of companies, we need to harness this innovation treasure by building mechanisms to break the innovation logjam at the source, inside the research institutions and organizations where good ideas too often die.
Of the four areas for action defined, it is perhaps the last one which can provide the most immediate positive impact to both the innovation standing of the USA and to the need to generate new jobs to replace those lost in the current economic turmoil – or “Great Recession” as I heard it so glowingly defined recently. It is not a question of, “does America need to try harder on the innovation front?” Far from it. What needs to occur is a fundamental rethinking of the way current innovations, often set aside due to missteps and poor advocacy, so that they can receive a full and frank assessment for market potential.
A case in point. I was recently attending a fundraiser for the 80th anniversary of the non-profit nursery school for which I serve on the Board of Trustees. In the middle of meeting-and-greeting I began a conversation with John, the Alumni Relations and Development Director for a local high school, about the nursery school which in turn led to a discussion of my role on the Board and my work away from the Board (in the “real” world). After explaining my consulting approach, which is focused on helping people bring their ideas to market as fast as possible, John said, “that’s interesting…”
(If ever there was an opening!)
John then recounted an innovation lost story of his own. It seems he was asked to provide support to a pair of university professors who had developed a serious piece of heads-up display technology. It was truly mobile and ground-breaking. The professors were evidently excited by their breakthrough and eager to present it to possible venture capitalists. John, in working with them closely recognized that the professors needed some additional preparation. They simply were not ready for “prime time.” He tried to address his greatest fear, that they would not present their concept in the best light, by spending extensive time with the professors in advance of the impending demonstration. The professors tolerated his involvement, but kept insisting that their ideas would speak for themselves.
On the day of the presentation, John reinforced the fact that the demonstration needed to go off without a hitch. The display equipment, all very beta, was a little unwieldy. The professors, eager to show off their creative genius, asked the venture capitalist to try it on as it was very impressive when you were immersed in the data display. For the wearer the experience was like a 20 foot video screen was floating before you. Or, at least that was what was meant to happen. No sooner was the headgear clamped to the head of the venture capitalist than the arm holding the small display snapped at its base and the arm swung down driving the display into his shocked and open mouth, chipping a tooth.
In an instant he went from interested party to injured party.
Needless to say, no money was to be offered that day, or any day as word got around about what had transpired. The professors couldn’t understand why no one was willing to take a chance. John, in frustration, walked away from the deal. His parting comment to me, “if we can’t help our best and brightest bring their sharpest ideas to market we’ll all suffer in the long-term.”
So, here’s the challenge, how can we help unlock those innovations, many already fully formed, so that they can flow to the market? No matter where they are, in the heads of our scientists and researchers, or in the work of our offshore partners, how can we capitalize on them as swiftly as possible. I’ll look for your ideas in the comments and will offer my own in future posts.
Filed under Innovation · Tagged with behaviors, collaboration, communication, focus, goals, Innovation, product development, product management, shared learning, strategy, systems, teams, Trust
After the not-so-timely NJ Transit deposited me in Manhattan bright and early this morning I made my way with my good mate Vijay to the Harvard Club for the Trust Summit. This breakfast event brought together the authors (David Maister and Charles H. Green) of one of my professional services bibles, The Trusted Advisor, with the authors (Chris Brogan and Julien Smith) of a new-found favourite, Trust Agents. The first book concerns itself with providing perspectives on trust and ways to go about building trust, especially in relation to providing professional services. The second, more recent, book, looks at breaking the development of trust out to a wider network through the power of the web. To say they are complementary would be an understatement.
Now the reason for my attending this event, apart from being a fan of one of the authors (more on this shortly), was that trust is an essential ingredient in the innovation and product development process. This process, inherently risky, demands that people trust each other if they are to succeed. So, I went to also soak up as much as I could about the impact of social media on the ability to improve innovation and product team performance. I did not leave disappointed.
To say that this event was excellent would be a complete understatement. It began with the personal highlight of meeting David Maister for the first time, which I had wanted to do after having the privilege of providing feedback on his last book Strategy and The Fat Smoker. He was charming, funny and entirely engaging. Isn’t it wonderful when you meet someone you admire and they exceed your expectations? Apart from this meeting the additional authors, the excellent moderator, Robin Fray Carey – CEO and Co-Founder of Social Media Today and the 300 plus audience (all Twitter fiends save for one or two – get on it Vijay!) all collaborated to create a tremendous teaching/learning opportunity.
Each author was asked to speak in turn on the subject of trust. Chris Brogan led the charge and his opening salvo was the observation that, “trust is not new, we fell away from it due to mass everything (marketing, media, etc.) and treating people as an assumption – if we sell hard enough, they will buy.” He then juxtaposed this with the present where, “in the relationship economy relationships matter before the sale.” His reasoning being that if you don’t take the time to find out what someone needs, they’ll quickly go looking elsewhere resonated with many in the room.
Next up was Charlie Green who’s vigorous contention that metrics were often at counterpoint to organization effectiveness and the development of trust caused a general stir. It was phenomenal to see someone obviously passionate about a subject that they deeply understood. “Trust is personal and paradoxical,” Charlie noted, in that trust demands personal investment of time and energy to create and that, once created, it dissipates unless used. He also stirred things up further by stating flatly that, “We don’t create companies to (only) make money” and that those companies that are only oriented to the profit measure are negating a critical imperative to make the lives of their customers better. He also offered, “Don’t treat your customers and suppliers as competitors – to do so is suicidal,” as it fundamentally destroys trust with the very people you need for your success.
Julien Smith then approached the concept of trust from a systems perspective, “Trust is a system and social media provides multiple channels feeding that system. We just don’t know what signals are being sent through that system.” The trust system carries many signals and sometimes it is hard to know the impact our personal signals are having. And that in the absence of any feedback, we should not make assumptions as, “Silence without engagement in the social media domain can be interpreted in so many ways. Often mistakenly,” but that overall, “The risk of making mistakes with social media is worth the effort.”
Finally, David Maister shared key insights from his years of experience working with professional service firms. He dropped the blunt assessment, “Trust is scarce. There aren’t that many people who are trust-worthy.” And he then followed this up with reasons why he felt it was so hard to come by. “Trust requires you to be interested in other people,” and “becoming trustworthy requires effort, practice and active engagement over a lifetime.”
From the opening position statements the summit came to life during the audience led Q&A. The engagement of everyone in the room was phenomenal and the wisdom from the authors was great – truly emblematic of what is contained in the books that we were provided as part of the ridiculously priced tickets (only $25 a piece!) Perhaps the money quote for the event came when Chris Brogan spoke the timeless philosophy of one Vanilla Ice, “Stop. Collaborate. And Listen.” (from the immortal classic, “Ice Ice Baby”) For those present that was only one of many cues to build our own trust equation. Thanks to all for a great event and for the pile of homework (aka. reading) to follow.
Filed under Organization Culture, Social Psychology · Tagged with behaviors, collaboration, communication, focus, goals, leadership, meaning, organization, priming, shared learning, strategy, systems, teams, thinking, Trust, understanding