““Ignite” presenters share their personal and professional passions on life’s imponderables, improbables, and the decidedly offbeat, from orbiting garbage to the intersection between art and commerce. The whole thing sounds like it could be a tad overwhelming, but consider the event’s overarching theme: “Enlighten us, but make it quick.” Public speaking on Red Bull? Brilliant.”

The crisis in our economy is shedding harsh light on the absence of any true understanding of how to overcome the organizational need to protect the bottom-line while also leveraging the most creative asset any organization can access, its people. Instead, jobs have been cut in record numbers. The unemployment rate, not just in the USA but in many Western economies, is approaching record highs. All the while the usual levers are being pulled. Reductions in capacity. Reductions in expenditure. Reductions in our expectations for a more positive future. And this means that a pervasive, innovation averse, risk-avoiding mindset is prevailing in most quarters. It’s simply all, too, hard.

As an aside, it is fascinating that one of the major beneficiaries of the economic downturn is global climate change. Apparently the idling of the voraciousness of the economic engines which has been burning so hot last decade has been a significant boon to the limitation of the emission of greenhouse gases. Thank you for small mercies, I guess. That problem set is still not solved but we seem to have bought some additional time in which to avoid doing anything meaningful. It’s too complex. And hard.

What happens when people stop, well, everything? A cascade occurs, and not a good one. It certainly doesn’t mean resources become instantly abundant and available. No, we can thank the remarkable export of the Toyota Production System (as Lean initiatives) across many manufacturing sectors for the fantastic ability to only produce to demand. This latest cascade means everything becomes scarce. There is no excess. Nothing with which an innovator may play, or test, or prototype. Just like a faucet being turned off. The flow of goods, services, and money has slowed to a trickle or even stopped altogether.

All we are left with, all that we have available to us, are the people who comprise our organizations. And what have we done to them? Nothing save lower their expectations or show them the door.

Serve more than one purpose
The greatest achievement of the human spirit is to live up to one’s opportunities and make the most of one’s resources.
- Marquis de Vauvenargues

Let’s reframe the challenge. What if we take as true that oft-quoted phrase, “our people are our greatest assets”? How does that mindset begin to influence the choices we make about innovating our way out of our current mess?

One creative agency in Toronto, Zulu Alpha Kilo, decided that the best way to advertise itself was to actually take what it does to the streets. They setup a “box” in Dundas Square in the heart of downtown Toronto and on the first really cold day of the season in the city. They placed a team of eight interdisciplinary thinkers into the plywood box where they solicited creative challenges from passers-by – over 117,000 in all some of whom waited over two hours to present their challenges. Twelve hours later not only had the team presented solutions for many problems they had also cracked open the façade of a design agency so the public could see the workings inside. Not a bad piece of self-promotion either to put creativity on display.

Organizations like the agency above that choose to create a meaningful creative bargain with employees seem to be finding their way. Organizations like Google, SAS and 3M, which even in downturns still expect their employees to devote a percentage of their work time to personal projects, also will continue to see the benefit of a similar trust over time. It will be returned in goodwill, enthusiasm and commitment, to say nothing of the possibility of new products and services that might drive top and bottom-line growth. Their people are asked to do more than one thing, they have a “job” to do for sure, but they are also expected to explore and contribute in other ways, too.

While contemplating setting new expectations for our human resources why not also consider setting the expectation that all resources be used in more than one way. Paper being reused for notepads is nothing new, but what about expired materials such as this novel idea from a design student involving expired prophylactics. Yes, the humble condom as haute couture. But the concept of reuse is nothing new. Making it an embedded and expected part of all aspects of production and trade is.

Many technology firms are leading the way. Oracle is continuing to support the work that Sun began even after the acquisition; usually this would be a signal for abandoning “non-additive” projects to the bottom-line. HP has also made reuse a fundamental part of its approach to its business. Now if only “Big Ink” could figure out a way to reclaim the ink on paper destined for recycling! It seems Xerox has a similar idea but has taken a different tact.

These efforts are good first steps but this mindset needs to be seeded as widely as possible. The innovation required to do that may point to a way out of the economic doldrums and toward a vibrant alternative economic reality closer to the cycles presented in William McDonough’s “Cradle to Cradle”. Which doesn’t begin to cover what might be accomplished by repurposing from the private sector to the public sector or from the for-profit to the non-profit.

It’s now how much – it’s how well
Time is the scarcest resource and unless it is managed nothing else can be managed.
- Peter Drucker

Many artists relish resource constraints, although they might initially grumble at the limitations. Instead they often apply themselves within limitations to create art that is unique and surprising. Sometimes those constraints aren’t only material; their constraints may be social, cultural or even political. Yet still they find a path to success by not taking the box they are handed at face value. This ability to look beyond what is in hand to what is possible with that resource applies in all cricumstances in which innovation can and must thrive.

The work of Inc. Magazine’s Entrepreneur of the Year, Kevin Surace the CEO of Serious Materials, is a case in point. He is picking up bankrupt firms that have been strip-mined of all their resources (and their human resources previously carelessly set aside.)He is willing to invest in the R&D and building out production capacity to ensure his company’s long-term health. He is willing to forgo profit to do so, too. He is applying his limited resources, placing bets now, to ensure his economic future. How many other companies are willing to do that today?

Here’s the thing. If we don’t invest time, energy, effort and our resources in innovation now, when we need it most, we are in for a long and painful ride. We need to take the time to innovate. To find the better way. Those who do will be most successful in the long-term. Not because they happen upon a great idea, but because the habit of spending resources on innovation even during down times sets a pattern for revitalization that is necessary for any organization.

Everything is connected so beware the tragedy of the commons
Previously we addressed the need to create innovation processes that bear the risk of innovation. This boils down to two aphorisms, “if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen” and “it is okay to make mistakes as long as you learn from them.” Not earth-shaking concepts, certainly, but creating an environment within existing business systems that might allow practicing that behavior is a true challenge.

Businesses are complex systems. They are not clockwork mechanisms. They contain myriad subsystems each of which is responsible for producing value through a series of interdependent relationships. This doesn’t even consider the ecosystem within which the business resides; such as, the external competitive market, supply chain and customer segments. The common mistake when attempting to build innovation practices within an enterprise is to “ring-fence” the practice within a functional domain. Relegating innovation to Research & Development or Product Development may provide it with a home but does not necessarily mean it will flourish. This misunderstanding, that innovation is not connected to anything else, almost always backfires as other functional subsystems respond in unanticipated ways.

Ignoring the interconnections between organizational subsystems causes havoc when innovation is demanded of all areas of the business, instead of one function, and the competition for resources becomes fierce. The heart of this conflict is called, “the tragedy of the commons” and it occurs when the subsystems in an organization are placed in a competitive relationship with each other and are forced to act in ways that are destructive to the organization overall. The current push for “innovation everywhere” is a pattern that is reinforcing this dilemma.

For example, without establishing strategic priorities, a consumer products firm I worked with decided that all departments without failure were going to improve their processes. The number of performance improvement projects proliferated tenfold overnight. As a result, project resources were spread so thin nothing was accomplished, but the effort was not canceled until six months had been burned. The result was “initiative fatigue”, a loss of support for organizational leadership, and a drop in market performance. The very opposite of what was desired.

Don’t control the players – change the rules
Is the system going to flatten you out and deny you your humanity, or are you going to be able to make use of the system to the attainment of human purposes?
- Joseph Campbell

If we cannot change the system via simple choices how can we create a better environment for innovation within our organizations? Rather than telling people what to do, guide their behavior by changing business rules within existing business systems that drive the behavior you wish to see.

In his great book, Predictably Irrational, behavioral economist Dan Ariely explores how expectations, emotions, social norms, and other embedded social and psychological forces influence our behavior. One great insight he presents is the way in which the human brain is wired to adopt certain patterns of behavior based on first impressions and decisions. These impressions are imprinted on our brains and govern our approach to similar circumstances. We have “anchored” our experience and even in the face of evidence may act against our own interests because of its influence in our thinking. I also explored this process, which is directly related to priming, in a previous post.

To change this imprinted pattern of thinking it is necessary to change the rules. Luxury goods manufacturers understand this explicitly, as Ariely explains. He notes the case of black pearls which when first introduced to market were a flop. They were gun-metal grey and looked like oversize ball bearings. It took James Assael, an Italian diamond and pearl dealer, to change the rules. He made a deal with Harry Winston to display them in the window of his 5th Avenue jewelry store in Manhattan surrounded by other precious gems. Assael also placed full page advertisements in glossy magazines to promote this new luxury item. Suddenly, black pearls were all the rage. Why? In order to make someone want something he changed the rules and made it scarce. DeBeers has done this for years with diamonds, too.

It is much more effective to change the rules of the game so that it is to most people’s advantage to make choices that are good for the whole system of innovation. What current rules of innovation could you invert, subvert or otherwise transform to create the behavior you’re looking for in your organization?

Foresight always wins and preparation trumps reaction
Everything affects everything else in one way or another. Whether you are aware of that or not does not change the fact that this is what is happening.
- John Woods

Innovative solutions to problems affecting complex systems take time to design, develop, test and implement. If we wait until the problem develops before applying our resources to addressing its root cause, we may be too late to take meaningful action. In the previous post on processes I addressed the notion of anticipatory behavior. That kind of foresight applied to present need can be a powerful tool for ongoing successful innovation.

Too many organizations pull the innovation trigger when faced with a crisis. Be it a market crisis or, more commonly, a product crisis the circumstances reinforce reactive behavior. If not outright panic, this scenario does not foster the use of structured and reasoned thinking to guide decision-making. Instead rapid fire solutions to address the changing conditions on the ground don’t solve the problem in the market and they may make the effects of the problem worse.

Across an organization’s innovation systems, looking ahead to anticipate problems is key. In the current pharmaceutical marketplace, many larger firms were faced with greatly diminished drug development pipelines yet they carry large commercialization operations. Blockbuster drugs are increasingly few and far between. With this realization, the action that most firms have taken is to re-double their development efforts in R&D as well as to identify as many smaller firms with potential marketable drugs as possible to acquire. What if their leadership teams had decided that, rather than reinforce their old business model (shoot for the blockbuster), they were going to anticipate changing market conditions and transform their companies from drug manufacturers to providers of comprehensive health services or another alternative business model. Would they not be better off heading off problems before they disrupt their market (and cash flow) entirely?

Why no great change? Because change is often painful, awkward and a dreadful inconvenience.

Don’t be fooled by system cycles – it’s not the climate it’s the weather
As human beings we love stability. Many of us are simply unable to recognize cyclical patterns around us, especially when they take years to unfold. The boom/bust cycle in the US economy is one such pattern which seems to elude many. This cycle seems to be on a fairly regular 20 year cycle and yet, during the peak (just prior to the bust) many people only see the positive “upside,” regardless of the Cassandras crying in the wilderness about the impending doom. And then the inevitable happens – the dip, slip, or worse yet, crash.

On the other side, when at the bottom of an economic recession, many struggle to see positive signs that economic systems might manifest. Their pessimism is only countered when they feel the positive impacts of the expanding economy directly. This cycle is present all around is. When job categories are oversupplied or undersupplied the negative feedback loops that cause people to go into a particular career usually lag the changing market needs. It’s also present in the climate. With recent record snows on the East Coast of the USA many were heralding the end of global warming. However, it is not case. The weather system is not representative of the climate system, it is a subsystem, and its cycle-time can be measured in months, weeks and days. The climate system is measured in decades, centuries and millennia.

As with the economy, the best time to capture the market is when everyone is contracting. When the present hoopla about “innovation everywhere” dies down those organizations that have embedded innovation into their business systems will find the opportunities ripe for capitalizing on others’ short-term thinking and rapidly fading memories.

To talk about innovation and processes in the same breath seems oxymoronic. While most organizations are designed to take inputs and convert them through a series of conversion efforts into products or services for sale, they are singularly ill-prepared to bring new things to market. Why?

Existing organizations apply functional expertise in the form of departments like; Design, Product Development, Sourcing, Manufacturing, Marketing, Sales, Customer Support, HR, IT, and Finance, etc. They take known inputs, apply existing business processes for conversion into value, and produce recognizable outputs. Where’s the point of inflection? Where is are the processes that foster innovation? The whole enterprise is an inherently stable system designed to retain that stability.

To create innovation there must be a structure that can support the exploration, the risk-taking, the resource expenditure without direct monetary return. A structure that supports innovation must capture and support an organization’s ability to reach beyond what it produces in the present to what it might produce for the future. It demands a structure that can seek and use unknown resources, to build the unknown for unknown customers (or at least meet current customers’ unknown needs!)

The challenge is to reach into that unknown and pull some sense of meaning into the present. To use questioning and learning to first understand, then conceive, then sketch, then model, then prototype an innovation into existence. Part and parcel of that process is to be resilient enough to survive the inevitable hazards of the associated failure.

A Framework For Failure
Half the failures in life arise from pulling in one’s horse as he is leaping.
- August Hare

When planning for innovation how we create space for and manage risk (and the possibility of failure) is a primary factor in long-term success. Creating an organizational framework that not only can accept that risk is a primary ingredient in development of the truly new, but one that also has the operational flexibility and resilience to survive the unanticipated failure, is crucial. Yes, the desire to create more first-time successes is strong and should be recognized and valued. But nothing in innovation is ever perfect. Chaos and failure must be expected regardless of whether or not their extent might be anticipated.

A basic process model for innovation might be the following:

At each step there are a series of actions that happen, some sequential and some parallel, but all requiring a vigilance in terms of risk. The paramount question used throughout this process is not framed by “What” or “How” or “How much” but by “Why?” The inquiry contained within “Why?” demands that we constantly test our thinking through every step in the process of innovation. It helps us look beyond the expected and the commonly understood data embodied in the embedded business rules, behavioral norms and measures of our success. This inquiry generates awareness of the wider system of interdependent elements around a design challenge. It also gives us comfort in that it helps us frame possible responses to potential failures. It inoculates us against the pain of failure, keeping us strong for the next attempt.

Beyond High Reliability Organizations
One very important aspect of motivation is the willingness to stop and to look at things that no one else has bothered to look at. This simple process of focusing on things that are normally taken for granted is a powerful source of creativity…
- Edward de Bono

One of the off-shoots of social psychology and organization theory explores the concept of “sense-making”. One of pioneers in this area is Karl Weick. He noted that people try to make sense of organizations, and organizations themselves try to make sense of their environment. They are both navigating an ever-changing situation. What does this mean for innovation processes? Weick asks us to focus our attention on questions of ambiguity and uncertainty in this sense-making. Sense-making is the process of creating situational awareness and understanding in situations of high complexity or uncertainty in order to make decisions. This is a process of inquiry and seeking understanding in a dynamically changing environment. In terms of innovation the environment is the formed by the process of creating something new.

Moving from situational awareness in individuals, to shared awareness and understanding, to collaborative decision-making is a socio-cognitive activity. This approach considers that the individual’s cognitive activities are directly impacted by the social nature of the exchange and vice versa. This is, in a form, a process of co-creation. And the culmination of that sense-making process is one that Weick was also one of the co-developers of, the concept of the “high reliability organizations”. (Others involved in this development were, Karlene H. Roberts, Herbert Simon, and James March.) As noted in Wikipedia.org, “A High Reliability Organization (HRO) is an organization that has succeeded in avoiding catastrophes in an environment where normal accidents can be expected due to risk factors and complexity.” In short is an organization that can be best described as resilient in the extreme.

Organizations that must be successful all of the time continually reinvent themselves. For example, an aircraft carrier uses its functional units slightly differently depending on whether they are on a humanitarian mission, a search and rescue mission, or are engaged in night flight operations training. The same can said for an organization that delivers robust innovations time and time again. They may in fact be termed “highly reliable innovation organization”. They continually reinvent themselves. They build flexible systems that marshal their resources, via their innovation processes, to capitalize on opportunities as they arise. They take great risks, fail often, and yet they endure.

Life is a process of becoming, a combination of states we have to go through. Where people fail is that they wish to elect a state and remain in it. This is a kind of death.
- Anaïs Nin

Due to its popularity and high visibility in the marketplace, the ownership of innovation has become a part of many organizations’ power struggles. Not necessarily innovations themselves. Mostly the levers and resources that may (or may not) drive innovation outcomes. Whoever controls the conversation about the concept also ends up controlling, if not outright budgetary and expense authority, a certain amount of power that comes with the imprimatur of being responsible for the “new and sexy.” Innovation has become something to be batted about and the result is a poorer focus on outcomes.

It’s Not Bi-partisan – It’s A-political
Those who understand innovation also understand that breakthrough products can transform business. True innovations are greater than the desire to improve existing business practices; innovation can drive positive transitions into the future. They enable an organization to achieve a growth trajectory beyond its present state. They unleash huge revenue and profit potential. Because of this inherent capacity for disruption they also often foster competing objectives among an organization’s leaders. Each leader might view innovation from their unique perspective and lose sight of the overall value the business might derive. The result is a breakdown in cross-organizational support due to a reinforcement of functional silos. Within innovation resides the potential for enormous power. Is it any wonder there is a struggle to control it?

Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine…
- The Sydney Seagulls in “Finding Nemo” (Pixar)

Much like the Sydney Seagulls in the Pixar animated classic, Finding Nemo, everyone has declared innovation, “Mine!” The battle for control over innovation is not unique to any single organization. Within that struggle, and just as pedestrian, is that fact that many senior leaders are hard-pressed to define what they are wrestling over. There are no organized parties around innovation. In fact, the factionalism that occurs is often driven by territorial concerns rather than growth outcomes. The turf battles over the control of innovation-focused resources and the portfolio of innovation initiatives is also hampered by other political matters. One of which would be, the “tyranny of the urgent over the important.” The objective of which is not necessarily to be focused on creating value, but to be focused on the appearance of making a contribution.

The Politics of Survival
This is the politics of self-preservation; which is completely at counter-purposes to the risk required for true innovation. For the sake of political expediency, innovation is often sacrificed as the organization’s attention turns to other, seemingly more important, concerns. In publicly-traded firms, the omnipresent attention of the “market” drives concerns into 30 day-defined horizons. Or, for the longer-minded, that might be stretched out to the end of each quarter. Where the demands of the business require control and systematic delivery of results, in order to meet the market’s demands for consistency and reliability, innovation is quite another animal altogether. It requires an acknowledged risk and the commitment of resources with the desire to deliver a future unknown benefit.

Fortunately, there are a few individuals in some organizations who have come to understand that by neutralizing organizational politics they might better facilitate first a breakthrough idea’s acceptance into development, and then develop that concept into a viable product. They start with a thorough understanding of the social network that exists within the organization. With this in mind they can knit together a coalition of supporters who can provide cover and guidance that exists separately from the organization structure as it is defined in purely functional terms. This gives them the ability to dodge the leadership seagulls. If innovators became more aware of the political actions that contribute to successful project acceptance and became more capable of motivating and taking such actions, perhaps more break-through products would be developed. Politics may make for strange bedfellows, but unless organization politics are either neutralized or circumvented the likelihood of innovations making their way to market may be severely impeded.

How do you navigate the seagulls of your organization to bring your innovations to life?

Afterlife: An Essential Guide To Design For Disassembly, by Alex Diener – Core77.

That framework is governed by (Porter’s) five major forces:

1. Customers Buying Power. Towards them must be oriented all the efforts of the firm, particularly concerning modifications of switching costs, manufacturing processes, or the positioning of the products and services. Innovation in the way the customer sees your industry or product may directly shift the balance of their buying power. Consider the commoditization of the flat panel TV industry as one area in which that balance has shifted in the space of a couple of years.

2. Suppliers Bargaining Power. Due to their huge power of negotiation, especially when they may be sole supplier in an innovative new industry sector, they are able to use their influence to shift supply chain economies causing disruption.

3. Threat of Substitute Products. Firms must pay attention to the threat of substitutes, and to the fact that followers do not have to support the R&D costs in the production process, and thus are able to implement the innovative service or product at a lower cost.

4. Threat of New Entrants. Anticipating and managing if necessary the different entry and exit barriers should be one of the major preoccupations of the firms operating on the market.

5. Intensity of Industry Competition. Rivalry among competitors has numerous consequences on the level of activity, as well as on the value chain, by increasing or lowering one or several structural elements of the market. Innovation may enable an enterprise to insulate from direct competition due to a technological advance for example.

This microcosm in which a firm survives requires constant surveillance and response as it continuously shifts and changes. What makes an awareness of these forces more important is that the timescale governing observation and impact has shifted; due to marketplace innovations the pace of change and rate of response has accelerated. The undercurrent at work here is that it is not enough to be aware of the environment in which innovation occurs; the effectiveness of the implementation of an innovation is critical. That is what drives economic growth.

It’s Not What You Know – It’s What You Do With What You Know
As a direct response to the neoclassical economics-fostered reasonable allocation of scarce resources, innovation economics focuses on spurring economic actors (the individual, the organization or firm, industries, cities, and even entire nations) to create value through increased productivity and implemented innovation. Innovation is a mighty lever for change and value creation. It disrupts existing systems and plays havoc with what we think we know, creating new paths for the exchange of goods, services but, more importantly, new ideas. It also provokes and promotes growth through expenditure.

Entrepreneurial profit is the expression of the value of what the entrepreneur contributes to production.
- Joseph Schumpeter

As new products are developed, new materials requiring new sourcing capabilities may be required. This creates employment opportunities, which impacts local communities. If those products become viable in the market, a whole microcosm of support is required to support the new endeavor. In the service sector, innovation practices create opportunities through the elimination of wasted time, freeing resources to be applied to other more fruitful activities. All of which is in support of value creation. Yet in order to achieve these ends innovators must forcing critical decisions in their organizations – what do we need to stop doing to make this innovation a reality? Without answering that question, innovation may become stuck.

To Make Something New You Might Need To Blow Something Up
In innovation economics, innovation lies at the center of value creation. Innovation economists recognize that innovation and productivity growth take place in the context of institutions. Indeed, it is the “social technologies” of institutions, culture, norms, laws, and networks that are so central to growth. In the eyes of conventional economists these are the elements that are too difficult to model or study. For a neoclassical economist, the focus is on the use of scarce resources to produce valuable commodities and distribute them among different people. Innovation economists view innovation as an evolutionary process in a market where firms act on imperfect information and where market failures are common.

Economic progress, in capitalist society, means turmoil.
- Joseph Schumpeter

Which leads us to one of the elder statesmen of innovation economics, Joseph Schumpeter. In his seminal work, The Theory of Economic Development (1911, 1934) Schumpeter did more than any other economist to increase the understanding of the role the entrepreneur plays in the capitalist economy. In particular, he defined the crucial role of the entrepreneur in the process of innovation and creative destruction – today it is virtually impossible to conceive of a dynamic capitalist economy in the absence of Schumpeterian entrepreneurs.

The startling thing is that Schumpeter also saw that the capability of the lone entrepreneur to significantly change the world would, over time, be supplanted by innovation through larger collaborative efforts. Schumpeter claimed that due to the application of modern techniques and modern modes of organization the innovation process would become more and more automated. Innovations would increasingly become the fruits of the organized effort of large teams. This would be done most effectively within the framework of large corporations.

Schumpeter foreshadowed, the destruction of the role of the solo inventor, and the subsequent rise of the “wisdom of the crowds” and “open innovation” before we even recognized the larger economic benefits of collaborative innovation. No matter how it is accomplished, Schumpeter clearly saw the case for the chaos and failure that innovation creates.

In fact, successful innovation is normally a source of temporary market power, eroding the profits and position of old firms (disrupting if not destroying their viability), yet ultimately each innovation succumbs to the pressure of new creations being commercialized by competing entrants. The creative destruction resulting from innovation practices is a powerful economic driver because it explains many of the dynamics of industrial change. The ongoing, dynamic transition from a competitive to a monopolistic market and back again, speaks to the impact of innovation economies.

Genius Marketer Markets Book Ingeniously

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.

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.