It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.
— Chinese proverb
The point is, innovation is painful. But failing to attempt innovation is worse. Innovation involves uncertainty and often failure. Who among us is continuously motivated when efforts often end in failure or the inventor is perceived as a failure? Innovation is even more painful in workplaces in which failure is punished and successes go unrecognized and unrewarded (all stick and no carrot).
Visiting our primitive wiring, we are wired to assume bad news, “We saw a lion,” over good news, “We saw edible berries.” Which do you hear louder? We are wired to be skeptical (or even fear) what we don’t understand. Our primitive minds say to us, “There might be a lion,” and, “We don’t know for sure there will be berries.” Innovation is the unknown, and it’s scary when we don’t know all the answers.
Flash forward to the current day. Our primitive wiring gets involved when
we face innovation tasks. We might fail, we might be wrong, and our status
might suffer. When faced with uncertainty, it’s too easy to indulge our primitive (mostly negative) wiring and stall progress with a string of negative assumptions.
• Do we know it will work? “It might not work.”
• Do we know how long it will take? “What if it takes too long?”
• Do we know for sure customers will like it? “What if customers do not like it?”
The common thread is assuming the negative: “It might not [work, sell, etc].”
Handling Uncertainty Day to Day
Debate is fine, but the conversation must resolve to the best possible plan in the face of the unknown. Even a list of “known unknowns” is useful, as they are actionable. We gather facts to either confirm or discharge our fears. Early in the project, when you hear negative self-talk, simply make it actionable. Do we feel strongly that we need to find some specific resolution? What are the consequences of inaction? Get the team thinking about the consequences of doing nothing.
“. . . OK, thanks for voicing the concern, Bill. Since you are closest to the situation, can you lead a team discussion after a bit of research?” Action: Bill will clearly define the problem/risk, collect available data, check the facts, and prepare to discuss at the next team call—clear and actionable problem statements.
Innovation embracing the scientific process:
theory–experiment–analyze–improve. Innovation-friendly workplaces are OK with mistakes, it’s part of the process. These innovation-friendly organizations reward the attempt, even when results fall short.
Innovation-hostile organizations operate like a factory: do what you are told, exactly; don’t mess up, and you’ll be fi ne. Many of these organizations have evolved to “no mistakes tolerated,” wherein the only thing that matters is “don’t mess up”—results don’t matter. Th ese places are holdovers from factory management hierarchies. Factory-type management is innovation hostile. Factory management hierarchies don’t work for tech (period). Th e band-aid is a “cross-functional” team. And these can work, as long as the functional managers and related entourage stays away. But, regrettably the “no mistakes allowed” cultures force functional managers and entourage back into micromanagement.
When people outside the project inject themselves, the suggested response is:
• We trust the success criteria and outcomes are on target. Yes?
• But a review will benefit us both.
• So, no changes to success criteria or outcomes, correct?
• We will make sure the folks tasked to attain these outcomes get your input.
Mistakes fuel innovation. Mistakes are a mandatory part of the innovation
process. When tech teams are tasked with innovation, it is critical to have leeway to make mistakes.
BEST KNOWN METHODS
» Focus on key success criteria, outcomes and high-level problem statements, customer stories/customer interaction.
» Avoid things that thwart innovation: factory hierarchy management, excessive executive “don’t be wrong” decision making, excessive functional
supervisor micromanagement, and heavy decision–approval processes.
» Celebrate mistakes where possible. When you encounter significant problems have the “what did we learn” conversation in a team meeting, and
don’t lay blame on individuals.