“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?
Showing posts with label innovation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label innovation. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Friday, September 04, 2009
Innovators Break Rules
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!
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!
Monday, July 27, 2009
Learning with Constrast and Differences - TEDGlobal 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Thomas Edison Re-Considered
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The Bad Rap of "Politics"
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.
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.
Monday, May 05, 2008
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
