Politics of Creativity

We've Moved

2012-01-03T13:01:00.003-06:00

The Politics of Creativity Blog has moved. Please update your bookmarks and visit the Steve Boehlke Leadership Speaker and Consultant site, and the blog.

Breaking the Rules

2011-07-06T17:26:00.005-05:00

“I love to break rules!” So said Joe Miller, Chief Technology Officer at Corning, in his keynote address at the Industrial Research Institute’s Annual Meeting a few weeks ago. Describing Innovation at Corning, he went on to say, “There is no prescribed process for success.” I work continually with individuals of integrity, embedded in organizations, who realize they need to risk “breaking the rules” to be innovative or simply productive. But it is exceptional to hear a senior executive acknowledge it.

Despite all the processes and programs on the market to promote innovation, research confirms that “Champions (in innovation) are essentially political actors who are not prepared to abide by organizational rules.”

Leaders deviate from established norms or generally accepted standards in order to realize their mission and accomplish their goals. They break the rules – with integrity.

I am not, of course, referring to being deceitful or dishonest or doing anything illegal. Indeed, compliance in industry is essential for safety and environmental reasons as much as fiscal responsibility. All the same, conscientious individuals in today’s hard-driving high performance organizations know that in order to accomplish innovative breakthroughs they need to break the rules.

There are no rules for rule-breaking. But here are three suggestions to guide you, if you want to go where no one has gone before:

1. Take your time in responding to pressure from others to break the rules; confirm that you are connected to your own best sense of self when blazing a new trail.
.
2. Whether simply speaking up in a meeting or a much more defining act of defiance, consider the risk you are willing to incur when taking a stand.

3. Strive for internal alignment; over time your decisions and actions should be consistent and congruent with your commitment to a given direction or deeper purpose.

Breaking the rules may be difficult to justify in the moment but is essential to realize the promise of the future. Do you agree?

Leadership and the Necessity of Empty Spaces

2011-05-11T11:56:00.000-05:00

Empty space is essential to the structure of the Universe.
And to the practice of leadership.
Here’s why…

According to a recent article in the NY Times, an experiment spanning half a century and more than $750 million verifies that “empty space in the vicinity of the Earth is turning.” This landmark project known as Gravity Probe B substantiates Einstein’s theory of gravity and general relativity, as reported by the Stanford University team leading it.

Even the smallest piece of solid matter is comprised of vast distances between the atoms compared to their size. However we may perceive it, the structure of our world includes enormous quantities of empty space. I don’t pretend to understand it all; I assume a posture of amazement and wonder.

Empty space is not only an element of our physical world. It transcends the physical into the realm of time and human experience. We fill our calendars with meetings. We fill our lives with activity. We fill our organizations with productivity. Generally speaking we strive to fill up time and space in our lives. We say our lives are “full”. What place, if any, is there for emptiness?

Whether it’s turning, spinning, disappearing, or just plain hanging there, the space in our lives seems to be more and more elusive. Or discomforting, when we stumble upon it. Many of us live with a fear of emptiness. As soon as we feel it, we fill it.

But “space” holds everything together, according to physicists. Leaders need to open up space not just fill it up. It can be as simple as calling a “time-out” in the middle of an intense, jam-packed, meeting agenda. Or exercising leadership by stepping outside and walking around the building once, as one client reported doing, before making a difficult and controversial decision.

Empty space is essential to the creative process and the very vitality of life itself. We too are part of the Universe.

More to come…

The Art of Enlivening Information

2011-05-03T05:34:00.003-05:00

Presentations need not be boring. In fact, they can be exciting and even fun!

Across the years I have attended various scientific poster sessions and symposia sponsored by corporate R&D clients, featuring the work of scientists and engineers . I note that most often some kind of “template” or requested “design format” has been distributed to those presenting, thus assuring some level of standardization, if not outright conformance in terms of how data is presented.

Last week was different. I had the privilege of attending the 2nd Annual Scientific Research Symposium of the African Leadership Academy in Johannesburg, South Africa. 16 students presented on topics ranging from “Quantum Entanglement and the Possibilities of Temporal Teleportation” to “Which Biofuel is Most Feasible for Use in African Countries” to “How Impressionable Are We?”

Beyond the content of the presentations, some of which I understood more than others, I was struck by three elements which made the event lively and engaging:

1. Intense intellectual endeavors were represented in a creative, even fun way, for a diverse audience. This intro video captures the spirit of the evening.

2. By asking thoughtful questions, the presenters effectively engaged the audience rather than just talking at us. e.g. “What do you think time is?” “What’s the difference between authority and power?”

3. The students were encouraged to explore a wide range of topics, from “Is God a Mere Philosophical Product or a Physical Entity?” to “Technology Development for Cinematic Arts” along with others mentioned above. Encouragement to inquire about what truly interested them resulted in a high level of commitment and even excitement, not just compliance to an assigned project.

Kudos to David Scudder, the science teacher who inspired these students.

Many a corporate R&D symposium might be more lively and engaging by incorporating more of these three elements.

Leading Without Solutions

2011-03-10T08:26:00.001-06:00

Tough times surface tough dilemmas. Furthermore, complex systemic issues seldom have a simple solution. Recently I have encountered more than one extremely competent leader who has been reluctant to initiate discussion on an organizational issue because they do not yet have a “recommendation”. The operating assumption is that I do not go into a meeting to address a difficult problem unless I have a solution.

In one organization, for example, the Research budget is being shaved away, while Development is consuming inordinate amounts of resources on small incremental improvements on product already in the market. While there are indeed inherent issues that must be worked in terms of business strategy, meanwhile, redundancies and inefficiencies between these two functions are not being addressed. Neither one of these functional leaders can imagine how to engage in a productive conversation.

Abundant contradictions as well as conflicts increasingly characterize the shrinking world in which we live (e.g. protect resources/secure freedom; manage uncertainty/generate loyalty; push the message out fast/engage others). The “solutions” to such contradictions are not self-evident. Effective leaders nevertheless must work such contradictions without pre-conceived solutions.

Readiness to lead by engaging in powerful inquiry and skillful dialogue requires conscious suspension of our need to have “the answer” a priori.

Pace + Perseverance = Performance (not!)

2011-02-15T05:22:00.005-06:00

The inadequacy of this equation is self evident when written on the page. But in the workplace today the speed with which one is moving combined with the effort to keep in motion, regardless of what purpose or passion may be fueling the effort, equates to performance.

Call centers handle a higher volume of customer inquiries than ever, but navigating the automated menus as a frustrated consumer is a shear waste of time. A Google search generates required information faster than ever, but time to think and reflect is scarce. A respected leader whom I "follow" is on "retreat"; I receive hourly tweets which update anyone who will follow his attempt to take a "time out".

What's wrong with this picture?

Some new performance equations are urgently needed!

Hurry Up and Slow Down!

2011-02-03T08:46:00.004-06:00

"I am not this steeply sloping hour in which you see me hurrying." Rainer Maria Rilke, German Poet

I am not hurrying even though I am in motion, constantly. I am managing my fear that everything I am supposed to be doing will end in my termination. The relentless pace of meetings and reviews hides the hopelessness I feel. Productivity trumps innovation; activity supplants creativity. My attention is not focused because my purpose is unclear. I have passion, but it mostly scares me these days. If I lead with passion and inquire about purpose, I'll lose my job. Meanwhile, I am losing me.

Identity precedes productivity. The courage to be is rarer today than the impulse to do. This is not just an excursion into philosophical speculation. It is a fundamental principle of high performance.

Are we a Research organization with a capital "R" or a development organization that will continue to place our bets on short-term incremental improvements on products already in the market? A student with whom I spoke not long ago at the African Leadership Academy in Joberg described himself as "an Egyption from Cairo who is Muslim who is also African, though my skin is not black, who wants to be a global citizen." He is actively claiming who is!

I am enacting the motion of working hard but am hardly working, in terms of my own deepest values. No matter! Management just asks for more. And I keep on keeping on.

Do you know who you are? Will you speak up? It does matter!

Powerful Conversation(s)

2011-01-31T10:59:00.004-06:00

I recently asked a group of senior technical people, scientists and engineers, the question: "What is the most powerful conversation you have participated in at work in the last three months?"

Their responses ranged from: 1)a very negative experience where the project team was told by management that they had been working on a project that had been dropped from the priority list months ago to; (2)a conversation that was emotionally-charged and therefore powerful to; (3)knowing that my input was making a difference to; (4)asking individual technical professionals what kind of work they really wanted to be engaged in.

A powerful conversation in my judgment is one that surfaces and even challenges underlying assumptions.

A powerful conversation makes it possible to discuss "undiscussables".

A powerful conversation shifts the frame of what is being discussed. A new way of looking at the challenges or opportunities at hand unfolds.

Powerful conversations require a relationship, not just a connection, where it is "safe" to go beneath the surface of the usual management reporting protocols.

As one technical lead stated: "I can't remember when I was last in a conversation that wasn't all roadblocks."

What do you think makes for a "powerful conversation"? When was the last time you participated in one? What could you do to facilitate such a conversation?

The Necessity of Empty Spaces

2011-01-20T11:14:00.004-06:00

Just a few weeks ago as the New Year was upon me, I found myself rummaging through piles, boxes, folders, and computer files, wanting to pause long enough to review some of the rapidly accumulating evidence of past work.

I came across my “facilitator’s guide” for an event I designed and led for business leaders in the Mojave Desert some 15 years ago . We called it “The Necessity of Empty Spaces”. For three days we intentionally used the desert environment to escape from the demands of the workplace just to think, reflect, yes, even meditate. Among other tools, we used the Disciplined Inquiry™ methodology (which I still use with clients today) to work a real business dilemma.

Many creative and talented people today seemingly have no “pause button” which they can hit to escape the relentless demands of doing more with less. It is taking an enormous toll in the workplace as managers attempt to achieve greater and greater efficiencies.

Pacing productivity does not mean simply seeking ways to go further faster. It is essential that we recognize the value, indeed the necessity, of stopping from time to time, of finding and claiming some “space”. When is the last time you were caught in the act of thinking on the job? What is required for you to claim that kind of space for yourself?

The Chief Strategy Officer of a Fortune 50 company, one of my current clients, as part of a recent conversation on this very subject, directed my attention to a speech on Solitude and Leadership that was delivered to the plebe class at West Point last year. I encourage you to find a few moments to read it and then take a walk. Define some space that is intentionally empty. See what happens!

The Necessity of Accepting "Stuckness"

2009-11-30T16:49:00.007-06:00

Yesterday I had a very frustrating day – not one which is totally foreign to my experience but with a slightly new and different twist. After enjoying three days of a long holiday weekend, I had set aside most of the day to create/compose/write my presentation for the American Astronautical Society which I am delivering in a couple days at their Imagine 2009 Conference. The day was virtually “wasted”.

Despite my good intentions and a plethora of ideas and angles and insights, I accomplished very little, until...

Early evening I posted the following comment on my Face Book page: “Some days it just seems impossible to be as productive as I know I am capable of being - why do I get "stuck" like this?”

Literally within minutes I had the following responses from several trusted friends and colleagues, including my daughter.

“Sometimes you just have to allow yourself a break. That can be a very good thing. “

“If I knew, my friend, I would share the answer, gladly.”

“It's called creative incubation. we all need it. :) “

“Productive and 'creative' are different things. Perhaps by being productive you mean 'efficient'. For being effective in what you do, if you are a creative person, you need periods like that. The worst you can do then is to try very hard.”

All of the above comments make sense to me intellectually. They were/are appreciated. But there is nothing that tries my patience more than believing that I SHOULD be able to produce right now, even though I am not. I become very self-critical and undermine my best intentions even more.

When it comes to pacing productivity, sometimes the most significant thing we can do or say is simply to acknowledge, “I’m stuck”. When I did that yesterday, everything changed within a very short span of time. I found myself in a new kind of "flow state" within minutes, though I did little or nothing different, other than state to my virtual friends what was obvious to me by the end of the day.

Sometimes THE most productive thing we can do is ease up on ourselves. I wonder how much creativity and innovation is lost because we fail to realize this in a timely way??

Burgeoning Connections Produce Relational Commodities

2009-11-19T05:07:00.015-06:00

I’ve been perpetually on the move the last six weeks, travelling widely. Was interviewed by a Croatian TV station after speaking at a leadership conference in Zagreb, supported faculty and taught at the African Leadership Academy in Joburg once again, facilitated a 2.5 day offsite for Merck’s Strategy Office in NJ, met with the VP of RD for Heinz Europe in Amsterdam, spoke yesterday on “Managing Connections to Optimize Innovation” at Alcatel-Lucent’s Bell Labs sponsored by the A-L Technical Academy - all exciting and worthwhile!

I have made up-dates in Linkedin, posted comments on Facebook, and even launched some “tweets” into cyberspace. Many engaging conversations and new connections along the way. But, I have not been writing substantially as was my intention, including entries on this blog. What I notice is that yesterday it took only two comments from trusted individuals with whom I have a relationship to draw my attention to both my desire and need to write. They did not scold, chastise, or do anything to “guilt” me. They simply drew me back to my Self.

At Bell Labs I spoke about how connections are fundamentally transactional. When I need a piece of information, a skill, or some advice, I know where to go and how to access it readily. There is an exchange that requires little or no commitment, other than perhaps implied or explicit compensation for value received. A relationship, on the other hand, requires shared values, a measure of mutual commitment, and underlying trust.

Reuters News reported last week on how the business use of Twitter, Facebook, and other social media is exploding. “Just last month… an Internet monitoring firm reported that visits to Twitter, the fourth most popular social networking site, increased by 1,170% in September compared to the year-earlier period. “ This "explosion" is re-aligning our attention, producing relational commodities but not relationships.

I want to be “connected”, most of all to myself! Thanks to Barb and Gordon, each of whom, in their own way, reminded me of that yesterday!

Innovators Break Rules

2009-09-04T01:46:00.011-05:00

Last week I was with an R&D group who were lamenting the lack of entrepreneurial spirit in their ranks. This week I am at the African Leadership Academy with students from across the Continent discussing entrepreneurship and the hero’s journey. One student cited the text: “Successful entrepreneurs make bold leaps that break contact with the familiar and leave behind a clutter of obsolete products and processes.” (“The Entrepreneur as Hero”, Candace Allen). She continued by describing her uncle who broke family and tribal norms when he went to China for an engineering education. I am inspired by the readiness of these students to make such bold leaps as they shared who their heroes are.

In today’s corporate environment heroes are more difficult to identify. Why? Failure to break the rules? This is a difficult but essential inquiry as we try to sort out the “rule-breakers” who have violated our trust and squandered millions of dollars from those who are innovators, if not heroes. Daniel Vasella, CEO of Novartis, commented recently (McKinsey Quarterly Conversations with Global Leaders) that he doubts that “tons of new controls will improve the situation. …Innovation is always, 'How do I circumvent certain rules to make more and better returns?' " He comments further on the “trust gap” that must be closed and the integrity that is required to do things differently.

Leaders deviate from the norms. They go where no one has gone before. Innovators do break rules. But they must do so with integrity in an environment where the vision of what could be and the shared values are more powerful than the instinct to comply with rules and processes. Perhaps the lack of entrepreneurial spirit correlates directly with the lack of understanding of the hero’s journey inside the corporate world. The students here in Joburg certainly have prompted me to be thinking about it more this week!

The Randomness of Insight

2009-08-04T07:31:00.006-05:00

The creative process is not linear. Nor is the way I think always linear. Sometimes the randomness of what catches my attention actually gives way to new insight, IF I don't work it too hard! Yet I often paralyze myself with an injunction that I must write tight, logical, sequences of thought or nothing at all.

The following are some thoughts and phrases that landed on me from speakers at TED Global2009 in Oxford which continue to lobby for more attention from me.

“Your train of thought is sacred.”

“How do you observe something you can’t see?”

“democratization of intimacy”

“Nothing is built on stone; everything is built on sand. But we must build as if on stone.”

“Train your heart to see what the world has given you.”

“We are the first society to be living in a world where we don’t worship anything other than ourselves.”

“Obsessions make my life worse and my work better.”

“Make sure our ideas of success are our own.”

“Context is everything.”

Sometimes allowing for some randomness in our work is the most important thing we can do.

Greater Incentives, Worse Performance - Really!

2009-07-29T01:37:00.008-05:00

"There's a mismatch between what science knows and business does," Dan Pink persuasively asserted as he made his case at TED for re-examining the use of contingent motivators. His TED talk hit my “sweet spot” in terms of professional concerns more than any other. The evidence from experimental tasks using little more than a candle and a box of tacks is compelling. Extrinsic rewards work well with simple tasks and narrow focus. Beyond a certain point, greater incentives actually lead to worse performance.

The most urgent agendas of the 21st century will be repeatedly undermined if we think we can motivate by incrementally increasing promised rewards for those who tackle them. “If, then, rewards don’t work! It makes me crazy!” Pink exclaimed. Yet we persist in trying to motivate our top talent in business today in ways that seem merely to increase stress and kill passion.

The failure of Encarta, Microsoft’s attempt to launch a virtual encyclopedia, contrasted with the massively expanding phenomenon of Wikipedia, is but one example Pink used to document his case beyond the behavioral experiments. “The building blocks for an entirely new operating system for our economy are: (1)autonomy; (2) mastery; and (3) purpose, “ Dan continued.

I resonate deeply with these principles. From the outside looking in on more than one corporate R&D function, it seems nearly impossible to find ways to free highly talented, once passionate scientists and engineers, from “processes on steroids”. I just completed writing a paper on "Gaining Employee Committment in Tough Times, Performance and Potential in R&D Today". Now that I think about it, in the afterglow of TED, we are positioning some practices with clients that are well aligned with what I heard Dan saying from the TED stage.

"Science knows what our heart confirms." No wonder I thought this was one of the best talks of the week.

Learning with Constrast and Differences - TEDGlobal 2009

2009-07-27T02:17:00.006-05:00

The TEDGlobal 2009 Conference which concluded Friday afternoon in Oxford was unquestionably THE most stimulating and engaging professional conference I have ever been privileged to experience. Most notable to me was the diversity of talent, stories, projects, people, from all over the world. Immediate affirmation was everywhere of the power of contrast and differences to stimulate learning and deepen global understanding. I was working at spanning and bridging ideas in my mind all week long! Exhausting! And wonderful…

Orphaned hip hop artist, Emmanuel Jal's story of surviving the Sudanese civil wars celebrated in exploding rhythms the difference just one person can make, i.e. Emma McCune, the aid worker who rescued him (and has subsequently died – details were not able to be shared). V.K. Madhavan, the Executive Director, Central Himalayan Rural Action Group, a group specializing in rural agricultural development is also a TED Fellow. In a soft-spoken way, each time I spoke with Madhavan during the week, he conveyed his dedication to empowering women who work in agriculture in rural India. With just a few comments, his passion and commitment were not only evident but inspiring!

The stage was occupied (never more than 18 minutes) by the prominent ( e.g. Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of Britain) and the not so well-known or even obscure ( Jason Soll, a student at Claremont McKenna College who “flourished” cards for 3 minutes while energizing all of us with how learning can flourish). Michael Naylor, Director, Canopy Capital, London and a fellow participant, spoke with me as we walked to Oxford’s Natural History Museum to view the movie, "Home" . Each time we subsequently met during the course of the week, I realized a new depth of concern and care for the intricate systems of the planet we inhabit.

Many TED talks are available on-line - more in time from Global2009 Conference, most from previous conferences. IF you want to keep your mind alert and your learning at the edge, I strongly encourage viewing a TED talk from time to time. It only takes 18 minutes OR LESS.

The Substance of Things Not Seen

2009-07-20T05:09:00.004-05:00

I am at Oxford University today for the launch of the TEDGlobal 2009 Conference. There is a palpable energy permeating the quad of Keble College this morning as momentum is building for what I anticipate is going to be an extraordinary week of conversation, learning, new relationships, and more.

The theme of the conference, "The Substance of Things Not Seen," draws me to a realm of experience I have always been aware of and has been an important part of my life's work. Just a few weeks ago a Sr. R&D Leader spoke to her organization in the aftermath of yet another down-sizing and re-organization. She stated in a demeanor that was congruent with her words: "I believe our character, convictions, and the culture of this organization will have much more to do with our success than our structure or processes." She knows something of the "substance of things not seen" as she went on to discuss with the employees gathered the importance of qualitative as well as quantitative assessment. I talked with some of the technical professionals that work for her afterwards. They were inspired!

ROII (Return on Investment in Interactions) is a new way to think about value. "Productivity in a Networked Era: Not Your Father's ROI." an article in the current issue of Chief Learning Officer magazine, makes a compelling argument for "value creation migrating from what we can see (physical assets) to intangibles (ideas). Look at Google and Cisco." Participating in TED this week represents for me the quintessential challenge of finding value in expanding global networks, both real and virtual.

Speaking of fathers, last week before departing for TED I spent an evening with my 85 year old father at our family's cabin in Northern Minnesota. In the midst of our reminiscing and talking about the end of life (my mom died a year ago), my Dad commented about "the most well-documented description of heaven" he had ever read - a book he wants to share with my father- and mother-in-law who are also facing the end of life. Here is a curious but deeply felt reference to his connection to the "substance of things not seen". Scriptural allusions to this topic are many and remain prominent in the lives of those who have influenced me.

I bring my awareness of all this and more to my dialogue and exploration of this week. There is no question in my kind that the difference between value and success lies in a domain that is often intangible and frequently cannot be seen.

Thomas Edison Re-Considered

2009-07-19T06:01:00.002-05:00

Managers motivate. Leaders inspire. One without the other is incomplete when striving for sustainable performance. AND, no matter how powerful or forceful one might be, a leader cannot force you to commit nor compel you to create.

When times are tough, the need for the spirit to be sustained and nurtured does not vanish. Both “perspire” and “inspire” as well as “expire” for that matter are rooted in the Latin “spiritus” which means “to breathe in new life, to animate or energize”. Innovation requires inspiration as well as perspiration!

The earnest manager sometimes cites Thomas Edison when it comes to working harder. “Success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.” Edison’s statement describes what is required to move a creative idea forward to an invention, and then perhaps an innovation, where real socio-economic value has been established. He is not addressing what is required to invite and sustain a creative work environment which is animated and inspired, even when times are tough. People who are managed by others need more than admonitions to do more, faster, with less.

Leaders Inspire by the Way They Inquire

2009-07-08T08:18:00.004-05:00

" 'Search' has made us all drive-by scholars," writes Gregory Rodriguez last week in his column in the Los Angeles Times entitled, "Answers Can Be Found in Questions" . He addresses the fundamental value of inquiry, a skill that is waining in our society, as he points out.

He cites a newly published book by Andrea Batista Schlesinger entitled, The Death of "Why?", The Decline of Questioning and the Future of Democracy. Batista Schlesinger writes: "The way we interact with information reveals the priority we place on trivia over investigation, consumption over explanation, speed over reflection..."

Coincidentally, just this week I finished writing a paper with my colleagues that addresses the value of skilled inquiry when seeking to engage employees in tough times. We look at some of the "political" issues related to how the questions of performance and potential are framed in R&D organizations. We review four ways our clients have validated success with skillful inquiry:(1) listening posts; (2) cascading conversations; (3) skip-level meetings; and (4) barrier-busting by managers.

In our experience the "political" nature of any inquiry about performance and potential in the R&D space, both organizational and individual, will either deepen employee commitment through this economic downturn or perpetuate more cynicism and distrust.

As Rodriguez' column highlights, the value and power of inquiry is being compromised with consequences we may not realize in the immediacy of our "search".

Leaders inspire by the way they inquire!

The Prevalence of Blind Spots

2009-06-24T10:18:00.007-05:00

When it comes to vision, most animals care very little for the substance of things. Their eyes are oriented to movement. No so for human beings. Our eyes are continually filling the field of vision with content, even when it’s not there. The anatomical structure of the human eye causes a blind spot which is filled by the surrounding environment in a way that we may never notice. A simple visual exercise confirms it.

"We spend about one-tenth of our waking hours completely blind." (A Natural History of Seeing, Simon Ings)

Cultural biases and organizational norms cause blind spots as well. “Taboos” exist which we cannot address because we don’t know they are there. We can’t “see” them, above all, in our own daily environment. The consequences, though often not apparent in the short term, have enduring impact over the course of time and history.

One way to increase our awareness and uncover blind spots is by comparison and contrast. Examining the differences between a microbiology lab and a high energy physics lab (ethnographic study) helps scientific and technical leaders uncover their blind spots. The patterns and practices for generating new knowledge are very different in these labs, for those who have eyes to see.

Just as an ophthalmologist tests visual fields of the eyes, it is possible to check periodically for blind spots of leaders. Paradoxical as it may seem, successful leaders know how to look for their own blind spots as well as those of their organization. Leaders can develop and practice skills to make visible what is invisible. As a result new fields of awareness emerge.

Awareness precedes choice. Energy follows attention

Profitability and True Value

2009-06-18T14:05:00.008-05:00

Several important people in my life, including my son, urged me to read David Brooks op ed column in the New York Times several weeks back now. I only recently got to it. Alas, "In Praise of Dullness" challenges much of what I hold important in my life and work. Brooks asserts that recent research proves that “warm, flexible, team-oriented and empathetic people are less likely to thrive as C.E.O.’s. Organized, dogged, anal-retentive and slightly boring people are more likely to thrive.” He even cites Jim Collin’s seminal work, Good to Great in support of his argument.

As one reaches the conclusion of his column, the “political” nature of his argument becomes blatantly apparent. It reinforces the need to test underlying assumptions (which are frequently very political in nature) and examine common practices for sustainable value. For example, Brooks equates political talent (ala Washington D.C. in any case ) with “charisma, charm and personal skills”. If politics is indeed about the inevitable exercise of power and struggle for control, then political skills are much more about persuasive influence and effective management than Brooks leads the reader to believe. And such political skills are important to successful leaders, regardless of position.

The current economic climate does not speak well of the “success” of American businesses, including the leadership of many CEOS. If innovation is indeed required to maintain or regain competitive strength, the human all too human factors in the work environment, including the need for trust and some measure of personal fulfillment, are essential.

Insufficient criteria for success are confused with generating sustainable true value. Paradoxically, “breaking the rules “ of what many have deemed “profitable” may be what is required.

The Bad Rap of "Politics"

2009-06-17T11:04:00.002-05:00

Over twenty years ago, Peter Block published a book entitled The Empowered Manager, Positive Political Skills at Work. It is one of the few references I have found that acknowledges the inevitable reality of politics as well as the possibility of redeeming the meaning of the word itself. Max Weber defined politics as “the struggle for power”. (The word “politics” originally comes from the Greek word polis meaning city or state.) The struggle for power is a reality day after day, wherever people gather.

Block writes: “The process of organizational politics as we know it works against people… We empower ourselves by finding a positive way of being political. The line between positive and negative politics is a tightrope we have to walk. We must be powerful advocates… in a way that does not alienate those around and above us.”

SFB Associates is launching our Politics of Creativity™ Assessment this week. It is very simply five propositions and twenty normative statements which we believe will help R&D functions in particular find positive ways of being political. Proposition # 1: Innovators break rules. This is not necessarily bad, but it is almost inevitably political. Our purpose is to break down the barriers that give politics a bad rap in organizations – naming it for what it is – “a struggle for power” which is real and needs to be more effectively addressed if we want more innovative break-throughs.

Tapping the Full Potential of Top Talent

2009-04-01T14:59:00.010-05:00

More than one of our clients in the last year has asked the question: “Are we maximizing the contribution or optimizing the potential of our technical employees?” “How do we know if the performance of our R&D pipeline indeed reflects the full potential of the top talent in our labs?”

While looking for a response to that question may be useful, any answer to it is inherently “political”. Why? First, because the criteria for “performance” are not widely understood and accepted the deeper one goes in most R&D organizations. There is often substantial disagreement about how “performance” is recognized and rewarded (and not much dialogue about what performance really means to the professional at the bench). Secondly, human potential cannot be captured by any metric. There is always more potential.

The answer will always be political; the inquiry, however, is essential.

When asked about employee potential, THE most frequent indicator that management points to is the “engagement survey” conducted by corporate HR or global shared services. I was recently sitting in a break-out group with a 10-12 scientists from the R&D function. We were asked to work on the low scores on an "engagement survey" related to “working with the customer”. The entire 90 minutes was spent debating what “customer” means for the R&D group. The group virtually discounted the value of the entire survey because of lack of shared understanding - not just related to ”customer” but other aspects as well for those completing it.

Trying to decode corporate surveys is no substitute for being engaged oneself.

The Power of Perfection

2009-03-10T11:49:00.005-05:00

“If you become widely successful because you do everything right, you’re doomed.”

So said Clayton Christensen, academic, author, and authority on “disruptive innovation” whom I heard speak last week on the state of healthcare in our nation. While I indeed share many of his concerns about our healthcare system, the above comment at the beginning of his presentation was what loomed in my mind at the time and ever since.

Our drive to “get it right” is fueled by a confusion between excellence and perfection. I can’t tell you how many times I hear talented and highly trained PhD professionals working at the lab bench comment on the potential value of an 80/20% solution. Yet seldom is that deemed adequate, either by research professionals or management. Despite the rhetoric, the “line” doesn’t play. Why?

As individuals we're reluctant to attend to a root cause – the need we acquired as individuals, somewhere along the way, to be “perfect” in order to be accepted, recognized, loved. I can “hear” clients thinking, “Don’t go psychological on me!” However, such personality traits, multiplied many times over in a given organization, become embedded in the culture. We are more productive when we don't undermine ourselves and our projects with the unrecognized power of perfection. At least I am.

To know the difference between excellence and perfection is to understand what it means to be human.

Imagine leaving your job!

2009-01-07T04:09:00.005-06:00

A respected and very talented client was recently recruited for a new leadership role with another company. Having made plans to accept the new senior R&D position, he found himself speaking up and taking risks in new ways, reflecting his untapped vision and continuing passion for his current work. Given he was leaving his present position, any lack of support or endorsement of his work at this point by senior management would have nominal impact, if any, on his career.

As he made plans for his transition to the new employer, the economy tanked and the offer was rescinded. He found himself continuing with his current position.

I recently spoke with him. He commented without hesitation that he had significant concern about the affect of some of the "edgy" initiative he exercised in recent months, in anticipation of leaving. However, to his surprise, there was far more receptivity, even momentum, to work which he was previously cautious about leading. He became acutely aware of his limiting beliefs about what was possible, until he thought he was leaving.

Imagine what we might do if we knew there was always some place else to go, something else to do, a calling that is bigger and greater, than the current role we fulfill. This is difficult for most people, if not impossible, when economic instability and job security is very much on our minds. But such courage is essential if we are to realize our full creative potential, not merely for our own sake, but for the innovative, productive prosperity of the organizations we serve.

Chronos, Kairos, and Creativity

2009-01-01T23:43:00.005-06:00

International authorities responsible for keeping time precise announced that today, the first day of yet another New Year, we were given an extra second of time. How often we hear in our work that there is simply not enough time! Yet time hangs heavy for many these days - the uncertainty of a failing economy is more than a passing moment.

The ancient Greeks had multiple words for "time". Chronos refers to chronological time - the quantitative nature of time as before and after, time which is always scarce. Kairos on the other hand refers to a qualitative attentiveness, time as significant rather than dimensional. Kairos is a passing instant when an opening appears, offering a unique transformational moment for those who see it.

Too often we gauge our productivity in terms of "chronos" rather than training ourselves to be attentive to "kairos". Recently published research, "Time and Organizational Improvisation" argues that improvisation is an ideal basis for a synthesis of chronos and kairos, "blending conflicting concepts such as planning and acting, discipline and freedom, control and spontaneity."

Focusing on time solely as chronos distracts from the creative power of kairos. I look forward to discovering the kairos of 2009 in ways we have not yet imagined.

Happy New Year!

Innovation as a Social Enterprise

2008-12-18T08:48:00.006-06:00

Stories abound about the lone inventor, cloistered at the moment of “eureka”! Like most myths it makes good theater, and is far from the reality of modern R&D. Janet Rae-Dupree said in a recent New York Times article, “Truly productive invention requires the meeting of minds from myriad perspectives, even if the innovators themselves don’t always realize it (my emphasis)”.

Invention is a social phenomenon. Some of us primates have evolved the capacity to see, hear, and experience others as if we were them, empathy. It is a trait that helps us negotiate the complex political terrain we inhabit as social animals. It can also function to feed our imagination using the thoughts of others, to build on not only the explicit content, but the underlying sense of what they are trying to express.

I recently watched this in action with eight colleagues, relative strangers, at a weeklong forum on “Measuring Sustainability”. Our focus was energy systems, our challenges, too little time, too much complexity, and a book chapter to draft on the last day. The group had two assets: a diverse set of backgrounds and the ability to build on each other’s ideas, criticisms, experiences; empathy. This “meeting of minds from myriad perspectives” produced an insightful, inventive, useful and novel approach to the problem. We’ll be proud to see it in print with our names on it.

The ability to harness this capacity can be a critical asset for R&D leaders. Rae-Dupree quotes Robert Fishkin, president and chief executive of Reframeit, Inc. “We need to get better at collaborating in noncompetitive ways across company and organizational lines.” We need empathy to unlock the power of diversity.

Jack Johnston - Contributing Author

Corporate Culture as Primary Driver of Radical Innovation

2008-11-24T20:56:00.008-06:00

A new study about to be published in the Journal of Marketing “Radical Innovation Across Nations: The Pre-eminence of Corporate Culture” powerfully reinforces work we launched last summer on “Culture and High Performance in R&D”. The authors of the new study, Tellis, Prabhu, and Chandy, (Rajesh Chandy is professor of marketing at the Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota) rigorously document their findings. Their conclusion: corporate culture drives radical innovation in firms around the world much more than metrics more commonly or readily used by management. Their study is based on data from 759 firms across 17 major economies of the world. I encourage you to read it!

While verifying the distinctive importance of corporate culture as a driver of radical innovation, the study does not provide leaders with tangible means of engaging with culture as a leadership practice. In fact, in a footnote to the study, the authors write, “Other firm-level factors such as leadership quality and cross-functional integration may also drive innovation.". This is about leadership development and collaboration, the work we do in supporting leaders who are not merely working in a corporate culture or through a corporate culture, but on corporate culture.

As Chandy and colleagues note in their study:, “Indeed, corporate culture is a factor that is unique, intangible, sticky, and very difficult to change. ... These cultural traits can blind a firm to radical innovations on the frontier. “

Just as an ophthalmologisty tests visual fields of the eyes, we check periodically for blind spots of leaders. Paradoxical as it may seem, successful leaders know how to look for their own blinds spots as well as those of their organization. Many of those blind spots are in the "culture" field of vision. That is where we work!

You Need to Have a Great Question!

2008-11-05T19:43:00.008-06:00

I heard Tammy Erickson speak yesterday on employee engagement, innovation and collaboration. "People rarely innovate because you tell them to innovate," she said. "Rather, you need to have a great question. That is the leader's job."

Week before last I presented a workshop in Portugal on the Politics of Creativity at the International Congress of Creativity and Innovation 2008, Portuguese-Spanish Environment
Feedback indicated that the "question game" I invited participants to play mid-way through the workshop was a highlight for them. The thing is, I had not planned to do that. It was more or less a spontaneous decision to make the three hour workshop more interactive. Ironically, now that I think about it, I have attended many many lectures, presentations, and workshops on creativity and innovation that invite little or no inquiry from the participants.

On this first post-election day in the U.S. I am eager and curious to watch whether or how President-elect Obama poses powerful questions for us, as opposed to providing quick answers for some difficult, deep issues we face as a nation.

Thanks, Tammy, for verifying once again, the power of questions!

Telling the Truth about Failure

2008-09-30T10:08:00.005-05:00

For the last several weeks, as the U.S. financial services industry has crumbled before our very eyes, I have been writing a talk which I will give on several occasions in the next few weeks. The topic, chosen months ago, is "Telling the Truth about Failure: Ambition and Ambivalence". I finally completed a first draft yesterday after more than the usual procrastination. As I look back at the churn and turmoil of the past few weeks, in the U.S. economy as well as in my own creative process, I am more aware than ever of the ways in which we seek to distance ourselves from failure.

I recently participated in a meeting of top tier R&D leaders who were being briefed on the "organizational fitness" exercises which were about to commence (read: downsizing and layoffs). Later in the same meeting, the group reviewed their performance to date as reflected in their Balanced Scorecard. The total points to date indicated they were on a trajectory to achieve 96.5 out of 100 points. There was a long silence as the senior leader asked: "What's wrong with this picture?"

The contradiction slowly began to sink into the participants in the room. The organization's capacity to continue to document performance success while urgently acknowledging threats to its very survival is an ironic example of how commitment to succeed can obscure truth about failure.

When one considers thoughtfully the cultural biases and systemic forces that drive large organizations, there is much more to telling the truth and understanding failure than initially meets the eye.

Telling the truth about failure first requires us to acknowledge that instinctively we all want to distance ourselves from failure. Maybe that's why I had such a hard time writing the past few weeks? Is that what's happening in Congress at the moment? I wonder.

Clumsy Solutions

2008-09-06T16:23:00.007-05:00

My good friend and colleague, Jack Johnston, loaned me a book to read on vacation this past week. It's entitled, Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World, Government, Politics and Plural Perceptions.

What’s a “clumsy solution”? My take on it: one that acknowledges and takes into consideration the cultural point of view of any position a group, organization, or nation takes when making decisions or establishing new policy. It’s not nearly as clean and precise as we might wish our positions – any position – might be – but it is much more viable and valuable in today’s complex world.

The editors' review of cultural theory provides a very accessible framework for assessing the prevalent "social contract" that governs decision-making, whether we are aware of it or not. The various contributors to this volume apply the theory to global issues from climate change to gun control to open internet access. Their study has enormous relevance for anyone concerned with the “politics of creativity” and innovation. The pursuit of innovative solutions must necessarily include rigorous inquiry about the embedded assumptions that are inextricably a part of culture.

I am very cautious about recommending any book that lists at $85.00. (That's why I borrowed it form Jack.) But I wish both John McCain and Barak Obama would read it. And you too.

Our Need for "Answers"

2008-08-28T08:25:00.009-05:00

Leaders are distinguished more by the questions they ask

than any answers they may have.

We have asserted this to be true since the earliest days of our consulting practice. It sounds good, most of the time. But affirming it in practice is yet another matter. When times are tough and resources scarce, I am struck by how deeply leaders struggle to find the "solution" by imposing on themselves, often unconsciously, the belief that they need to have the "answer", preferably yesterday! Ironically, the more intense the pressure for "answers", the poorer our questions become. Powerful persistent inquiry gives way to paralysis by analysis in search for the "answer".

Jim Collins, author of Good to Great, commented recently, "How do you create a climate in which truth is heard? The first thing is to increase your questions-to-statements ratio. Have someone track it and see if you can double it next year. The leaders in our studies asked lots of questions. They were Socratic. By asking questions, they got the brutal facts, as well as lots of insights and ideas." (Business Week, August 25/Sept 1 , 2008)

We're ready to do just that - track the balance of advocacy and inquiry in a given group or organization - and document the impact over a period of time - as a new component to our Disciplined Inquiry methodology.

How does one know, as leader, when to share the "answer" (if you, indeed have one) and when to pose a new, powerful question? If you're exhausted and feeling way overwhelmed, if not outright discouraged, consider the latter as indeed the more productive way to generate commitment and recover a productive path forward.

Intangible Drivers of Performance

2008-08-14T21:33:00.007-05:00

"Not everything that can be counted counts,
and not everything that counts can be counted."

Albert Einstein

When I feel especially frustrated or impatient with those who want metrics for anything and everything of value, I reference this quote from Einstein. The play on words makes it almost too easy to throw it away as just another slick slogan. And I fear that's what our clients often do, regrettably.

I recently heard the CFO of a Fortune 50 company speak to a group of senior R&D executives about the impact of non-financial, intangible factors on how Wall Street analysts make their buy/sell recom-mendations. But when it comes to promoting innovation and enhancing performance, it's remarkable to me how quickly leaders revert to their apparent comfort zone of finding or creating metrics which can be analyzed, scrutinized, and then refined in order to make their case for improved productivity.

There is a great map of intangible assets as part of an article, "Do Intangibles Matter?" in the current issue of Chief Executive. Check it out! As the article notes, only one-third of executives polled "claimed that their companies were proficient in monitoring critical non-financial indicators of corporate performance."

What's required to appreciate more fully the impact of these "intangibles"? One place to begin: ask yourself the question, "What's the difference between inspiration and motivation?"

Facebook and the Military

2008-08-05T08:55:00.005-05:00

While I have been a member of Linked In for some time now, I admit to being ambivalent about how much value those connections really generate for me, personally as well as professionally. Then, last night, I get an invitation from my son, currently in Bolivia, to view a virtual album of recent photos on Facebook. But I was not a member. After logging in and completing my user profile, I am now a member of Facebook as well.

The migration to such networking tools is inevitable, if not essential, for those wanting to be in relationship with a new generation of professionals.

Though popular websites such as YouTube, MySpace, and other social network sites have been banned in the military, some senior officers in the U.S. Air Force were recently "appalled to discover a number of junior officers using the still permissible Facebook Web site for the purpose of organizing their squadrons." (Strategy and Business, "Military of Millennials") The article continues: "As current military leaders look more closely at the nature of this new generation, they will discover that it conflicts with both their organizational structures and their communications strategies."

I share a similar concern with regard to many of the R&D organizations with which we partner through our consulting practice. Command and control cultures persist in trying to manage information in a way that is not congruent with how young professionals establish relationships and actively communicate with one another. The rationale for protecting proprietary IP parallels the military's concern for security issues.

Investment in "relationship capital" provides organizations with the most competitive advantage in today's networked society. Engaging new leaders requires learning and adapting to their communication style; that does not come naturally to many of us.

Talking about Culture but...

2008-07-29T06:35:00.007-05:00

This past weekend we completed our white paper on "Culture and High Performance in R&D". Our preliminary findings based on interviews with 23 senior R&D leaders in the Twin Cities are summarized therein. I undoubtedly am listening with new attentiveness to what others are saying (0r not) about the role of organizational culture in today's business environment.

Yesterday I attended a forum at the Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, on "Innovation, Drivers and Impediments". Among the panelists were Carlos Gutierrez, U.S. Secretary of Commerce as well as Bill Hawkins, President and CEO of Medtronic, George Buckley, President and CEO of 3M, and Marilyn Carlson Nelson, chairman of the Board of Carlson Company.

Frequent and recurrent reference was made to "culture" during the course of the afternoon.

George Buckley, in commenting about 3M yesterday, said "3M is more like an organism than an organization. ...It comes down to culture. People respect what you inspect. ...Culture comes down to what it is you talk about, what it is you communicate."

Marilyn Carlson Nelson said, "Cultures willing to accept tolerance for risk have the greatest opportunity for innovation."

There was nothing dramatically new or radical in what I heard yesterday. Furthermore, in doing a literature search on the subject earlier this summer, my colleagues and I found that very little has been written on organizational culture in recent years. Most of the literature on the subject dates to the early 90s. I wonder why this is?? And there is even less written about culture and the R&D function. Maybe we can change the tide?

Can anyone cite recent work on culture that has especially grabbed your attention? Let us know.

Meanwhile, be glad to share with you a copy of our white paper.

Too Many Meetings

2008-07-21T21:44:00.024-05:00

"Boredom is a compromise between desire and fear."

A professional whom I very much respect and trust made the above statement in a recent discussion. We were talking about the endless number of meetings that populate the calendars of technical professionals these days. Indeed, in my experience, the number of ineffective meetings that land on calendars is a persistent and pervasive inhibitor to high performance.

I sit through any number of management meetings in a given month in my role as consultant. I repeatedly observe first-hand the all too evident behavioral signals of impatience, frustration, and boredom. "Why am I in this meeting?" the body language so readily communicates.

A column in last Sunday's NYT "Another Meeting? Say It Isn't So?" offers some tips for dealing with meetings run amok. There's nothing profoundly new here, but I find that it's meeting basics that even the most senior leaders need to be reminded of again and again (e.g. be clear what kind of decision you are asking for, if any, and who's making it).

Next time you're sitting through yet another "boring" meeting, you might ask yourself these two questions: "What is it that I desire?" "What is it that I fear?" Maybe what you attribute to boredom will be transformed to ... what?? Try it.

Missing the Obvious

2008-07-14T21:46:00.015-05:00

In our eagerness to look below the surface or under the radar to identify inhibitors to high performance, we risk overlooking the obvious.

I admit there is a part of me that is drawn to looking where no one else seems to want to look -- curious about what's not being said, not being heard, not being looked at.

The Politics of Creativity is very much about equipping leaders to make visible the invisible, uncover "undiscussables", examine the "sacred", or explore beyond in order to identify inhibitors to high performance.

However, when discussing culture and high performance with R&D leaders here in the Twin Cities last week, I realize now we emphasized our own bias towards uncovering those aspects of culture which are not obvious, not visible.

There are indeed very tangible and self-evident examples of cultural norms and behaviors. For example, do the men in your organization keep a neck tie behind the door to put on when going to the executive suite? If I asked you to describe some of the differences between the culture of Google and that of IBM you probably would be able to do so without much difficulty. Some of the differences are obvious.

I don't want to be guilty of missing the obvious while seeking to help others uncover organizational blindspots.

Culture and High Performance

2008-07-07T22:04:00.003-05:00

Today I am working with anticipation and even some excitement on a presentation for a meeting at Cargill later this week with some twenty top leaders of RD&E from the greater Minneapolis/St.Paul area. We have just concluded with them Phase I of an empirical study on culture and high performance in RD&E functions. Our working hypothesis is that culture is the most under-utilized lever for creating sustainable high performance in RD&E.

While much of our learning to date is qualitative, we did ask all participants in the study to complete eight normative statements. The large majority of respondents agreed that “Culture is the main source of sustainable high performance in RD&E.” In contrast, however, there was a broad distribution in response to the statement, “My RD&E organization focuses on culture as a means of creating competitive advantage.” The scaled responses of participants indicate that many RD&E leaders do not focus on culture per se (though those surveyed overwhelmingly agree that it is a main source of sustainable competitive advantage).

We observe the following frequent disposition of RD&E leaders regarding culture:

a belief that culture is a lagging phenomenon, not something that one works on directly
an attitude that RD&E is too deeply embedded in the larger organization to address culture
lack of confidence and/or skills to work cultural elements
blind spots about the impact of culture to motivate and sustain high performance

Regardless of one's beliefs about culture, there are perceptions that it is nigh unto impossible to change the culture from the position of leadership in RD&E. AND, then there are those who are doing it!

We'll be expanding this study to the Bay Area in California in the fall. And writing a "white paper". Let's us know if you'd like to learn more.

Art and Logic

2008-07-01T09:31:00.006-05:00

from The Power of Story by Tom Peters

Sometimes a picture speaks a thousand words. Are we evolving to the place where art and logic indeed can play in the same space? Is there really any alternative?

James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, writes in The Double Helix: "Science as I hope this work will demonstrate, rarely proceeds with the logic laymen attribute to it."

Is it possible that is true of business models and planning processes as well?

Daniel Pink argues in A Whole New Mind: "The MFA is the new MBA". Perhaps there is some common ground here for research scientists and their business partners??

Keepers of the Culture

2008-06-23T21:08:00.006-05:00

“Culture-keepers tend to be in the underground.”

That was the comment of a senior scientist in the biotech industry as we concluded an interview with him this afternoon. We are in the midst of our first round of interviews with senior leaders in R&D concerning the relationship of culture, high performance, and leadership practices. What especially caught my attention today was this leader’s unsolicited use of the phrase “underground”. And that those who compromise the underground are the “culture-keepers”.

“Culture-keepers” may engender thoughts of preservation, conservation, and stasis. Or they might be understood as the reservoir of largely untapped resources, buried beneath layers of bureaucracy and a myriad of processes - sort of like the connective tissue that keeps everything intact despite stress and strains. Either way, culture keepers are the bearers of implicit knowledge that is transferred from generation to generation.

One of the core premises of the Politics of Creativity is that there is indeed an underground of relationships, practices, and even scientific knowledge that generally fails to hit the screen of management. One of the reasons this happens, as the leader we interviewed today added, is that senior managers are rotated through the R&D function every few years. While management may initiate structural changes or launch other initiatives to optimize innovation and productivity, the culture is seldom affected, unless there is an intentional, trustworthy attempt to engage this “underground”.

This is not about gimmicky programs or subversive tactics but rather about more authentic engagement with people who matter because they are the guts of the R&D lab. Valuable political skills can be honed which acknowledge the reality of the power structure(s) of the business while honoring the wisdom buried in the organization. But before even thinking about engaging the "underground" one needs to acknowledge that it exists. What prevents or encourages management from doing so? That's the question I didn't explore in the interview today. Next time!

Improvisation and Relationships

2008-06-16T21:17:00.007-05:00

Last week I had the opportunity to hear Rob Cross deliver the results of a social network analysis to the top 100 R&D leaders in a client organization. He highlighted, among other things, the importance of managing overload points as well as leveraging the periphery of the informal networks revealed by the mapping. This prompted me to juxtapose our work with relationship capital.

We define relationship capital as the sum total of interfaces, interactions, and interventions among and between people. It includes the tacit, often unrecognized behaviors and patterns of interaction that define and differentiate an organization’s performance. The practice of the Politics of Creativity helps leaders more effectively invest in relationship capital.

An essay in the McKinsey Quarterly entitled "Competitive Advantage from Better Interactions" helpfully describes how tacit interactions more and more define how employees must relate to one another. (The authors’ research was based on a study of some 8,000 companies.) One of their conclusions: "Tacit interactions reduce the importance of structure and elevate the importance of people and collaboration. …Tacit work is improvisational and difficult to define in advance, for it follows the problem being solved and the nature of the opportunity at hand."

I actually spent a day not too long ago at an improvisational workshop with Stevie Rae. While it may seem like a big stretch from an improv routine to a research lab, there were many aspects of the workshop that informed our work with "relationship capital". For example, Stevie Rae reminded us again and again, "At the end of the day, the audience won't remember your words but whether they liked playing with you." '

When, if ever, have you last asked yourself the question "What feeling or emotion do I want others to leave this conversation or presentation with, not simply what information?" This is a specific way for one to invest more in relationship capital. Too simplistic? Too soft? Pay attention and see what happens.

There is mounting evidence that such tacit dimensions differentiate those who successfully generate trust and establish an environment where creativity and innovation flourish. All the information and data in the world is no substitute for some of the most rudimentary principles of building relationships that are more than connections on a network map.

An Underground of Missed Opportunity

2008-06-09T07:33:00.008-05:00

Last Friday I spoke at Medtronic's Global Technology Forum on the “Politics of Creativity”. I began by commenting how just beneath the surface of organizational “business as usual” there lies an “underground” of missed opportunity. I asked the audience, "Where does one go to find out what’s really happening?" The practice of the Politics of Creativity is about looking at the inhibitors to creativity and innovation that lie just beneath the surface of most organizations.

Chris Argyris of Harvard Business School documents extensively in his book, Overcoming Organizational Defenses how “underground dynamics” arise. What I was not anticipating on Friday was a question from the audience asking, “What advice do you have for us if we are the underground?” The audience was heavily populated with young, robust thinkers, scientists and engineers as well as business liasons, asking great questions about sometimes elusive matters (e.g. "How DO I sustain the creativity I had when I came to the company two years ago?")

Underground dynamics are more about unspoken and often unrecognized maneuvers and manipulations to gain advantage than about a specific group of people. As Argyris points out, there are underground dynamics even in the Board Room. So perhaps I confused the audience by asking "where do you go to find out what's really happening"?

In any case, I responded to the question by sharing my conviction that a small group with vision and passion can indeed make a tremendous difference in where a large organization is moving. Over lunch I cited how in the mid 90s a small group in the Finance Dept at Nestle USA was largely responsible for what became a company-wide initiative called "Leadership over the Top," a program for leadership growth and renewal which was sustained for more than five years. I remain in contact with some of those individuals to this day.

In yesterday's New York Times Noam Cohen writes a featured article entitled, "The Wiki-Way to the Nomination". He describes how Barack Obama's victory as the Democratic nominee is very much a result of "Facebook politics" and compares his success to a "classic internet startup". He then quotes Obama: "We just had some incredibly creative young people who got involved and what I think we did was give them a lot of latitude to experiment and try new things and put some serious resources into it." New strategies and accompanying tactics for political influence are very evident in this year's political contests

I encourage you to read Cohen's article. He concludes by citing the paradox that one person can make all the difference in leveraging the "wisdom of crowds". Industry changing behavior is happening! Who would have imagined Radiohead or now Nine Inch Nails giving away their new hits on the Internet?

Gamesmanship in Process Implementation

2008-06-02T20:37:00.027-05:00

Remember the childhood game, "Chutes and Ladders"? We've actually used the elements of this game with a group of 200 scientists and engineers to capture how they are using one and the same process in different sites and functions globally. Yes, "Chutes and Ladders"!

The task is not to discuss changing or improving the processes. The challenge is simply to identify and describe the ways in which technical leaders and their business partners around the world use different tactics or behaviors to operationalize one and the same process. This is more difficult that it may seem - simply describing actions and behaviors; the tendency again and again is to suggest what's wrong with the process or a particular protocol.

For example, the need for coordinated in-country strategies that interface well with the respective cultural as well as market realities of a particular region is one such "process". Working in break-out groups, each group documents the "ladders" which represent ways in which one could accelerate or "cut a few corners" as well as "chutes" which represent traps, pitfalls, or other liabilities which result in going backwards.

The outcome is not playing a game; rather a graphic representation is made visible of how leaders actually work one and the same process.

Knowing there are "chutes" and "ladders" in every organizational system reflects an understanding of "gamesmanship" that also exists, for better or worse. Knowing when it is O.K. to "break the rules" and when one ought to "follow the leader" is a kind of political skill. It can be cultivated if acknowledged. Both are necessary if innovation is to thrive.

Stretching for New Technology Strategy

2008-05-27T09:32:00.010-05:00

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

2008-05-19T23:19:00.006-05:00

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

2008-05-12T06:42:00.009-05:00

"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

2008-05-05T07:28:00.006-05:00

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?