Посты с тэгом: leadership

Rejection Breeds Creativity

Published date: December 10, 2012 в 10:38 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,

New research from Johns Hopkins University suggests that having our ideas rejected tends to boost our creativity output.  Sharon Kim and her colleagues found that when most of us experience rejection, it can actually enhance our creativity, depending on how we respond to it.  The paper, titled “Outside Advantage: Can Social Rejection Fuel Creative Thought?” was recently accepted
for publication by the Journal of Experimental Psychology. It also
received a best-paper award at the Academy of Management (AOM)
conference held this month in Boston.

As reported by Behance:

In the first experiment, participants were given a series of personality questions and told they would be considered for participation in several group exercises in the future. When the participants returned to the laboratory a week later, some of them were asked to complete a few tasks before joining their group (inclusion), others were told that none of the groups had chosen them and they would need to complete their tasks independently (rejection).  When they calculated the results, the researchers found that “rejected” participants significantly outperformed those that were included in a group. Consider the difference between those who respond to rejection by sulking versus those who respond by rolling up their sleeves and thinking “I’ll show them.”

The results were conclusive: rejection breeds creativity, especially for those who consider themselves highly independent. In final a follow-up study, the researchers found the same trend using a different measurement of creativity.

For practitioners, how can this phenomena work to your advantage?  When
managing individuals or teams, the time will come when you have to say
‘no’.  In that moment immediately after rejecting a person’s viewpoint,
you want to let it sink.  Don’t try to minimize the impact by rationalizing the decision or by other means of making the person feel better.  But the key is to assign the rejected person right away to a
new and important task.  Put them on a project where they can prove themselves and
“get even.”  You want to let their creative juices flow.

“While it is never a comfortable experience, the feelings of rejection can actually help us access our more creative selves. Free from the expectations of group norms, we can push the limits of novelty. Moreover, we can enhance that ability by changing the way we respond to rejection. Instead of dwelling too much on the pain of being turned down or turned aside, consider the freedom you now have to explore new possibilities and less mainstream options.”

Hopeful Innovation

Published date: June 14, 2009 в 4:33 pm

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,

Are hopeful employees more innovative?  A new study by Armenio Rego and his colleagues shows how employees’ sense of hope explains their creative output at work.  They asked one hundred and twenty five employees to rate their personal sense of hope and happiness while their supervisors rated the employees’ creativity.  Based on the correlations, they conclude that hope predicts creativity.

Hope is defined as a positive motivational belief in one’s future; the feeling that what is wanted can be had;  that events will turn out for the best.  Hoping is an integral part of being human.  Without hope, tasks such as innovating become difficult if not impossible.  Why bother if there is no hope for a successful future?  “Hope is important for innovation at work because creativity requires challenging the status quo and a willingness to try and possibly fail.  It requires some level of internal, sustaining force that pushes individuals to persevere in the face of challenges inherent to creative work.” 

I have observed this in practice.  I once facilitated employees in a division about to be sold to another company.  The employees learned about the divestiture during the workshop.  Morale was low, and participants were not responsive to systematic innovation techniques.  They lacked hope…hope about their future employment and personal achievement.  To salvage the workshop, we re-framed it.  We told the employees they needed to innovate so that they would be perceived as valuable to their new owners.  Innovating would give them an immediate jump-start on becoming competitive in the marketplace, something they struggled with under the current owner.  Once hopeful, they kicked innovation into high gear.  That workshop was one of the most successful and creative I have ever experienced.

What can leaders do to inspire hope?  Darren Webb has outlined a useful model in his paper, “Modes of Hoping.”  He identifies five types of hope:

Innovation Allocation

Published date: August 19, 2008 в 10:09 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,,

Who leads innovation in your company: marketing or R&D?  It’s a trick question, of course.  But it’s a useful question for Fortune 100 companies to consider.  Has your company made a conscious choice of how it “allocates” this leadership role?
Allocating innovation to one group over the other will yield a different business result.  The approaches to innovation by marketing are dramatically different than approaches to innovation by R&D, so the outputs will be dramatically different.  The question becomes: which group will outperform the other?   Technical-driven innovation or marketing-driven innovation?
But there is another layer of complexity.  Allocating innovation resources to one group over the other will also yield a different kind of innovation.  Market-driven innovation speaks to what is salable.  Technology-driven innovation speaks to what is technically possible.  Which group delivers the type of innovation that is best suited to the company’s growth strategy?  Now the decision of who leads innovation becomes even stickier.
This question is a bit like deciding how to allocate your money in an investment portfolio. Which allocation of funds will give you the total return and the type of return (tax advantaged, etc) that you need?  The tempting answer here is to assert innovation leadership should be shared between the two.  Diversify your innovation allocation just as you would diversify your personal investment allocation.  I’m not so sure.  Here’s why.
For a company that knows exactly what its customers need, then it’s just a matter of developing it. A technically-led innovation approach makes the most sense. L’Oreal, for example, does virtually no market research with its customers.  It gathers no “Voice of the Customer.”  Yet it knows exactly what customers need because…..L’Oreal tells them!  In that case, innovation is led by the technical team to deliver the beauty compounds and formulas that will thrill their customers. The innovation approach here is described as “Problem-to-Solution.  Engineers lead this because they excel at solution matching.
A company in the refrigerator space such as GE or Whirlpool needs a different approach.  Breakthrough innovation is more likely to be found in the “Solution-to-Problem” mode, best driven by the commercial marketers who excel at problem matching. The marketer needs to use an approach that relieves them of their preconceived notions about what customers want. They seek to avoid “fixedness” around their current product so they can solution spot more freely.  Only then will they be able to envision new concepts of home refrigeration that never would have emerged with a technical approach.
The best companies maximize their innovation investment return by consciously allocating leadership to either marketing or to R&D.  In the end, innovation is best driven with a team approach but with clear role accountability and direction depending on market conditions and corporate strategy.

Innovation Stigma

Published date: July 13, 2008 в 4:02 pm

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,

There is an inherent bias against innovation despite the enormous value it holds for organizations.  Corporate executives know that innovation is the only true long term growth engine for their firm.  Yet innovation carries with it a certain stigma, a perception in the minds of executives, that it is “soft” and frivolous compared to other hard core business activities like productivity, quality, and demand generation.  This stigma deters executives from taking risk and investing in serious innovation initiatives.

The innovation industry itself is partly to blame.  Participants in the innovation space tend to perpetuate a mystique about innovation and creativity as though it is a deeply hidden secret that needs to be unleashed.  Walk into many innovation sessions and what you see are cans of Silly StringTM, Slinky(R) toys, Frisbees, and funny nose glasses.  The notion here is that people need to be more playful to have that “eureka” moment and invent the next blockbuster idea.  People are conditioned to believe innovation requires “skunk-works” in a specially-designed room to pursue “white space opportunities.”   Innovation is voodoo.

In an effort to differentiate themselves, participants in the innovation space create novel names for their programs and services.  Here is a very small sample: Innovations-Radar(R), Innovation Cube(R), Challenge AcceleratorTM, 360-IA(R), SpinnovatorTM, Idea BucketTM, AlphaStormingTM, Excursion DeckTM, Mindscan(R), IdeaSpring(R), Super Digilab(R), etc, etc.  The list is overwhelming and it tends to confuse the market.  More importantly, what is the efficacy of these tools?  Do they work?  The granddaddy of them all, Brainstorming, is certainly suspect given the many studies that suggest otherwise.

Is there an innovation bias?  I am polling Fortune 100 executives to describe the characteristics of people who champion certain business causes.  I ask them to describe the typical age, experience, credentials, aspirations, and personality of:

  • Productivity Champions
  • Process Excellence Champions
  • Innovation Champions
  • Leadership Champions
  • Brand Champions

The early feedback suggests innovation champions, compared to the others, are seen as more eager, altruistic “dreamers” who are out of touch with the business.  One executive described innovation champions as necessary but had low expectations of actual results.  Of more concern is the perception executives have about themselves in this role.  My sense is business people shy away from championing innovation because they believe the stigma of failing at innovation is more career-damaging than failing at other ventures.

The innovation industry needs to play a role in improving the image of innovation.  Fortunately, there are resources like Innovation Tools and CREAX that consolidate the innovation space and help companies make sense of the different offerings.  More prominence needs to be given to the classic researchers in innovation and creativity like Ronald Finke, Thomas Ward, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and Jacob Goldenberg.  We need to get back to the basics of what makes innovation work so we can skip the hype.

The innovation bias has to be overcome if companies want to make progress and grow.  Leaders need to address this head on.  How?  Just as they learned to champion leadership by first becoming an authentic leader, they need to champion innovation by first becoming an authentic innovator.

Innovation Behavior

Published date: April 20, 2008 в 1:05 pm

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,,,

Innovation is a skill, not a gift.  Top organizations drive growth by nurturing and investing in innovation as a competency.  One way organizations make it real is by including innovation within formal competency models.
Professor Rodney Rogers of Portland State University defines a competency as a persistent pattern of behavior resulting from a cluster of knowledge, skills, abilities, and motivations.  It is the persistence of those behaviors that matter most and help your organization succeed.
Competency models are a useful way to formalize that behavior and make it persistent.  They help describe the ideal patterns needed for exceptional performance.  They are a blueprint for the type of person needed for a specific job. And they help diagnose and evaluate employee performance.  It takes a lot of work to develop one, but it’s worth it.
My approach is to see innovation competencies at two distinct levels: The Innovator, and The Innovation Leader. Here is how to think about it.
The Innovator Competencies:

  • Generating Innovative Solutions – Systematically innovates using a model with proven efficacy; routinely innovates products, services, processes, and strategies; values and harnesses team diversity; reframes problems in a different light to find fresh approaches; entertains wide-ranging possibilities others may miss; takes advantage of difficult or unusual situations to develop unique approaches and useful solutions.
  • Seeing the Big Picture – Has broad knowledge and perspective; pieces together seemingly unrelated data to identify patterns and trends and to see a bigger picture; understands the pieces of a system as a whole and appreciates the consequences of actions on other parts of the system; possesses a big-picture view of the situation.

The Innovation Leader competencies are different.  It is not necessarily the innovation leader who must generate new ideas; rather, they must understand how to instill innovation according to Penn State researcher, Dr. David G. Gliddon“Commitment to innovation as a culture is prevalent in organizations as it is commonly woven directly into mission statements. However, leaders still lack the ability to plan, measure and implement innovative programs, products and services.  These challenges are enhanced by the pressure to juggle several different and often conflicting roles.” said Gliddon.  In a three-year study, Gliddon identified the competencies that underpinned these roles and developed a competency model of innovation leaders.  The competency model can be tailored to any organization as part of a competency-based human resource development initiative.
An innovation leader collaboratively interacts with their employees and supports high levels of teamwork, providing opportunities to share innovations.  Once an innovation has been shared, employees should be empowered to then adopt the innovation if it is useful.  Employees can then support the innovation leader by initially adopting the innovation, and encourage the diffusion of the innovation throughout organization’s social system, Gliddon says.  Innovation leaders must also take personal responsibility for and be dedicated to projects that require innovations.  Therefore, innovation leaders must establish a trust culture and maintain relationships based on trust.  They must display initiative, set challenging project goals, and link those goals to the needs of the customer, department, and enterprise, according to his study.
Persistent innovation behavior by the leader and innovator is a recipe for growth.

Innovation vs. Leadership

Published date: January 19, 2008 в 4:50 pm

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,

Which is easier to learn: innovation or leadership?   That is one of my favorite questions to ask during  keynotes and workshops, especially to groups of accomplished leaders.  What amazes me is the answer I get back:  overwhelmingly, groups of executives say that leadership is easier to learn than innovation.
I could not disagree more.  I’ve experienced some of the best leadership training in the world starting with the U.S. Air Force Academy and all the way through to Johnson & Johnson’s many leadership training programs.  These programs were complex, psychologically-based, and multi-dimensional.  Leadership training is big business.  The demand is high, and the task is tall.  Executives flood to these programs to learn new insights and nuances of this highly people-based activity.  It is tough to learn leadership.
I learned innovation in a matter of minutes.  The process is clear, rules-based, and rigorous.  Anyone can do it.  When facilitated appropriately, you cannot NOT innovate.  The process forces original, novel, and highly creative ideas to come out of your head.
So why do executives feel that leadership is easier to learn than innovation?  My sense is that many have not been exposed to a bona fide innovation method.  These executives want organic innovation more than anything to drive growth.  Yet many are missing a simple insight what it takes…to invest themselves in learning innovation.  Once executives feel what it’s like to innovate on demand, they get it.  They start thinking about execution, scalability, culture aspects, resources needs, measurement, accountability, strategy, alignment….all the traditional things leaders think about…to move an initiative forward.
GE is perhaps the best example of a company that invests in innovation as much as it does leadership with its Imagination at Work program.  For GE, the question of which is easier to train…innovation or leadership…is moot.  They avoid the “leadership bias,” and they invest appropriately in core innovation skills to drive growth.

Get our innovation model that has worked for 1000+ companies.

    No thanks, not now.