Really good discussion and I appreciate that you shared the Ambidextrous Organization article.
Having lived the scenario of being resisted when delivering innovation and also having been on the side of having to push back on innovation when it's just churn, there are multiple dimensions to an organization's opportunity and capacity to be able to benefit from innovation. Execs really need to have a clear understanding of where their company is in that continuum of size, age, channel depth, product complexity, and incentivization to be able to judge the right types of innovation to be fostering in their company.
All of the companies that are discussed in the HBR article (similar to government agencies) are really large. That should not suggest that small companies and orgs can't benefit from intentional innovation as well. In fact, we should not assume that small companies are inherently innovative nor that all innovation is good.
Actually I was fired for being too innovative. The bosses felt that I was aiming for their jobs, and soon enough they forbid me to program one line of code and then fired for being inapt. Welcome to France and his adoration for diplomas.
Once, when I was still fairly new at a job, I made a suggestion to my boss for something new. She said, "That's a great idea. Please don't tell anyone. They'll want us to do it."
At a later job, again when I was new, I made a suggestion to my boss who said, "That's a great idea. Write it up. We'll see if we can patent it!" Yes, we got it patented.
Guess which job I liked more and stayed at longer?
Thanks, Steve, for sharing this experience. This is a very good example of how difficult it is for most public servants to innovate, and it's not far for many corporations that have so many barriers to innovate. The list is still so long even after so many years of research and experiences in innovation.
Every once a while there is a first time. Pioneer doing it first time meet more obstacles.
Even with help from leadership they need more work. Only in the hindsifht we see all these as obstacles. Now we see a person with person hindsight and no understanding of innovation, just understanding that this is suboptimal process to be optimized.
The award can be rather a way of leadership telling in public that all these obstacles were wrong and should be cleared. What cooler way to do it than to reward an effective innovator?
Since when clearing obstacles to innovation is a dysfunction?!
Since the obstacles shouldn’t exist in the first place. If you don’t understand this, you never worked for a startup that got acquired by one of these large dysfunctional companies.
Steve hit the nail on the head with this. The only thing I know he left out is declining calendar invitations to multiple desk yoga events and time spent archiving invitations to events only allow people of a specific group to which one does not belong.
There is a case for the opposite. Organisations have learned to eschew an emphasis on innovation in order to be productive. The startup simply hasn't matured it's business model yet.
Speaks from my soul, Steve! Thank you for another well-summarized wake-up call to all large organization innovation leaders who finally need to get serious so that the "meaningful new" can enter the world with less friction.
Really good discussion and I appreciate that you shared the Ambidextrous Organization article.
Having lived the scenario of being resisted when delivering innovation and also having been on the side of having to push back on innovation when it's just churn, there are multiple dimensions to an organization's opportunity and capacity to be able to benefit from innovation. Execs really need to have a clear understanding of where their company is in that continuum of size, age, channel depth, product complexity, and incentivization to be able to judge the right types of innovation to be fostering in their company.
All of the companies that are discussed in the HBR article (similar to government agencies) are really large. That should not suggest that small companies and orgs can't benefit from intentional innovation as well. In fact, we should not assume that small companies are inherently innovative nor that all innovation is good.
Actually I was fired for being too innovative. The bosses felt that I was aiming for their jobs, and soon enough they forbid me to program one line of code and then fired for being inapt. Welcome to France and his adoration for diplomas.
Once, when I was still fairly new at a job, I made a suggestion to my boss for something new. She said, "That's a great idea. Please don't tell anyone. They'll want us to do it."
At a later job, again when I was new, I made a suggestion to my boss who said, "That's a great idea. Write it up. We'll see if we can patent it!" Yes, we got it patented.
Guess which job I liked more and stayed at longer?
Thanks, Steve, for sharing this experience. This is a very good example of how difficult it is for most public servants to innovate, and it's not far for many corporations that have so many barriers to innovate. The list is still so long even after so many years of research and experiences in innovation.
Great piece. It reminds me of Geoffrey Moore’s book “Zone to Win,” which should be required reading for gov’t agency leaders.
Since when is an effective person a dysfunction?
Every once a while there is a first time. Pioneer doing it first time meet more obstacles.
Even with help from leadership they need more work. Only in the hindsifht we see all these as obstacles. Now we see a person with person hindsight and no understanding of innovation, just understanding that this is suboptimal process to be optimized.
The award can be rather a way of leadership telling in public that all these obstacles were wrong and should be cleared. What cooler way to do it than to reward an effective innovator?
Since when clearing obstacles to innovation is a dysfunction?!
Since the obstacles shouldn’t exist in the first place. If you don’t understand this, you never worked for a startup that got acquired by one of these large dysfunctional companies.
Steve hit the nail on the head with this. The only thing I know he left out is declining calendar invitations to multiple desk yoga events and time spent archiving invitations to events only allow people of a specific group to which one does not belong.
There is a case for the opposite. Organisations have learned to eschew an emphasis on innovation in order to be productive. The startup simply hasn't matured it's business model yet.
Thanks Steve for sharing your thoughts on how organisations should have Innovation as part of their culture ! Super insightful.
Speaks from my soul, Steve! Thank you for another well-summarized wake-up call to all large organization innovation leaders who finally need to get serious so that the "meaningful new" can enter the world with less friction.
Thanks for writing this article!
Thank you so much Steve… amazing article!!
Outstanding article!!!