What was a harrowing descent had just become worse, the steep scree slope ended in a cliff of unknown dimensions. We had all bought into our guide’s decision to take the short-cut. Down was bad. Now we had to go back up. (from events recounted below…)

Leadership fascinates me. Of course, recommended flavors and real life often don’t seem to line up as neatly as rah-rah management guides try to make us believe. While it would be nice to think that every successful conclusion was due to good leadership and every failure was due to bad, the lessons tend to be individualistic, full of false positives and negatives. Often the ability of followers to succeed in spite of leadership inanities is a more fascinating process question. That’s why it was refreshing to see that the 8 management points (and 3 pitfalls) put forward by Google appeared to be good common sense backed by quantitative research.

Reading the 8 points reminded me of this little episode when I was a tad more physically adventurous than today:

I believe this is from the trail in question, although memory may be playing tricks on me.

We reached our third peak of the afternoon via a razorback ridge that left two choices for falling – right and left. Some places narrow enough that even my teenage bones felt a tinge of anxiety.

We were later in the day than planned. Well past noon on exposed rock in an area that had been seeing regular afternoon lightning. We had pressed on because I, the youngest in the group, was stressed about notching my belt with more peaks. I needed to complete this hike to have a shot at Longs Peak later in the week.

Rick and Mary (real names lost in the fog I’m afraid) were at the other end of the spectrum, both in their 70’s and experienced hikers. Mary was looking to photograph a few last alpine blooms. Both attacked the difficult trail with quiet strength. In truth, they helped control the pace of our guide – at first slowing our tidy group of 8 and in the end speeding us up. Consistency is a hard thing to learn. Our guide paid attention.

I was unfamiliar with this type of trek. At dawn we were quickly out of the woods and crossing ankle-cracking rubble. Map and compass were our guide, all the peaks were out of site, captured in a stoney valley – the only indication that we were on the right path were successively more distant carin trail markers. Searching for the small pile of rocks that made up each carin we needed took time.

While breaking with a view at the third peak, Mike, our replacement guide, found a shortcut down to the rock strewn valley below. He was an experienced guide but had never traveled this trail before and truth-be-told he didn’t have a map properly scaled to make that kind of a call. The guide trained for this trip had taken sick that morning and Mike stepped up to the challenge. I liked him. As I recall he let me do a bit of the compass and map work early on. Leading with back-up is good practice for a kid. Builds confidence.

The shortcut looked simple enough. A scree slope leading down to the valley would help us avoid retracing our steps up and down the successive peaks. It made sense to me, but I wasn’t really experienced enough to recognize the look Mary and Rick gave each other. Mike gave us instructions on how to follow him. Mary described why we needed to follow his instructions closely. She’d been on this type of slope before.

Traveling down a slope of scree you take a diagonal path, hairpin turning at each edge of the passable slope. It is critical to keep the line of hikers from traveling above one another, so you pause at each turn, hopefully on a stable enough piece of rock.

Three dangers confront you on this type of slope.

1. Loosing your footing and sliding or rolling down the slope.
2. Knocking a batch of scree lose and sliding down the slope with the rubble.
3. Being hit from sliding rocks coming from above.

While the slope looks like small stones and gravel, truth is there are plenty of rocks large enough to do serious damage once they pick up steam. I think we were about half-way down when I began to feel like we had made a mistake. The footing was becoming worse, the slope was gradually increasing. Yet even with the gradual increase in slope, it was becoming obvious that something below us was missing.

Because the rubble field was the same shade all the way to the valley below, a cliff of at least 30 feet was hidden from view.

What was a harrowing descent had just become worse, the steep scree slope ended in a cliff of unknown dimensions. We had all bought into our guide’s decision to take the short cut. Down was bad. Now we had to go back up.

Mike knew he had made a mistake. You could read it in his posture. He was responsible for us. Learning that the cliff was there meant that a mistake that was likely have resulted in serious injury now would end in death. No slips allowed. No mistakes.

Rick and Mary were tight lipped. Mike’s decision would not have been their’s and now it had reached a dead end. An easy point of accusation and disarray. But there was no fighting, no accusation. Mike, Rick and Mary discussed what needed to happen with the group and we started our way back up. Now Rick and Mary were leading and Mike taking what was the more dangerous position, below the group. I’d never really thought of that as a conscious decision, but today, I’m pretty sure it was.

Through skill and a bit of luck we reached our earlier trail without serious incident. Mike had to shout encouragement to a few in our band to keep the line moving. We all had to step to the directions given, follow the safer placed foot falls of the leading hikers. For a group of eight who had only met that morning it was a nicely performed extraction.

Reaching a cliff and Google’s 8 Good Behaviors

The thing about leadership is – sometimes you lead people into a bad situation. Leading them out again is a neat trick and Google’s management points can help make that more likely to happen.

For example – #5 Be a good communicator and listen to your team. We all have things to learn. It is likely that the folks you are leading know at least a few things you don’t. Mike listened to Rick and Mary – sometimes subconsciously as with the pacing and sometimes explicitly as when we were stuck.

Or #8 Have key technical skills so you can help advise the team. Mike was a skillful guide who made a mistake. He also had the knowledge and experience necessary to mitigate that mistake. When you are put in a position to manage a particular project it behooves you to understand all aspects of the technology, processes and manufacturing elements. You can’t manage if you don’t know what your team is doing. Walking down and up that slope of scree would have been a disaster if we had not done it technically correct. Stones fell. We didn’t.

Or #1 Be a good coach. Scouting has this down to a science. Teaching, feedback, providing opportunity for experience. When Mike let me lead the group it gave me a feel for making decisions in an environment where I knew he wouldn’t let me screw-up to seriously. He did have fun letting me head off in the wrong direction once or twice though.

Funny how vibrantly a memory can be sparked in an unusual way. Getting cliffed has been a story I’ve told in the past, but I’ve never quite given credit to the quiet leadership shown by both our guide and Rick and Mary. In our everyday lives sometimes great leadership is almost invisible. It prods us on because we want to follow, not because we have to.

“I don’t believe social justice is a formula, I believe it is a process.”

Passionate and positive, he shared his ideas on how socially responsible business practice and respect for quality of life can help change the world.

Sustainable business is all the rage, but efforts at many companies seem to get holed up in the marketing department or as purely charitable exercises. I asked Dean if he thought large organizations could change over to the sustainable thinking his company emulates:

“For a pre-existing large scale organization it’s hard because people are already in there looking for profit. […] However, when a corporation starts out and says these are our values: ‘We’re a triple bottom line corporation. Yes, we’re going to try and maximize profit but not at the expense of the third world sourcing ecology, or the health of the communities we buy from. We’re not going to do profit on the backs of people to the point it damages their air, water, or food, or their communities. Were going to balance that. Were going to give up a little of this to get that.’

So if you start like that there is a sufficient investment community out right now who’s willing to say, ‘I’ll vote my dollars there.’ “

Interesting take. Old business models are often replaced by new thinking.  Some organizations transform, but more often they decline and are replaced. A core difference between old and new thinking is the idea of profit maximization and value maximization for shareholders. The difficulty has been and continues to be a question of measurement and recognition. The ability to recognize the value of social responsibility for shareholders is key to the idea’s growth.

Efforts to elevate sustainability and Corporate Responsibility are being highlighted publicly by companies in annual reports (See Inditex’s annual report here pg 57), special reports (Apple recently released this supplier responsibility report) and in the media. Right now much of this work is justified to protect corporate reputations (avoiding negative customer reaction), as well as to improve operations (social problems impact supply chains).  This transparency helps, but the efforts show differences from Dean’s.

Dean says his company takes a three tier approach to meet the corporate responsibilities they have set for themselves. Environmental, Economic, and Social.  I had not realized the extent of pesticide use in the coffee industry, second only to cotton, and including multiple chemicals that have been banned for use in the United States. Dean’s Beans helps the co-ops they buy from go through the process of becoming Organically Certified (as he says, ‘organic by design.’) This is more than just ending pesticide use (something he calls ‘organic by neglect’).

Dean’s Beans also internally funds what Dean calls People Centered Development. I found the approach interesting: they work with the community itself, they listen and observe, and then help facilitate something the community is going to run. The variety of projects highlights the community specific approach. For example a revolving well fund in Ethiopia called Miriam’s Well, a tree planting project (over 100 thousand trees planted) in Peru, and a prosthetic program in Nicaragua.  The goal was to start projects that would self fund over time and last.  This approach appears to rely heavily on a very personal relationship between company and community and a belief that the programs must outlast the start-up efforts of Dean’s Beans.

When asked what makes a community development program sustainable:

“Buy in, community buy in.  The community must feel that it owns the program, that it’s not being forced on them and its not going to be taken away from them. But rather its their program, they own and operate it then and will invest their energy in it even in rough times.”

So, a great evening even if I was drinking the wrong brand of joe. In the next few days I hope to be enjoying a cup of Uprising!

Is your organization run by a real leader?

Paul H. O’Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury and Alcoa CEO, said that if everyone in an organization can answer ‘Yes’ to the following three questions then you have a real leader at the top.

1. Are you treated with dignity and respect every day without regard to who you are or your position in the company?
2. Are you given the things you need – education, tools, money – so that you can make a contribution to the organization that provides meaning to your life?
3. Are you recognized for what you do?

It’s the little extras in the definition above that caught my ear as he spoke this past Tuesday (11/2/2010) at Indiana University. …Respect regardless of position. …Provides meaning to your life. …Recognition. Have you worked at such a place where these points were universally true?

A key component of creativity is recognizing when an idea that is working in one place might have application in another. (Like when Wilber twisted the tube box)

This came to mind while watching Leo Laporte interview Ford CEO Alan Mulally at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas.

Mulally came to Ford from Boeing where he helped design the first digital cockpit on the 767 and a number of aircraft after that. At the time some wondered what an ‘avionics guy’ would be able to do for the ‘car guys.’

Laporte: “So how much of your background at Boing informed this? Because you have a digital cockpit right here.”

Mulally: “…A very important thing is that the pilot has complete situational awareness. All the data has been simplified so they know exactly the most important things so they are not sorting through the data they are now managing the driving experience. Yet they have to have access to all the communications, the navigation, to guidance, the control, the entertainment…. This is exactly what we are now doing with Ford.”

At the CES Keynote he unveiled recent advances with My Ford Touch (Which includes Ford Sync) – Ford’s entertainment/information system which competes with GM’s ONSTAR. An interesting difference in focus is Mulally’s desire for My Ford Touch to be an interface that gives access to evolving technology while keeping driver focus on the road.  A willingness to open up the platform as well as utilize the owners cell and entertainment devices seems like a broader more powerful vision than what ONSTAR now promises.

The differences add up when you look at published reports between this year’s Ford keynote and last years GM CEO Wagner keynote. This year Mulally spoke Ford products coming out this year while much of what Wagner spoke about appears to be years off. GM’s response to My Touch Ford is also interesting: GM’s product is considered better because you might loose your cell phone in an accident. GM appears to see ONStar as little more than a safety feature, while Ford sees their alternative as an overall cabin experience. I like the way Ford seems to be moving. (Disclosure: My mother-in-law spent many years working in a Ford plant. If she doesn’t hold that against them, neither will I.)

So the bike shop was instrumental in getting us off the ground in the first place and now the cockpit returns the favor by providing lessons that improve safety, focus and entertainment for the driver. Cool.

I ask, simply because I’m regularly looking over my shoulder at middleman status myself.

If you’re not being pushed into middleman status by technology, then it could be your customers and suppliers who put you there.

Paranoia reigns. Sorry.

This is not a new state of being. Walmart began its attack on independent distributors (middlemen with warehouses) ages ago wiping most of them out. They are so efficiently tied into their supply chain now that orders sometimes bypass headquarters and go straight to factories. (Headquarters as middlemen, who’d of thunk it?)

In the print industry process middleman felt the pinch. First typesetters went, followed by color separators. As newspapers are fast finding out, the entire printing process is being pushed to the side. Moving news to eyeballs quickly means that in some places even editors are seen as middlemen now.

Middlemen. They start as facilitators but become blockages between producer and end-user.

This quarter’s pricing war between Amazon and Walmart indicates that traditional retail warfare has gone virtual big time. While the demise of retail has been predicted since the dawn of the internet age it is surprising to think that even the most efficient big box retail set-up could end up looking like a middleman. Best Buy has been prepping by branding their physical service presence (There’s a reason for our bricks and mortar, parking space for the Geek Squad!). Sears may be finally realizing the power of their old service reputation (probably too late) with the introduction of The Blue Service Crew. But the battle for market share on-line will drive business away from local distribution points that are simply way-stations between UPS shipping points. So when will Walmart buy UPS…or build their own?

Publishers are middlemen, standing between author and outlet. Used to be a reason for that, but with consolidation Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Walmart will move more towards direct control and exclusive deals. Publishers end up looking more like booking agents. That cuts into fees.

Google and Microsoft are even in a bit of a middleman fight themselves. The new tools and offers from Google are a direct attempt to slice Microsoft’s technology out of the information stream between consumer and Google Ads. (And yes it’s also a push to remove Apple’s tech as well.)

So if some of the worlds largest companies are being put in the position of middleman, what’s a poor old soul like me to do?

The question to be asking is: “Where do I add value and why am I interesting?”

I still remember the day I looked up at Hallmark and most of the administrative assistants had disappeared. Secretaries became middlemen. Assistants became middlemen. (While most of them ended up in better jobs, it happened all too quickly by my mind. But then again I still have a portable typewriter sitting around.)

What if the next big idea is how you can be replaced by 30 lines of code and an Erector Set?

Good life requires we push paranoia to the back seat, but what to do? Hide the idea? Avoid the inevitable? That usually doesn’t end well.

There’s a reason the marketing expression “Cut out the middleman” still tends to work.

If you see middleman status coming, then you can see where the functions you provide will be absorbed. The answer may be to sell your company into an organization that is vertically integrating. It may be to shift your customer base to individuals who can’t get access to the replacement technology. It may be to expand into areas around your current skill set. It may be to close up shop and go home (a bit defeatist I know, but it’s always on the table).

The key is: You are in a great position to see how you will be replaced. Use that knowledge to supercharge your radar (as Bill Welter says) to see what is on the horizon and face it head on.

“Organizations tend to evolve in ways that are inherently resistant to entrepreneurship. Yet Entrepreneurship is instrumental for ensuring the long-term sustainability of any enterprise.” (Properties of balance: A pendulum effect in corporate entrepreneurship, Michael H. Morris, Jurie van Vuuren, Jeffrey R. Cornwall, Retha Scheepers)

Whether you call it corporate entrepreneurship or individual creativity, it is difficult to drive behavior that challenges the status quo, questions existing procedures, or increases personal risk.

“More fundamentally, fostering corporate entrepreneurship becomes problematic if company executives do not know what they are trying to achieve.” (Morris, et al)

Finding balance in large organizations is difficult at best. The larger the group the further removed any single individual is from the source of cash flow, from the feel of customers, from the pulse of technological change. (You know, the smell of the sawdust, the feel of the earth type stuff.) The meaningfulness of any individual change can then be questioned. The rewards of putting one’s neck on the line more elusive.

Research on risk taking tends to show we are much more willing to seek out risk to avoid a small loss than a get a small gain. (Post on this at Blogging Innovation by Steven Shapiro)

Morris summarizes an architecture of balance for an organization that wants to encourage entrepreneurial creativity. It covers conflicting dimensions that must co-exist along the lines of strategy, culture, structure, control, and HRM. In the end it seems encouraging entrepreneurship can be a lot like the ying and yang of corporate structuring, or the spaces between being and nothingness.

It made me wonder, where the heck is economic recovery going to come from if large organizations find it so difficult to change direction.

Then I became distracted, by pig farming.

Walter at Sugar Mountain Farm has taken on a vertical integration project that flies in the face of some preconceived notions about scale and the general momentum of the ag industry (at least from what little I know about it).

I can’t remember when I started following Walter’s blog. But I’m a regular visitor as he describes life on a family pig farm where they are in the business of “certified naturally grown, humanely raised, pastured pigs raised on pasture, hay, whey and other good foods in the mountains of Vermont.”

On Sunday he announced:

“We are building an on-farm slaughterhouse and butcher shop located on our farm so that we can get our pork to customers’ fork.”

First – Gotta love the motto.

More to the point – Building an on-site nano-slaughterhouse goes against the long term trend of ever increasing scale in the agriculture industry. From reading Walter’s post I also get the impression it could go against the pre-conceived notions of some of his customers and readers as well.

But if you want to get inside the head of an entrepreneurial thinker, read the post.

His expansion has good cash fundamentals. (Ground floor entry for any new idea)

But it also provides leadership in areas as diverse as animal care, bio-security, supply chain management, quality control, and improved product.

And his resourcefulness in executing the plan is a perfect example of cardboard creativity at work. A business ecosystem that includes customers pre-ordering to lock in supply (providing funding), extended payment terms from builders, and his family’s own sweat and tears.

The post is long, but in my mind worth the read. Better than many business plans I’ve read over the years.

In the age amazing success stories like Google, Twitter, Apple, Microsoft, H-P, Intel and other high tech franchises, it’s easy to think that the payoff for being an entrepreneur is vast riches.

And, yes, some do hit the lottery.

But for most, being an entrepreneur is as more about a lifestyle and making a decent living than striking it rich.

Of course, we can dream.

I’ll leave the final word to Walter:

“This, of course, does not include any charge for our labor but this is a farm and farmers don’t get salaries or hourly wages – we get the satisfaction of working outdoors in the beautiful country weather. Preferably before the snow hits the concrete.” (Sugar Mountain Farm Blog)

Desire to dig under, work around, leap over and push through is strong motivation to think anew.

However, there are limits, that — hmm, — limit.

Did you know that a major difference between moribund Detroit and high flyin’ Silicon Valley is the difference in how non-compete agreements are enforced? (Michigan enforces them, California limits them.)

In the recent Carnegie Mellon University publication: “Renewing Globalization and Economic Growth in a Post-Crises World – The Future of the G-20 Agenda” Serguey Braguinsky and Steven Klepper write about various ways worker mobility can limit innovation on a regional scale. In addition to visa restrictions, social pressure and lifetime employment guarantees, they use the non-compete as a primary example of the damaging effects of limiting mobility in the United States.

I’ve been on both sides of non-compete covenants. I’ve never particularly liked them, but never really questioned the idea either.

The comparison of Michigan to California is the poster child for how non-competes appear to damage innovation and economic development, in part due to a rather sudden change made by Michigan in the 80s. Matt Marx, Deborah Strumsky and Lee Fleming mention the similarities between Detroit around 1900 and Silicon Valley around 2000. In their youth, both were hotbeds of innovation and both rejected non-compete agreements. Thanks to a change in 1986 however, Michigan moved to a restrictive view of non-competes. Mobility of inventors appears to have fallen about 25%. Is that why Tesla Motors started out west?

Why Care If Inventors Can Jump Ship?

“In addition to infusing the hiring firm with knowledge, employee mobility has been shown to be associated with changes in strategic direction (Boeker 1997), organizational structure (Klette, Moen et al. 2000), the compensation of R&D staff (Moen 2005), innovation and patenting (Kim and Marschke, 2005; Singh 2006b), though not necessarily with performance (Groysberg, Lee, and Nanda, forthcoming). The growth of industries (Franco and Filson 2000; Klepper 2002; Klepper and Sleeper 2002) and even regions (Rosengrant and Lampe 1992; Saxenian 1994) has been attributed in part to the movement of technical personnel between firms. (Mobility, Skills, and the Michigan Non-compete Experiment. Marx, Strumsky and Fleming 2008)

So there appears to be a strong regional reason to promote worker mobility. There is an obvious personal, individual reason to promote mobility. But is that at the expense of innovation within a corporation that now has more difficulty holding onto key employees? I think not for a number of reasons.

Reasons why I think all companies can benefit from a mobile workforce:

1. Good ideas go out the door, but better ideas come in. The grass is greener argument. Employees who are unhappy with the recognition and impact of their current job go somewhere they feel things will improve. Since companies will raid each other’s employees with some care for consequences (you take mine, I’ll take yours) things tend to balance out. You get a guru, he gets a guru, she gets a guru….
2. Systemic Problems Alert. Loss of great employees (or mavericks) is a huge warning signal that something is not right with your firm. A warning signal that you can act on.
3. Empowered Employees are more willing to stand up for good ideas. Employees terrified of not only losing their job, but being driven from an industry may be less willing to stand up for risky (but great) ideas or for what’s right.
4. Employees willing to leave to follow their dream and passion make good investments. As inventors leave to follow their dream, buy in at the start. They are more dedicated and motivated and you still get a part of the upside.
5. Keep managers on their toes. A cranky inventor with what seems to be a half-baked idea is easy to dismiss when you think they can’t escape.
6. Take upstart threats more seriously. Sometimes a company will try to maximize short-term cash-flow by putting off innovations that could change their business models. Control of talent makes them more likely to feel safe pursuing this path.

Now there are plenty of reasons why a company would want to contain their employees with non-competes, the two most potent being protecting IP and managing customer relationships. I’m curious how the benefits outweigh the costs. While I’ve found some research that looks at this I would certainly appreciate anything you may be able to add via comments or email. I’ll be following up.

What does limited employee mobility have to do with Health Care?

I think health care insurance, as currently regulated, is becoming a larger threat to employee movement than non-compete agreements. At least a judge can determine a non-compete is unreasonable, there are few backstops to being denied insurance.  If access to insurance can be refused in ways that are out of the control of the insured then decisions to move and take employment risks are damaged. Start a company? Work for a small firm? Take a risky stand?  Risking health insurance coverage has been and is a growing factor in decisions about how to behave at work. Unfortunately solving this becomes a regulation problem where government may need to take a stand for the individual over the large organization.

As a side note, current regulations are even delaying genetic research because of concerns that research subjects could be denied insurance based on information uncovered as part of the research. Even with the benefit of recent legislation there is serious concern: (Disclosure: A client is in the biotech/genetics field and must grapple with these issues.)

[These genetic studies]  …”will not (and indeed should not) materialize until insurance companies cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and cannot drop or limit coverage for the seriously ill. After all, genetic testing performed during treatment for one disease could turn up susceptibility to a whole host of other diseases; susceptibility to diseases that may induce insurance companies to look back through your forms for clerical errors. “ Genomics Law Report

I started thinking about limits thanks to Robert Hruzek’s “What Did I Learn From Limits” project over at MiddleZoneMusings.com and as you can see it took me in rather an unexpected direction.

Marketing involves satisfying consumers’ known (and subconscious unknown) needs. The 3 V’s is a value creation and delivery sequence to get marketers back to thinking about the whole package. As put forward by Lanning/Michaels at McKinsey & Co. the 3 V’s include ‘Choose the Value’, ‘Provide the Value’, and ‘Communicate the Value.’

I like holistic reminders of what a job entails, but they run the risk of becoming trite boundaries to innovation when the words can be used to limit rather than expand. I imagine that many educators regret the phrase that claims teaching is explained by the 3 R’s (Reading, [W]riting, and [A]rithmetic) and I think journalism has become much more complicated than the 5ish W’s (Who, What, When, Where, Why, How). While those maxims are fundamental (you better not forget to teach ‘rithmetic or ask ‘who?’) they should be interpreted as launching pads, not definitions.

So if we want a mantra to help make sure that innovation moves forward personally or in a company what can we use?

I like:

Perspiration, Perseverance and Perspective

Reminders that any organizational structure you develop to push innovation must support the need for heavy lifting, focused development, and negotiating barriers.

Perspiration germinates from Edison’s quote:

“Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.”

It takes hard work to be in a position to have a great idea, let alone implement it.

Perseverance we can see from almost any inventor, but I like this pull from a Les Paul interview where he was describing his two year search for just the right echo used in “How High The Moon.” He had been working on it for two years when one evening while acting distracted a friend, Loyd, asked where his mind was. Les said he was still thinking about getting the echo:

“…he says, ‘Are you still worried about that thing?’ and I say, ‘yeah, I need it, I need it and I just don’t know how to get it.’

Obstacles are a fundamental part of the innovation process and Les Paul’s life shows how determination and perseverance can overcome seemingly insurmountable odds. (Had to finish several of his records in a body cast able to move only his thumb on one hand… Puts a fight with accounting in perspective, doesn’t it.)

Perspective happens in a number of ways. I think Walt Disney had a handle on this:

“A good many of the men misinterpret the idea of studying the actual motion.   They think it is our purpose merely to duplicate these things.   This misconception should be cleared up for all.   I definitely feel that we cannot do the fantastic things, based on the real, unless we first know the real. “ 1935 Memo to develop training class for animators.

Perspective is critical because innovations can create organizational myopia in which purpose and value identifiers can be warped in ways that unnecessarily delay an innovation or cause opportunities to be missed in the development process. As Scott Anthony mentions in a recent post: “…people who have deep knowledge about a topic sometimes assume other people have that same knowledge.“ This can lead to failed assumptions about what customers actually care about.

So the 3 P’s of innovation in my mind have nothing to do with checklists. They are about hard work, focused dedication and, most importantly, being open to the real world changing things up.

How does this actually add to the toolbox for dealing with the uncertainty paradox?

• First: There is no one way to innovate. All paths start from where you are, your core business (or personal) strengths as Kay Plantes puts it.
• Second: Accept the Ying and Yang of the focus that comes from perseverance and the negotiation that grows from perspective. There is no single size solution that will relieve the inherent stress created from these two forces. (Pardon me if I have used Ying/Yang improperly. I think it makes the point, but would love clarification.) Bill Welter’s critical thinking comes into play here. Invention is not enough, you must understand how invention fits within the market or your world.
• Third: Great ideas come from long, hard work and are implemented through long, hard work. I know that seems pretty fundamental, but often posts (mine included) focus on the fun, brain-bending methods of encouraging inspiration and minimize the groundwork that acts as an innovation platform. Making sure you build a great strategic plan is less difficult in many ways than making sure you consult it and change it as conditions require. As Brad Shorr said recently, “First, we must grab hold of the notion that whatever tomorrow ends up looking like, it will be different.” So plan and work accordingly.

I’m going to close with a quote from Les Paul that didn’t quite fit above but I just loved:

“…Why – and that’s the key to the whole thing. That curiosity. You just ask that question, “Why?” and you’ve got your life cut out for you.” Les Paul on 9/14 Fresh Air rebroadcast with Terri Gross.

This past weekend we changed spaces at the Bloomington branch and it got me to thinking about the rather old saw, ‘thinking outside the box.’

Thinking outside the box is not something that works well when you are trying to move. Turns out knickknacks and computer cables travel better constrained in cardboard.

The concept of ‘thinking outside the box’ is often illustrated using an example where you have to connect nine dots using only straight lines:

‘Thinking outside the box’ has gone from sage advice to cliché to weapon and here is where it runs headlong into the Uncertainty Paradox.

If all things are uncertain, can you really get anywhere without a box?

First let’s deal with the pesky nine dots. This is actually a test of ‘assumed rules.’ Self limitation based on rules that do not exist can limit your response to a problem. It has an innate ability to make the participant feel foolish since the answer is rather simple when you ignore the implied boundaries rule. (Lesson absorbed, don’t assume, thank you very much, may we drink now?) However, there are still rules that are implied and enforced. Paper, pencil, the current time-space continuum.

For example, here’s my solution using n-space geometry, entanglement and a sonic screwdriver:

Less obvious. Blurs the lesson. May create a black hole. (Disclosure: The above solution is designed as an attempt at humor although may be scientifically possible using string theory. Everything else seems to be. Also, who knew you could buy a Dr. Who Sonic Screwdriver? I guess I should have known, but really, this could be big.)

The simplicity of the example leads to confusion in how the term ‘thinking outside the box’ is used.

The unfortunate take away: I SHOULD NOT BE BOUND BY RULES

For example, when an inventory controller mentions that the warehouse cannot deal with live ponies the agitated leader screams, “Think Outside The Box!”

The true lesson: YOU NEED TO KNOW THE RULES, (even if you plan to break them).

—-

I have found creativity to be at its most powerful when there is an obstacle present. Something to overcome. A boundary to cross.

That’s why artists are often at the cutting edge of technology and social mores. Limitations to visions must be overcome. Whether a caveman trying to capture life on a wall or director trying to depict dinosaurs on a screen, the desire to create overcomes barriers. (The division between painter, inventor, chemist and so on is rather recent. Often painters were at the vanguard of chemical compound development that would last longer, shine brighter, work better. There’s been a similar path in the push for better digital tools. “Make it do this,” is powerful mojo to an inventor.)

Too often the mantra “think outside the box” is behind a leaderless charge. When times are uncertain it feels safer and easier to take a scattershot approach rather than a focused, long term, strategic approach. Strategy requires decision. Strategy requires picking sides. Strategy can be very uncomfortable. A leader calling for ‘out of the box thinking’ very often sounds like the captain of a ship asking the crew to pick a direction. If you command the rudder, you better have some idea of where you are going.

How does this effect behavior?

• Unlimited Choice vs A Choice Few. Ever sit down with the remote and start flipping on a system with 200 or 300 channels? I find the time wasted searching makes me feel what I settle on has less value (There is so much trash on TV, how could this be different?). Compare that to deciding at the beginning of the week on a show you want to catch, programing the DVR or scheduling an evening around the event… Seems more special and you’re less likely to forget the popcorn. There is a limit to how many ideas management can manage.
• Unlimited Time vs Time Constraints. Hallmark was an interesting place. Seasonal product always shipped within a very narrow window of time. (Kind of has to, not like Valentines Day is going to wait now is it.) Everyday product (things for birthdays or thank yous) tended to slip because the deadlines felt made-up. This created some interesting differences in decision making and also tended to put seasonal items at the forefront of shortening lead times and development cycles. If one must finish, one will manage the trade-offs necessary to meet a schedule.
• Unlimited Customization vs Clear Upgrade. I picked up a really cool stereo microphone that can hook directly through USB as well as a whole host of other features. The instruction book is 60 pages long give or take. Took me an hour to figure out how to hook it up to my computer. I feel like my dad did when the VCR light kept blinking 12:00. So much nicer to start with something simple that works and then move forward when I’m ready. Limiting the user experience can improve the user experience.

Janice Cartier, a wonderful creative spirit and New Orleans expat, got me thinking down these lines with a post on her Ziploc studio. A concept where she picks a few artsy tools that fit into a Ziploc bag and heads off to create. Limiting concerns about what to work with leads to limitless creations with the materials at hand.

Innovation in a company can be driven that way as well.

So how can Cardboard Creativity help navigate the Uncertainty Paradox?

Creating boundaries and limits is not the same thing as limited thinking. By establishing the constraints within which you will be working you help direct results towards implementable rather than the blue sky. I think this may be one critical reason why so many big business ideas come out of garages, shacks and dorm rooms. The constraints are obvious and looming, the desire to overcome immediate and pressing. Cardboard Creativity is all about ‘making do, while making great.’ Overcoming limitations and breaking down template thinking by focusing on the core of an idea rather than the fuzzy periphery.

So box your innovative initiatives. Cardboard is great to get things moving, but if you need to break out a wall it is only cardboard afterall.

What factors should you use to box in creativity? The goal is to design limitations that actually enhance your chances of creative success, focusing your innovation on critical boundaries. I like the following construct.

1. Customer Comprehension – How far down the path of customer comprehension are we prepared to go? Should we pull in small steps or giant leaps? What kind of beta cycle can we use? Will a customer accept this kind of product from us? The harder an innovation is to understand, the harder it will be to accept.
2. People and Tech – Who do we have who can do this? What are they not doing if they do? Do we have any experience in this technology? If you don’t control technology or people that can make something happen, it may be that you’ve come up with a great idea for some other company.
3. Time and Money - Deadlines, Budgets, Pricing Model, Kill Dates. The farther away in time and money a project is from real world customer use the more likely it will swerve off the tracks. Is this idea really within your company’s resource capability? What trade offs are there in strategy, time and costs. (Nobody could make an electric car until Tesla decided to make a really expensive electric car. Turns out it wasn’t the technology constraint, it was the pricing constraint. These have to balance out in a way that leads to a decent size market of course). Resources have to be allocated.
4. Sustainability - Does this move us in a strategically sound direction? Must this fit an existing distribution scheme or is it new. What are the limits to SKU, salesperson time, channel attention? Can we manage this through long term development schemes or is it a fad product? Where will this lead to conflict with competitors, when and how? How does this fit long term competitive advantage? All innovation is long haul, if there is no commitment it is a waist of time.
5. Integrative Pull - What builds demand for the idea: Integration into existing processes? Connection to cloud computing platforms? Fuel pricing? Political trade winds? Whims of teenage girls and boys? What framework needs to exist for the product to succeed? An innovation that fits into a usage stream smoothly has built in demand pull.

The point is, sooner or later in in every innovation cycle you need to make decisions and limit activity to a focused strategic direction. The more uncertain predictions of the future appear the more necessary it is for leaders to decide what they want the future to be.

You may have noticed my innovation box has just five walls. Best to leave the top off, see what’s inside and, on occasion, leave room for some real out of the box thinking.

• Bill Welter’s Adaptive Strategies blog and his discussion of “Uncertainty and Reasoned Risk”.
• Kay Plantes Business Model Innovations blog and her discussion of “Use Real Problems To Drive Business Model Innovations”
• Fred Schlegel (You’re already here!)

Join the continuing conversation at each of our blogs as we explore the implications of the uncertainty paradox.

Nothing will kill your business faster than innovation.

The record hisses and pops.

Two kinds can do you in.  Effective innovation by someone else or unfettered, rabid innovation by you.

The former will happen no matter what, so you have to react (preferably proactively) and, uh-oh, innovate.

The old record only has a few plays left in it. It cackles and hisses, displaying 30 some odd years of use since I picked it up down in New Orleans after seeing the Sheik at some hall in my youth. Funny thing about vinyl, the wear it displays is a reminder of enjoyment past and a reminder that something new is due.

Yup, we’ve all got to move on to the next thing sooner or later.

That’s my gig in many ways. Helping companies break down barriers to innovation. Get the ideas flowing again. Fall out of love with the way you’re doing things now and focus on the things that actually make you great.

The toughest lesson for many is what happens once the ideas do begin to flow.

There are always too many good ideas.

Google unleashes huge amount of creative might with 80/20, but has discovered they can’t act on every great idea even with their resources. I wouldn’t be surprised if people leave because of that, taking their 20 elsewhere.

Rampant innovation without decision damages an organizations ability to deliver core promises. SKU creep, feature creep, customer creep, creepy creep. Creep indicates growth in complexity without thought. Creep indicates an unwillingness to kill ideas that fail or don’t fit (purposeful abandonment). Creep can destroy a firm’s core competencies and undermine the strategic advantages the creep was supposed to reinforce.

Jazz makes my mind wander, which has it’s advantages at times.

The point? How can you tell the difference between rabid innovation and innovation with focus?

• Do your initiatives big or small have a clear strategic purpose? (No better way to lose your way than moving without a map)
• Are sufficient infrastructure and resources available for your innovation? (Even in a world of cardboard creativity, you must be excellent in everything you do.)
• Is there clear reasoning for go/no go decisions and specific opportunities to make those decisions? (If you don’t know why or when an idea should die it will suck resources until your company is dead.)

Kid Sheik Boogie has all but disappeared behind the hiss of worn grooves. I’ll soon have to retire the platter for its digital cousin, which lacks the character of the well worn record. That hint of smoke filled rooms, overpriced Hurricanes, and good friends.

The cry for more innovation sometimes has that ring of a comfortable old record. But through the smoke and noise of a competitive marketplace it can be easy to miss what that cry actually means. It isn’t innovation for innovation’s sake. It isn’t innovation out of fear. It isn’t even a call for more. It is the call for strategically meaningful innovation that makes your company’s spark shine even brighter.

Time for another record. A bit of Marley and the Wailers sounds about right.