Posts tagged safe
zone of mediocrity
Jul 21st
“Some people are born mediocre, some people achieve mediocrity, and some people have mediocrity thrust upon them.”
Joseph Heller
“We must overcome the notion that we must be regular…it robs you of the chance to be extraordinary and leads you to the mediocre.”
Uta Hagen
Ok. One of the things that consistently amazes me in the business world is mediocrity.
Or maybe better said …“comfort in mediocrity.”
And I am exponentially amazed because if you were to interview 100 different business leaders about their organization and company vision nowhere within that entire interview would you hear “we seek mediocrity.” In fact I can almost guarantee there will be words like extraordinary, innovative, new and bla … bla … bla.
Mediocrity is a stellar example that you cannot believe what people say. That what people say and what they do are often two completely different things.
It makes you wonder a little that if everyone’s attitude is so expansive why is their actual behavior so minimal/restrictive?
One writer suggested the reason is ‘vainglory.’
“Vainglory,” an anachronistic term meaning an unjustified and excessive pride in one’s own achievements or abilities is one of the primary forces animating and shaping contemporary culture.
Yeah. I buy that theory. Probably because I have seen it run rampant among successful entrepreneurs who now run their own companies. Well. Let me qualify that by saying they may represent the biggest ‘vainglory’ offenders (because large companies get mired in mediocrity too).
Ok.
To be fair (to those mired in mediocrity) it is possible the true effect of the recession in the business world is the creation of being safe versus smart risk taking.
But I am not sure it’s the recession’s fault.
Regardless. Companies beware.
The truth is that death resides in the zone of mediocrity (in a recession or not in a recession).
Interestingly I think companies do beware. It’s the leaders who are failing the companies.
So. Leaders beware.
Be fearful of mediocrity. And be fearful of playing it safe.
At the root of mediocrity?
Try this on for size. Criticism seems to have replaced oppositional debate as a form of business acumen.
Inherent in criticism is diminishing without enhancement. Oppositional debate is contrarianism with the intent to enhance.
And, frankly, I don’t have too much to offer here on why that is happening. If it were a generation thing I may have an idea but the people criticizing (leaders) typically grew up in an oppositional debate business world. So I am not sure what is breeding this.
But. Regardless. It’s happening.
And leaders are consistently permitting their organizations to get sucked into the world of mediocrity regardless of the criticism/debate thing I brought up.
To me the worst is when a company with all the potential to succeed gets sucked into the zone mediocrity. It is frustrating to see. And painful to watch as they continue in a doom loop of mediocrity. Or maybe call it unfulfilled potential.
I can even identify some key characteristics of a company mired in mediocrity.
1. High churn of leader low-senior people (the ones who ache to not be mediocre and seek to take the calculated risks to break out).
They get frustrated. And they leave for greener grass when frustrated.
2. Low churn of low-senior people with middle age kids.
Oh. They will bitch. Make some noises. But they know if they feed the mediocre machine (and get a small win here or there) they will never get fired. So they don’t take the day to day risks it often takes to rise above the zone of mediocrity. They learn to live within it.
3. High churn of young people. Especially the good ones.
The ones who have some ambition or maybe not a lot of ambition but want to learn stuff. They max out fast in the zone and hit a level of dissatisfaction quickly. These really hurt because this group dials up the company culture of miserableness in a sneaky way. They aren’t really grumbling. It’s worse than grumbling. They simply ask questions among themselves. The “why” question. Why are we this way? Why aren’t we growing? Why wasn’t that idea discussed instead of the one that was. Why, why, why and why again. They sense that something is off kilter but they don’t know the answer. They just keep asking the question.
And when all of that has swirled around long enough. When the repitition of mediocrity is solidly in place. After some time all groups and all employees and all people will get lulled into a sense of helplessness.
They start believing they cannot fight ‘the man’ (it can be identified specifically as the leader or simply the organization as a whole) and so they lose sight, or the desire to actually sight, for a something better than mediocrity because of complacency.
In the end.
Being in the zone of mediocrity in the workplace is odd. A little strange. Something feels off, some in-office rhythm is missing, something is off kilter, off balance, out of place.
Its something you cannot really quite put a finger on.
And with all that it becomes … it becomes easy to get sucked into the zone of mediocrity.
So what can you do? (other than bitch & moan & be mediocre).
If you are a leader? Lead. (but most people aren’t in leader positions).
If you are the rest of the world?
Well. I cannot guarantee this will get you out of the zone all the time but you will feel better about yourself and more fulfilled as a person (and possibly be better armed to battle mediocrity).
Never stop learning.
The corollary to this is ‘never stop challenging the norm.’
And at this idea’s foundation is something called commitment. Never stop learning takes commitment. Because in the zone of mediocrity life is much much easier if you go with the flow and accept ‘that is the way it is done.’ Be committed to never stop learning. From anyone. From any place. At any time.
Next.
Develop a passion for something.
There is nothing like passion to create day-to-day energy. This is much much bigger than ‘overcoming fear of failure’ or learning from mistakes or any kind of crap like that. This is about positively moving toward some unseen objective – fueled by an internal passion. The best example I found was about Thomas Edison.
It stated: Passion inspired Thomas Edison to develop the lightbulb. He failed more than 10,000 times. When he was asked what kept him going after so many failures, he said that he had not failed at all. What he had done was to find 10,000 ways that did not work.
Now. I will talk about resiliency next … but for now? That is passion. Find something to rally around. It’s easier to fight the good fight if you care.
Next.
No quit.
This is possibly better defined as “character resiliency.” This has nothing to do with trying and doing and day in and day out grinding it out. This is bigger picture stuff. This is about not giving up on what you dream or imagine. Mediocrity of almost all things in life takes a boatload of resiliency to face and defeat. I threw in character but at its core this is resiliency. Mediocrity is relentless and patient and sneaky. You cannot quit, ever, in your battle against mediocrity.
Ok.
So. What happens if you don’t attempt the three things I suggest (or anything to get out of the mediocrity zone)?
Well. If you don’t do this (and reside in the hellish zone of mediocrity) I have one word for you.
Regret.
Regrets are almost always about missed opportunities – failing to take the risks that could have led to a more fulfilling outcome.
Mediocrity is numbingly subtle.
Company leaders have to believe they are called to something bold and amazing. Even if it is simply engineering the best toilet. I read somewhere three keys to fighting your way out of this mediocrity malaise:
- 1. I believe we each hold within us a vast reservoir of courage.
- 2. I believe in doing something every day that scares the shit out of me.
- 3. I believe in burning my ships and declaring myself all in.
Love it.
Leaders should have it up on their wall.
Breaking out of mediocrity means being courageous, scared shitless sometimes and being “all in” when making a decision.
Ok.
But before anyone thinks this is some wacky uncomfortable hi-risk leadership point of view. Let me say it takes all those things as well as some blending. Yeah. A blend.
Blending risk and safety is the key to success. Too much of either is just not good stewardship. Foolish risk taking is as bad as mediocrity. Somewhere in the middle is the zone of success.
Ok.
I am coming to the close on this topic.
Mediocrity is a simple thing to identify (if you are honest with yourself).
Mediocrity is driven by inertia.
So, saying that, mediocrity ends up actually being a choice (it doesn’t come naturally).
I will try and end this by explaining the zone of mediocrity and that choice I just mentioned by using Yeats:
“Turning and turning in the widening gyre/ The falcon cannot hear the falconer.” 
(note: gyre – a vortex, a circular or spiral motion, especially in ocean currents)
Yeats suggests that at any moment forces are raveling and unraveling, forming and disintegrating in polarity (or, as one writer explained, “gyres” superimposed on each other with the apex or narrowest point of one at the center of the other’s base).
Therefore moments of opportunity occur when time shifts from the outer to the inner gyre – somewhere within the constantly raveling & unraveling.
Leaders are always a focal point for a company’s constantly spinning gyre of ambition and desires. So that leader has to recognize the possibilities inherent in change and the accompanying risks. No change, or progress, occurs in the face of all this raveling & unraveling only through the choice to be mediocre – and not make change (or worse … not take advantage of the forming opportunities).
Their excuse for mediocrity? (if there is an excuse at all).
Mediocrity occurs because the problem is that unraveling/raveling is rarely neat and the leader risks losing what is most important – the center. Or as Yeats suggests:
“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”
And there in lies the true foundation of the zone of mediocrity.
Those in leadership positions of power and authority who foresee the possibility of ‘things falling part’ remain frozen in models that no longer function, or adapt, in a new environment. They fear losing what is at the center (which is certainly the closest to their soul & well being).
So they refuse to embrace change and instead embrace mediocrity.
And in that, my friends, we end up in the infamous zone of mediocrity.
Do what you can to avoid it.
Do what you can to break out of it.
Do what you can to find leaders who seek to stay out of it.
testing creative: how it sharpens and how it dulls the idea
Jan 10th
part of being in an advertising agency is the infamous discussion about testing creative before it is produced. Testing the actual creative concepts in other words.
Let me begin with two thoughts:
- “The way in which advertising influences customer choice is not a tidy, mechanistic process. It is an extremely untidy, often irrational, human process.” (Jeremy Elliott, JWT)
- Ongoing creative testing has a habit of dulling sharp ideas which can be developed in concise upfront testing
Look. We are in business to create great work. But. “We don’t want to be known as the people who create brilliantly crafted failures.” Great work builds client’s brands and sells client’s stuff. Great work makes consumers sit up and go “WOW.” Great work makes clients money through greater ‘full revenue’ volume and it makes us proud to say, “Yeah, we did that.” (both at the same time).
And with all that said … talking about testing creative ideas drives me crazy.
No. The consumer should never be neglected. But. Nor should they be empowered to tell us how to say something.
I believe in using research to inform decisions, not to make them.
We should use consumer research at the beginning of the whole advertising process to find out what to say, not how to say it. period. Stop.
Is that extreme? Yup.
Does that mean I don’t believe in quantitative research on creative? Nope. I just tend to believe valuable quantitative creative research is the exception. The majority of time creative testing dulls great sharp creative ideas. It smooths them out to be less extreme. And in today’s world being gray may make you feel better but it won’t generate the interest and results needed to break through a challenging fragmented world.
Now. I don’t want to confuse creative testing with positioning research.
Depending on the scope of the project strategic development research or positioning research done in innovative sometimes non-traditional thinking ways can uncover the best way to truly find out what the potential customer thinks.
A research plan of action should do something very simple very well. Talk to the inner brand and customers and consumers. The information received at this stage forms the objectives of the work, the key idea to be communicated, and to maybe set some guidelines on just the right brand personality. But you also have to mix what you learn from these conversations with what we know about the client’s marketing problems, and the dynamics of their business (that is a subjective component).
Using all this observation, all this hard and soft research, as well as our own personal experiences, we then should turn it into creative insightful thinking. We should be synthesizing some core truths about the brand into relevant consumer insights.
These research-guided truths become the foundation for our creative solutions.
Oh.
We can also use research to find out if we are saying what we intended to say.
You can call this “creative development research.” Yes, this is evaluative research but our purpose here is only to develop and nurture work, not to kill it. Not to “ask permission” of customers or clients to go with the work.
Although i do not in principle object to using research to inform our creative decisions in the end I struggle with some research because i do not believe in using research alone to judge the validity or effectiveness of the work.
Why? because we, not just me, know that the critical deconstruction that takes place within research just doesn’t happen with exposure in real life.
I guess I get frustrated sometimes because if we’re not careful the research will test the quality of stimulus rather than the quality of the ideas. It will test the quality of the presenter, or the quality of the drawings on the storyboards, or any number of irrelevant details. We always want to protect the ideas (big or not) and give them the best chance of survival, to keep the work from being” pecked to death by ducks.” Allow the ideas to keep the ‘sharp edges’ that make them interesting and stand out.
The simple fact is that bad research kills good ideas.
The more complex fact is that too much research can also kill good ideas.
Ok.
(said calmly) Here are some things to remember:
+ Storyboards don’t have the magic of finished commercials.
+ Commercials that have a familiar feel often “score” better than commercials that are unique, strange, odd or new.
+ Disagreement in groups can be a good thing, because great ideas are often polarizing.
+ Individual opinions will often differ radically from opinions offered by groups. And one group often says one thing and the next group, another.
+ We should not take what consumers say literally.
+ Remember, we use research to inform our decisions, not to make them.
+ We do not let the group become Copywriters and Art Directors.
+ Clinical research settings often produce different responses than research done out in the field, in the bars, the malls, on the street.
What would I do if pushed into a corner and said research had to happen with creative?
1. Use qualitative (I do lean toward online focus groups these days) to inform on wording and ideas and claims and stuff like that. No storyboards or creative concepts involved. Use this to gain nuggets of knowledge with which to use as the creative ideas are developed.
2. Use quantitative (if necessary at all) to isolate which executions are most effective in communicating awareness/likeability/intent to act/specific understanding (of some specific element). I lean toward some interest scan or MillwardBrown Link testing simply because it can inform you of some possible specific communication obstacles’ within an execution which if you are open to ‘fixing’ can improve an overall score. The most expensive way to do this is with finished executions (which some clients are open to) and the least expensive way is story board format (rips in the middle).
There you go. A lot of people will disagree with this. but an agency gets judged by the quality of their effective work. Yes. quality of work and effectiveness. Combined. Research tends to make the creative more mediocre. That is bad. Which then tends to soften possible sales/purchase spikes (you miss out on the higher highs). That is bad.
This is about physics (in a way). 
The sharper the idea the easier it cuts through clutter and the less money it takes to make the idea noticed. The duller the idea the more effort it takes to cut through the rest of the stuff out there (and into a consumer’s mind). I don’t know if that is a postulate but I do know i can prove this in my own kitchen with a dull knife.
Bottom line?
In today’s business environment it seem like we should be seeking less opportunities to play it safe and more opportunities to smartly stand out.
Let me say this another way.
Take more smart chances.
Go and do.
distinctive creative innovation messaging
Oct 8th
Well.
Intel continues to be the prime poster child for how to market and position a product that …. well … is dependent on another product to even have an existence.
Some people would call it branding.
Let’s just call it creating a positive meaningful imprint in people’s minds enough that people care whether they have it or not (despite the fact 99% of the non-nerd population has no clue what it actually does .. but has to have it).
The television stuff they have been doing lately is awesome.
All of it.
Let me begin with the one they call “generations.” Two guys over decades of time growing up together discussing technology innovations in a way only geeks could (but we get it). c’mon. Whoever wrote “they call it ‘E’ … lectronic mail” isn’t getting paid enough. It’s awesome. Here is the TV commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSqMTWrlF-8
What makes this brilliant is that they want to tell you how Intel has been at the forefront of technology innovations over time … and the reality is most of us could give a rat’s ass about what you have done in the past only what you do in the future for us (but marketers get sucked into “we need to become more credible in people’ minds so let’s tell them all the good shit we have done in the past” … whatever …).
But you know what?
I cared after this commercial.
Because I laughed.
Because I stepped back a little in time through the eyes of Intel and I appreciated it.
Ok.
And then.
At the exact same time they are running a commercial that has nothing to do with the past but it’s all about young nerds working in the lab and the future.
And it is brilliant also.
Innovations are so inbred into culture they don’t even notice them (so the implication is that they just aren’t that big a deal to Intel …. They just happen because they are supposed to).
This is what they call “Intel media lab” or “hey Walter”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30dnLv5VclI&feature=channel
Awesome.
They just told us they were innovators unimpressed by their own innovations.
Good stuff.
Finally.
An ability to laugh at themselves (but people benefit from the joke).
The challenge (I am guessing simply because I know how business owners think and the crap they make agencies figure out how to solve):
“How do I tell everyone I am smarter than they are and have an incredible attention to detail and am different in a way that makes me think I won’t get screwed buying their product and they aren’t just pounding their chests on how brilliant they are?”
Well. Let’s maybe share a laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0FULHGwPkw&feature=channel
Awesome stuff again.
Even us non-geeks shake our heads and laugh and yet have a twinge of respect.
Ok.
About the only thing I dislike (and this is kind of nitpicky) is how they end all their ads with the infamous Intel sound mnemonic but instead they have people (I assume their employees) singing the little note signoff.
Yeah yeah yeah.
I get that they want everyone to know that Intel isn’t just a ‘chip’ but people.
Let’s call this the infamous “humanizing a technological innovation.”
Well. It’s kind of silly and unnecessary. The chip is king. I know. Its nitpicky. But it seems like one of those things that some client said and thought about and put their foot down and said “show people! … we aren’t just a bunch of robots making stuff up but we are a likeable group of people (albeit nerds).”
Sure.
So end the commercials with people making noises. That will do it.
Regardless.
A lot of business people and advertising people and marketers who take themselves too seriously oughta be checking out Intel. They get it.
And they are doing a whizbang job in my book.
original ideas
Aug 26th
Ok. The whole concept of “original” idea seems to bring out the worst in people.
And maybe because I get to teach and talk with high school kids on occasion (and, boy, do they have ideas … lots and lots and lots of ideas … all original) I get to talk about the “truth” about original ideas.
For example.
I get to say.
There are no original ideas.
Okay.
That was black & white.
Let’s say they are truly truly rare.
Look. I have been lucky (in the whole ‘seeing awesome ideas’ category).
I have seen some of the world’s best innovations groups.
I have seen some of the most successful entrepreneurial business people in the world present their ideas.
I have seen some of the most creative people in the world show ideas.
And?
I think I can count on one hand truly original ideas.
Okay.
Derivatives and nuances? Sure.
Original? One hand.
So.
Let’s break original ideas down into two aspects.
1. The thought. 2. The implementation.
The thought is a “what if” or “could this be” type scenario.
Forget it.
Here is the truth.
Someone somewhere has had the same thought.
Some people have figured out a way to share it.
And if those some people have figured out a way of articulating it well (or well enough that people understand it).
Oh.
By the way. All these are diminishing numbers.
Ok.
And then there are the ones who articulate it well enough to be understood and have an audience who (a) gives a shit and (b) wants to do something with it.
By this time you can be found somewhere dancing on the head of pin with the few others who fit there with you.
And.
“Wants to do something with it.”
Yup.
(b) is important because truly original ideas scare the crap out of most people.
“Don’t worry about people stealing an idea. If it’s original, you will have to ram it down their throats.”
- Howard Aiken
Now that quote is dead on right.
Go ahead and visit most management teams and talk about scared.
Now you run into the infamous “what people say versus what people do.”
What do I mean?
People say: “show me ideas that scare me.” And then “if it scares us it must be a good idea.”
And then.
People do: <nothing>
They may say … “they (it’s never ‘me’ it is always ‘they’) were too scared to do it. They just didn’t see the risk return on it.”
Well.
I will make one point here and then move on …
ORIGINAL MEANS IT HASN’T BEEN SEEN OR DONE BEFORE SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN!!!!
(yes. I shouted that AND used exclamation points)
Anyway.
Maybe because it is new (and therefore untried or unseen) people get nervous.
Anyway.
Original ideas are every rare.
Okay.
Moving on to the protecting the relatively rare original ideas.
(which is where I really started when thinking about writing this)
People spend lots (and lots and lots and … well … you get the point) of time worrying about protecting proprietary ideas and proprietary process and ‘original ideas.’
(even if they don’t have one they invest lots of energy discussing and worrying about them)
Okay. Look.
If I am a drug company, maybe a software company or technology company with some engineering widgetology or maybe P&G which has some skin lotion formulation that some whiz bang ingredient then, yeah, you get protective.
Oh. Just for humor at the end of this post I have included a “proposed confidentiality process” we sent to a maniacally protective prospective client (yes. We did send an actual one but they were fun people as well as maniacal and wanted to have a little laugh over their obsessive behavior with regard to confidentiality)
Anyway.
But.
For some reason it seem my last several jobs I have encountered company owners who were obsessed with ‘protecting our original ideas.’ I kept on trying to point out to them that unless you’re a new products innovation group (and we were marketing and strategy driven companies) the odds of you truly having an original idea is lower than USA winning the World Cup.
I sometimes believe people spend so much time thinking they have an original idea and investing so much energy trying to keep it a secret they forget the energy it takes to actually get it to happen.
In fact.
To be honest.
I believe I have been in several situations where we actually had a fairly original idea however in presenting the idea I probably went overboard trying to draw links to things people have done in non related industries. It’s a little crazy but original ideas have an easier time being implemented if it feels ‘fresh’ to the industry it is going to happen in but ‘used’ by someone else first.
So you end up making original ideas look ‘not so original’ so that they can be implemented.
Crazy.
In the end.
I would worry less about whether it is “original” or not. I would worry more about whether it was a good idea.
And idea that will work.
In fact … it is true (take this one to the bank) if you stop thinking ‘original’ and start looking for “similar to” it becomes easier to implement and easier to sell (or have someone implement).
Sound wacky? Yup. But it’s true.
Just face it.
Originality (as with many things in life) is a shade of grey.
Or maybe an aspect of something that already exists.
Just worry about his:
“Until you can create something that captivates people, I’d invite you to just shut up. It’s easy to attack and destroy an act of creation. It’s a lot more difficult to perform one.” Chuck Palahniuk
Worry less about original.
Worry more about the idea.
And worry more about making it actually happen versus protecting it.
So. That said.
Here are some thoughts if you want to protect your “original” ideas:
(yes. We really shared this with a client.)
< maniacal company>: Additional Confidentiality Steps
- Cyanide pills
The pills are embedded in team member teeth caps with a tracking chip set to identify and explode upon the presence of a <competitive company> employee.
(note: this is covered in our dental plan)
- Enigma coding machines
We have identified the two last working Enigma coding machines. We can place one in your offices and the other will remain in <the managing director’s> office (which is better than card protected room because his executive assistant is better than a pit bull protecting that office).
- Etch-a-Sketch communications
All communications will take place via etch-a-sketch. Twice a day all team members will shake their etch-a-sketch.
- Invisible Ink
All written communications will be conducted in invisible ink. (but still under lock and key guidelines).
- Fort Knox
Quick research has uncovered that the majority of the gold has been removed from Fort Knox and space is available. We may have to tweak the compensation agreement, but we would be willing to consider setting up a field office in the Fort Knox vault to service your business.
- Cosa Nostra
Through some relationships <our managing director> has we may be able to make some arrangements to completely eliminate the <competitive company’s> conflict once and for all (if you know what we mean). Once again, we may have to tweak the compensation arrangement to accommodate this service.
These are just some initial ideas which we would be willing to discuss in the interest of collaboration.
innovations, collaboration and discovery
Aug 12th
So. There was a fascinating article in a late 2009 Science Magazine (“innovation is more critical than ever”).
Oh.
No. I don’t make it a habit to read Science magazine. So don’t anyone worry I have completely lost it.
But.
I came across this article about maintaining innovations through collaboration and partnerships in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries (and having seen the P&G Innovations group in action I am always interested in innovations process and thinking).
I thought it was a nice article talking about collaboration in a highly intelligent employee based organization (I will get back to that).
Next.
There was a small article in the Economist 8/7 issue on innovation prizes.
Now. I am not a cash reward believer (tends to not create ongoing ideation as well as discourages emotional based behavior patterns) but in this case the Economist showcased a couple of thoughts that I believe are perfect with regard to the proper use of collaboration (and dollar reward mechanism).
The concept is outsourcing collaborative ideation opening up competition to non-industry knowledgeable individuals (I will get back to that).
Next (and lastly so I can get to the point of this post).
A book called “The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves.”
Now. I am not recommending this book. It is not for the faint of heart and it makes a Michener book read like People magazine. But. It does a nice job of addressing how innovations (lets call them biological, cultural & economic forces) can be aligned to enhance overall human progress.
Ok.
The bottom line is that innovations are the lifeblood of not only corporate success (or let’s say business/industry success) but also human success. Not just ‘comfort’ innovations but dwarf grain, penicillin, combustible engine type innovations.
Stuff that enhances true progress.
That is what innovation is all about.
Okay.
Let’s talk about innovation and collaboration (with the intent of discovery).
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm … why did I add that last part?
Well. Collaboration when used improperly impedes discovery, it doesn’t enable discovery.
I have already written about this but I would suggest most companies today misuse collaboration to the extent that it wastes employee energy and resources and actually negatively affects morale (so basically they are killing their organizations thru an idea with the best intentions … yikes.).
Anyway.
Genentech.
Suffice it to say smart (if not frickin’ brilliant) employee base almost top to bottom.
Oh. And their top to bottom is pretty shallow in that they have a flat organization (makes sense … why do you need a huge hierarchy with brilliant people running around?).
Oops. Ok. And before any businesses owner starts looking at this and thinks “that’s it. Flatten the organization!” (gosh. When I typed that I thought of the old Thomas Dolby ‘she blinded me with science’ video … “Science!” … anyway) they need to understand Genentech is not, say, a Cisco or even a P&G. Those organizations thrive on multi levels (multiple levels of expertise and brain power working together … think of it as drones & stars).
Genentech does not and would not thrive in a hierarchal structure (they don’t have many drones). Plus. The majority are entrepreneurial ideators themselves as thinkers.
So. What does a brilliant employee base organization do to collaborate and come up with innovations? Well. They don’t put a group of these Einstein like people in a small padded brain storming room and have them play ideation games.
They go outside the organization and collaborate with partners or maybe even access collaboration opportunities through mergers or acquisitions.
In my words … they seek to not put two magnets side by side but rather take a magnet and start throwing some different outside objects at it to see what sticks.
To make another point. While the word “collaboration” is being used, at its core, ideas is an “individual” thing (meaning individuals tend to come up with innovative ideas all by their lonesome) and biotech companies empower individuals to ideate (simply create as much stimulus as possible through collaborative efforts so that the individual can ideate).
Oh.
And while I am not describing a creative (or advertising agency) the realities in these environments is exactly the same. Empower individuals to ideate. Multiple minds soften the sharp edges of an innovation.
Okay.
Moving on.
The innovation “prize” idea.
Let me start with the end on this idea as described by The Economist. The 7 winners of this $1mlllion prize (to be awarded to someone who designed an algorithm system to enhance online recommendations based on prior purchases) never met physically until they picked up the prize. They had collaborated online.
Let me repeat. They never met until they showed up to receive the prize.
So. Once again the collaboration was outside the “using” (or manufacturing/implementing) organization as well as it was a specific “here is the challenge” situation.
A one-off if I may use that term.
Now. I want to be careful here (as the Economist also cautioned). Innovations scenarios to me that work here are specific product enhancement innovations. Policy or “soft” innovations (if I may use that term) would seem to be a less attractive intent for this prize/reward system. This collaboration/prize concept is perfect for “solving oil spills” or “a car that gets 100mpg” or a “reusable space ship” or things that may seem slightly impossible and attract innovative thinkers outside the industry “box” who may approach the widget issue from a completely different point of view.
Lastly.
I threw in the book because it makes the point that innovations propel progress. Without innovations we (the people) kind of just chug along. Progressing but ambling down the progress road. Innovations (like some I have mentioned above) propel us forward. Like think leaps instead of steps. It would behoove us to have someone smarter than I and someone in a power position to be thinking about solving some of our progress issues (stumbling blocks) in this way.
Okay.
Hey. I know ongoing innovation is difficult. Mainly because great organizations exist on two levels. Continuity and discontinuity (and I believe people do also).
But only one is constant. Continuity. You need ongoing efficient coordinated alignment to bring all resources to bear in competitive environments. And yet you need steady (but interspersed) infusion of innovation (or discontinuity) to be successful.
One keeps you on the road. One keeps you from being stagnant.
Simply think OFF = ON. What do I mean?
When something previously deemed ‘emerging’ starts to invade the mainstream, or even better, is actually mimicked by it, new innovation opportunities abound. Case in point: the near-total triumph of the online revolution, which has the offline world more often than not playing second fiddle in everything from commerce to entertainment to politics.
So.
The idea of outsourcing collaboration is brilliant. Especially for one off specific challenges. And prizes insure innovative thinking toward solutions. And forward thinking innovative solutions propel progress.
(everyone should like that short paragraph)
One last point on innovations and collaboration (and why this outsourcing idea is a big idea).
Typically the most effective ideation focuses on the needs of “Lead End User” to Drive the innovation system at all phases of ideation. This principle is based on more than just the tired “the consumer is king” mantra. It is a ruthless pursuit of Lead End Users, the consumers or customers who have legitimate change-agent DNA working in every aspect of their lives. These change agents can truly help you morph and accelerate new ideas by maximizing lead end user input through early exposure to end benefit (or prototype) visual stimulus. This seeing-is-selling visual stimulus is empowering to change agents, who often solve their unmet needs by developing their own product or service solutions.
The problem? (two of them)
1. internal organization collaboration will kill Lead End User ideas. Kill them so dead they will never come back.The ideas seem so impossible that within a group of collaborators there will be enough “unimaginative” people to clearly define it as a waste of time (as impossible). Collaboration kills here.
2. The process discussed above is often challenging and even scary to a company, because lead end users rarely reflect the current masses’ desires. After all, lead end users are early adopters and reflect trendspotter characteristics. And, as with any trendspotter, the ideas uncovered can be unattractive at first glance because the market doesn’t yet exist. But that is the first step towards uncovering the big win new product innovation.
So. In the end real progress is maintained by innovative innovations (not all innovations are truly “spur on progress” innovative ideas.).
I do like the privatization of ideation (on some things). I caveat because (and it may sound like I am backpedaling) because I believe companies should be thoughtful and selective on any collaboration efforts. And then even more selective of what is solved in house versus the outhouse (ok, externally).
If managed correctly there are many ideas that can be generated internally within an organization. (Although not with a prize reward mechanism).
But.
Everyone should remember that great innovation progress is driven by (1) individuals with ideas and (2) reliance of outside resources to envision the impossible as possible.
Oh. And companies are not built for anything I have described in the immediate above as well as the process I described (or at least if they are they are the exception to the rule).
Why? Not only is it scary but the approach to capital budgeting and resource allocation at traditional companies is completely counter to nurturing and facilitating new ideas. Multiple levels of in-grown management seek to protect the existing business model and ‘stay the course.’ In addition, new ideas are often forced to be synergistic to the current business. Radical new ideas face a bureaucratic march of death up multiple organizational levels where a “no” at any point can kill the idea. The key financial goal of this death march is to minimize the number of projects falling below a minimally acceptable rate of return.
In contrast, a typical VC incubator system is focused on insuring the big winner. Resources are attracted to (not allocated against) the best ideas without any regard to protecting the status quo or forcing synergy.
Now that sounds a lot like what I have been writing about.
Outside collaboration.
Rewards to winning best ideas.
Set the specific challenges to have the “collaborative contests” over.
Start thinking this way and, by golly by gee, we are gonna have some progress my friends.
Running a Business Part 1: Scared versus Fearless
Dec 21st
The Original Fearless Leader
I have always believed people in business are at their best when they are fearless. And I believe looking back I have always tried to manage my staff and businesses by encouraging fearlessness.
What do I mean by fearlessness? Do what’s right. Say what’s right. Don’t worry, you won’t lose your job. Don’t worry, you won’t lose the business.
Sure. Sometimes this attitude can put everyone on the team in a tough spot (but that’s kinda why someone like me gets paid the big bucks to protect them). But the alternative is employees running scared and looking over their shoulders.
And today it seems most employees are running scared.
I fear we have companies running scared when of all times we need to be fearless.
It is not difficult to understand given the current economy. But I believe being scared is something managers and companies should be focused on now. To me this is a time when we should be encouraging employees to be looking forward, fearlessly seeking the right path for success and opportunities. Not only will it make your company stand out but I also believe it is the key to getting the economy back on track (Ok. One of the keys).
Employees running scared are investing wasted energy in worrying.
Employees running scared invest energy in non-business related things (cruising job sites & networking).
Employees running scared cannot be happy (and happiness is a completely underrated characteristic of productivity).
Of course not all employees have that DNA (and American business culture doesn’t necessarily encourage “do the same job great without seeking promotion”). And I am not proposing you can get an entire organization in this mindset (or you want to). You will always have the “I am going to do my job and whatever makes my boss and people happy” staff. And that’s cool. All organizations need a mix. You always need that core of people who just get the shit done. But I would argue even these people would perform better if they weren’t running scared.
Creating the shift.
The challenge today is to get more employees to be fearless. Notice I didn’t say “safe.” Safe is defensive. Fearless is offensive in tone. By making that point I am also pointing out how huge an effort something like this will take today.
Getting people from safe to fearless is about creating energy.
Getting people from scared to fearless is about reversing energy.
It all starts at the top. The upper management needs to walk the walk. But it doesn’t end there because middle management has to buy in, and live it and not just say it. It won’t happen overnight and it won’t happen with everyone. The key is to create a backbone of attitude throughout the organization that will steady everyone when there are moments of “digression” (which will happen). Good luck. Be fearless.
Collaboration and Consensus Part 2
Dec 10th
Here is the idea: Great companies need at least one unreasonable person.
I just wrote something about collaboration & consensus so I have been thinking about this issue.
So here is the key issue when you start talking about collaboration and inevitably consensus.
Collaboration can certainly lead to some great creativity. Consensus kills it. I heard a great line on the television show West Wing:
“We are a country of centrists.”
Companies are exactly the same. In general, large organizations are groups of centrists. Why?
Companies are strewn with reasonable people. People whose main criterion is “making sense”. They bludgeon you with the “why does it make sense?” club every chance they get. They are the sensible people that keep companies from fiscal irresponsibility and in general keep the company out of the ditch. (If I had a picture of every CFO I have met they would all go here). To them everything has to have a reason. It has to all make sense.
Working with the smartest of these people (and please don’t believe because they are exceedingly reasonable that they are not often brilliant business people) means you are constantly running an escalating gauntlet of objections when you suggest a seemingly unreasonable (or nonsensible) idea.
“I’ve learned any fool can write a bad ad, but it takes a real genius to keep his hands off a good one.” Leo Burnett, American marketing expert
Each sensible objection begets another sensible objection. And it gets tiring (as well as the odds are in their favor they will ultimately get to the objection where you are forced to respond “because it feels like the right thing to do” – the kiss of death to the idea).
So if you always did what the reasonable people want you to do you will maintain your speed (sometimes you may go a little faster and sometimes a little slower) and you will drive right down the middle of the racetrack. Sure. You will never hit a wall or run off the track. But at some point someone will pass you (don’t worry. Some of those guys have no clue what they are doing and will crash.) By the way, the crashers are probably a team strewn with unreasonable people who drive their reasonable few crazy. Unfortunately, some of those guys who pass you really do have their act together and most likely some unreasonable person figured out a way of getting people to endorse the ‘unlikely.’
Collaboration often crushes creativity under the weight of Consensus
Dec 3rd
Here is the thought: Collaboration and Consensus often generate a generalist idea.
In the end the consensus ideas may be appealing to the masses (and therefore the group in general) but lack the distinctness and “edges” that could differentiate it.
Okay. That said (before I start hearing the screams of anguish from everyone who advocates the power of collaboration). Hey. I am all for collaboration. I believe it uncovers well-rounded ideas and sometimes even creates that unique “wow” idea in discussion. But collaboration is like a bell curve.
In the beginning, because collaboration doesn’t come naturally to specialists (and it shouldn’t because specialists are good at what they do because they are…well…specialized), you are at the bottom side of the bell curve. This time in collaboration is pretty nonproductive and there is (or should be) a lot of banging together of different disciplines and knowledge. That’s okay. I call this stage “positive friction.” Some pushing and shoving and jostling for ideas.
Somehow the collaborators learn to collaborate (typically there is some generalist who is better than others at figuring out how to not only get everyone to “play well together” but also figure out what pieces of the puzzle are most interesting and useful and get them placed on the table to discuss). And ideas start flowing and being discussed and debated.
