Xavier Leadership Center is doing a great deal of work these days in the area of guiding innovation. We have reached out to develop a globally experienced network of innovation facilitators, who are skilled at what we believe to be best practice.
In general, the design thinking or creative problem solving processes fit will with the XLC leadership model that flows from the Jesuit traditions upon which Xavier University was founded. We believe that innovation is an empowering activity that can enrich work life, but inviting people from all parts of an organization to co-create their own future. The ideas both bubble up (from within the organization) and are focused (sort of top down) from the company strategy. I would describe a sort of yin-yang relationship. In essence, the strategy (which is heavily influence from top-level execs) defines what major problems need to solved (to grow our business, change our business model, modify our cost structure or redefine our customer service experience). However, often it is the people at the mid and lower levels of an organization who have the best insights about how to actually execute.
So the innovation methodologies we teach are collaborative and involve:
- Creating Eclectic, Diverse Teams (Based on the notion that people from different backgrounds will always see situations differently – providing much richer idea generation.)
- Launching a Process of Joint Fact Gathering (To inform all participants more deeply about “the problem” being solved.)
- Immersing Participants in Experiential Learning (To connect our internal teams in emotionally rich ways with the outside world, either by performing customer observations, interviews or field trips.)
- Structuring Idea Generation (Linus Pauling said when asked “how do you get a good idea?” answered “well . . . you start with a lot!” We strive for lots of divergent thinking and then converge later.)
- Following the Energy (In sessions where multiple ideas are emerging, usually there are a few of them that seem to heavily capture the imagination and enthusiasm of the participants. We suggest trusting their instincts and follow the collective group wisdom.)
- Planning the Execution (Innovation is about implementing something. Until you do it, all you have is just a bunch of interesting ideas. So plan the who, what, why, when of the project, considering what new data you might need, and also how to build the right guiding coalition – considering the right stakeholders).
I have seen this process work pretty effectively, and am convinced it is one that can produce some powerful ideas. We are using this process at Xavier to lead internal transformation efforts on our campus with good results as well. At the university, we tend to value collaborative and inclusive approaches in much of what we do, and our bottom-up methodology is well appreciated. It is, for the most part, a polite, friendly, collegial, engaging approach to new solution generating.
This approach is “Nice.”
In a recent article from the HBR Blog Network called Why You Won’t Get Breakthrough Innovation by Being Nice, Simon Rucker argues that the kind of innovation process I am describing above, works well for incremental innovation, but not for ground breaking, paradigm crushing, world-changing innovations that we might ascribe to companies like Google or Apple.
The essence of his argument is to consider people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford or Thomas Edison, these well-regarded innovators brought something else to the process. They infused an intense determination, drive, and assertiveness needed to press forward with their inspirations to get them to fruition. Sure, they all relied upon many colleagues and subordinates to work on the ideas, but it was their single-minded focus that was the factor that made the difference.
He goes on to point out that none of these famous inventors was known for their social skills. They were harsh, sometimes cruel, demanding, unreasonable, and intolerant of people who stood in the way of their vision. So perhaps it takes people like that who possess incredible insight and vision, together with the determination not to let anyone stand in their way. Certainly one can’t dismiss the end results of Microsoft, Apple, Ford or Edison.
But, I’d like to think maniacal determination may not be the only thing that works. It seems to me that it has a lot to do with the “problem” you set out to solve at the front end, and on the questions you ask that drives idea generation in any particular direction. If you choose tactical questions and problems on which to focus your innovation agenda, then you may not get the next iPhone-like product at the conclusion.
First, we need to recognize that no organization can only pursue breakthrough innovation ideas. The risk is just too great. For most of us, we are aiming at a mix of projects, the majority of which focused on incremental innovations (making better what we already do). These are tactical, and related to improving quality, the customer experience, reduce cost, etc. A portion of our innovation effort should be focused on game changing, bold ideas.
One method I like a lot, drives ideation from the asking of what Phil McKinney calls Killer Questions (see reference below). These are thought-provoking ones that challenge us to think about problems from different vantage points. I worked this past weekend with a wonderful group of physician leaders from a highly regarded hospital group. We were discussing these types of “killer” questions:
- If no hospitals existed at all today, what system might we invent to serve the health care needs of our community (assuming we had a completely blank sheet of paper)?
- What would we do differently if we were paid for the people who did not ever enter a hospital and penalized for the ones who did?
- Develop three separate strategies under these assumptions:
- We were in the business of curing people who arrived at our doorstep
- We were in the business of managing cost for chronic health problems (which consume about 3/4th of all health care spending in the US)
- We were in the business of minimizing the lifetime medical costs for a definable population in our region
- What would it take for us to reduce the number of surgical procedures by 50 percent in five years?
It seems to me that these questions can stimulate ideation in some remarkably bold ways, leading even to breakthrough initiatives. As David Coursey suggests in his article below, just because Steve Jobs was a jerk, we don’t need to be.
So while a Jobs/Ford/Gates/Edison style of innovation leadership does work, I am not convinced it is the only way to achieve game changing insights.
Steve Jobs Was a Jerk, You Shouldn’t Be, from Forbes
Lessons Learned from Thomas Edison’s Life, from School for Champions
Introduction to the Killer Innovation Approach, from Slideshare