Stretching for New Technology Strategy

Last week a client was reaching for new understanding of how to spark imagination and facilitate stretch among the leaders in his organization for a more robust global technology strategy. To think in a way that is leading edge while remaining committed to partnering with business functions can be something of a leadership dilemma for those who lead R&D functions. Often our outlook is simply too short-term and too parochial, despite our intent to reach aggressively into the future.

As I think about the challenge of stretching our thinking, creatively as well as strategically, I am acutely aware that rice has become too expensive for many who are dependent on it for survival. Last week a new exhibit opened for the summer here in Minneapolis at the Walker Art Center called Design for the Other 90%. In a local review of the exhibit, Andrew Blauvelt, the Walker design curator, comments, "Most design is geared to the wealthiest 10 percent of the population but the new idea is that the poor are the next billion customers."

Steep commodity prices may be only temporary. But examining the relationship between food and energy is but one example of the opportunity for new ways of thinking strategically in the domain of technology. G. Pascal Zachary writing in the NYTimes "The Brighter Side of Higher Prices" comments that "to be sure, engineering a new 'green revolution' that will yield, say, cheaper wheat and rice -- all the while meeting the concerns of various special interest groups -- will be much harder than designing a better music player."

The complexity of issues such as the relationship of global food supply and environmentally sound energy solutions should not deter us. "Strategy as a Wicked Problem" , by John C. Camillus in the last issue of Harvard Business Review (May, 2008) provides some very helpful guidance for strategists and others. He writes: "Wicked problems often crop up when organizations have to face constant change or unprecedented challenges. They occur in a social context; the greater the disagreement among stakeholders, the more wicked the problem. In fact, it's the social complexity of wicked problems that make them tough to manage. " Environmental degradation, terrorism, and poverty, Camillus cites, as classic examples of "wicked problems" (I shared a reprint of this article with our client.)

George Bernard Shaw, the Irish playwright, wrote: "This is the true joy in life, being used for a purpose recognized as a mighty one." What inspires others to imagine, to stretch, is usually not in our comfort zone. It is often not in our domain of expertise. It is simply "beyond us". But inspiration and strategy do intersect.

The Cost of Integrity

Several years ago, while discussing integrity and leadership with a client group in Seoul, Korea, a participant fluent in Mandarin asked if he could step to the flipchart and draw a Mandarin character. He drew the character for integrity which consists, he explained, of three parts: ten eyes, one heart, and a moving target.

We live and work these days in a land of moving targets. A person of integrity dare not be static or stuck in one place. Multiple perspectives, including that which has not even been imagined, are required - at least "ten eyes". The virtue of integrity is not a matter of truthfulness but rather openness - openness to all that is yet to be discovered. I need to pause and ask myself, "Do I really believe that?" I do believe it, but sometimes I am incredibly impatient with my own orthodoxies and well-established assumptions.

Scientists have historically been among the greatest "heretics". That makes advancing in the performance rankings really tough! The courage to be open and to be different often comes with a cost.

The heart is the source of courage. As leaders it is essential that we stay close to our hearts. How scientific is that?

Curiosity as a Leadership Competency

"Curiosity killed the cat," or so the old adage goes. Why does that phrase continue to come to mind when I think "curiosity"? Curiosity is a prerequisite for learning and an essential element of creativity. Yet there is much about the work environment of many organizations that kills curiosity.

A few months ago my daughter, Jennifer, and I presented a workshop for General Mills ITQ (Innovation, Technology and Quality) Conference on leaders becoming more effective "curiosity catalysts". (The mind map of our presentation done at the conference is below. ) One way we encouraged participants to promote curiosity is by leading effectively with questions. We discussed how the "malpractice of inquiry" stifles curiosity (and good, timely questions) again and again. An example of the "malpractice of inquiry" is when a manager asks a question and the answer has already been decided or so it seems to the group hearing the question.

MindMapping by Stephanie Crowley

Janet Rae-Dupree writing in last week's Sunday NYT ("Can you Become a Creature of New Habits?) comments: "We tend to believe that those who think the way we do are smarter than those who don't. That can be fatal in business...particulary with executives who surround themselves with like thinkers." Regarding curiosity, she references the work of Dawna Markova, author of The Open Mind: "The first thing we need for innovation is fascination with wonder, but we are taught instead to 'decide'...". "You cannot have innovation unless you are willing and able to move through the unknown and go from curiosity to wonder."

Just a couple of weeks ago I was visiting with Tim Cejka, President, ExxonMobil Exploration Company, in his office about the practice of "collective inquiry" in their organization. Their experience offers evidence that organizations can become creatures of new habits! "Collective Inquiry" is a meeting protocol now used by their leaders to signal explicitly a meeting designed to promote curiosity about technical issues that have enormous consequences. Learning is given priority over deciding in these meetings. Curiosity is expected and encouraged. The results have been tangible, including fewer dry wells drilled.

"Never lose a holy curiosity," wrote Albert Einstein. Effective leaders know the value of curiosity.

Talking Creatively about Culture

In a recent interview, Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, commented, "Nobody works the way we do. The Google culture makes sense if you're in it, and no sense if you're not." In one brief comment, Schmidt captures a principle that leaders are slow to grasp: the culture of an RD&E organization has more potential for achieving and sustaining competitive advantage than any products, processes, or organizational structures. It is virtually impossible to replicate "culture".

Talking about culture can be a challenge. Why? Because the vernacular in many organizations does not include words and phrases that adequately describe its very uniqueness. Karin Knorr Cetina in her book, Epistemic Cultures, How the Sciences Make Knowledge, describes in her research how knowledge is generated distinctively in different organizational cultures. In particular, she explores the differences between a molecular biology lab and a high energy physics lab. For example, the latter she describes as "communitarian science", the former as "individual lab bench science". Her comparison of these two scientific communities offers many distinctions that prompt new ways of talking about culture, especially in technical organizations.

Week before last I had the opportunity to hear Scott Anthony and Mark Johnson of Innosight (Clayton Christensen, Harvard Business School, is the co-founder) speak at the Masters Forum here in Minneapolis on the subject of innovative business models and disruptive innovation. They cited some of the cultural impediments to innovative business models (e.g. "rigid adherence to financial metrics, business rules and norms or fighting against mindset; the illogic of core competencies"). Much of the time leaders fail to address adequately the unique and distinctive characteristics of culture which, for example, define a Google, and that allow innovation to flourish. These cultural elements cannot be benchmarked because they cannot be readily replicated. But that is no reason not to try to describe them.

Sometimes analogies or metaphors help when our language seems limited. Is your organization more like a high energy physics lab or a molecular biology lab? Why? Is it like Google? Or maybe it is more like eBay? How would you describe the differences?