My buddy Scott pointed me to this Diesel campaign embracing Stupid and eschewing Smart.
Some really nice overlaps with doing innovative stuff. The right approach might feel kind of stupid at first!
You might not
love the approach or the brand, but you have to admit that they're on
to something. Here's the Diesel site: http://www.diesel.com/be-stupid/
(Josef Albers Stacking Tables; My wife's favorite piece in the exhibit.)
Until a recent visit to the Moma's Bauhaus exhibit, I wasn't aware how influential that movement was (and the importance of the word "diaspora"). Apparently I'm a child of the Bauhaus and we're all brothers and sisters. It was pretty amazing.
Some observations:
>> The commitment, desire and expectation to work across mediums and disciplines. That's a hallmark to what our teams exhibit at work, but wanting to do it and committing to do it as an individual requires another level of curiosity and risk-taking.
). Guess which side I err towards...My favorite piece was the so-called telephone enamel pieces by László Moholy-Nagy. He didn't build it, he gave the specifications to the builder over the phone:
(Made with the help of iCrushALot)
Bruce pointed me to this interview with my innovation hero Jeff Bezos in Newsweek's interview issue. Bezos describes three elements of their success:
This excerpt is so, so true and it brings home the patience and persistence that it takes to be a repeat innovator:
There are two ways that companies can extend what they're doing. One is they can take an inventory of their skills and competencies, and then they can say, "OK, with this set of skills and competencies, what else can we do?" And that's a very useful technique that all companies should use. But there's a second method, which takes a longer-term orientation. It is to say, rather than ask what are we good at and what else can we do with that skill, you ask, who are our customers? What do they need? And then you say we're going to give that to them regardless of whether we currently have the skills to do so, and we will learn those skills no matter how long it takes. Kindle is a great example of that. It's been on the market for two years, but we worked on it for three years in earnest before that. We talked about it for a year before that. We had to go hire people to build a hardware--engineering team to build the device. We had to acquire new skills. There's a tendency, I think, for executives to think that the right course of action is to stick to the knitting—stick with what you're good at. That may be a generally good rule, but the problem is the world changes out from under you if you're not constantly adding to your skill set.
(Image and hunger courtesy of Esther17's photostream and Creative Commons.)
Bob asked what great bosses do to encourage innovation. It was an excuse for me to look back and see if I could synthesize some perspectives on that as well. I think many of these ideas and thoughts are very similar to what he communicated, but I think there are some new ones in there too. It's all a bit circular as I'm sure I'm influenced not only by my own experience, but also Bob's and others thinking.
Share Direction, Give Permission, Provide Support. Commit.Mrs. F was my first grade teacher. She was wonderful. At the start of first grade, she handed out those big, thick pencils - the ones without erasers. I asked Mrs. F why our pencils didn't have erasers. She said, "so you'll take your time and do things right the first time." Though I love her still, I think Mrs. F had the right pencils but the wrong message.
To do new things - things that are delightfully better and fundamentally different - you have to be really, really interested in putting things out there and being wrong; making mistakes and loving it.
I meet lots of folks in my work: designers, innovators and business people. It's a rare person that's confident enough to have their ideas critiqued. Even more seldom is the person that seeks feedback on an idea after it has been delivered. If you get it wrong, it sucks. If you got it wrong and it's your only shot, it really sucks. We confuse critique of an idea with a critique of us. I've certainly felt that way.
Great designers and innovators see evaluation moments as learning opportunities. They couple confidence with humility and curiosity. Some really amazing designers certainly possess a "never look back" approach. I think that works really well when what you're doing is closer to art.I don't think it works as well for innovation. I find with practice that it gets easier and easier to be wrong - you hate the sting, but you seek it.
So next time you hear something akin to "that's the worst idea I've heard in a long time." Say "Perfect, when did you know it was awful?"
(Deliberation courtesy of kamshots. Check out his amazing London and Tehran street scenes.)
It's occurred to me recently that you're either starting or quitting.
There's really nothing true about the idea of "standing still." If it feels like you're standing still, it's just that you're starting slowly or quitting slowly.
If you feel trapped, figure out where you're pointing and step on the gas. Either way you should accelerate.
It's a bit like Red said in Shawshank: "Get busy living, or get busy dying."
Today, Tim's book Change by Design
I really enjoyed the whole book. Chapter 10, designing tomorrow today, was my favorite based solely on my love of lists. It's squarely aimed at the knowing-doing gap.
Congratulations Tim!
A few weeks ago, I was running by a restaurant that serves vegetarian fare on a somewhat dire stretch of 10th Street in the East Village. They had a table offering free samples. People commuting to work that particular morning could sample what this ten-table place had to offer.
When I first saw the sample sign, I thought "what a nice idea." I'd noticed the restaurant before, but never really been interested in it (probably because I'm usually looking for something a little more indulgent when I'm out in the neighborhood). This move made me reconsider. Here's the conversation I could have imagined playing out among the proprietors:
"Get locals on their way to work to actually try us out. Many of these people often make decisions about what to do for dinner earlier in the day, so why not introduce ourself to them when the streets are a little quieter and they can focus on us?"
It made me think of how to engage potential consumers out of the context of use, but at a time that still represents a reasonable context for consideration.
This isn't a new idea for sure. In a sense, advertising is predicated on it and targeting / placement is meant to get you half-way there. Yet I wonder how else it could be more personally and mindfully pursued? Where else could this be applied?
If you're interested in the process of creation or are interested in the dynamics of creative companies, I'd recommend reading Neal Gabler's excellent biography Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination.
This book is a biography in all its glory (nearly 900 pages one third of which are end notes, now in softcover). I'm late to the party, but it blew me away. That's where I pulled the William Blake quote from above. So I decided to write a back-to-school inspired book report on it...
Gabler chronicles Walt Disney's life and efforts through early childhood through the conception of Walt Disney Studios/Enterprises on to the birth and early evolution of Disneyland. I was amazed by the influence of Disney animation and animators from that time period, as well as the process innovation and tool creation required to constantly push the state of the art (e.g., the invention of the concept/role of a dedicated sketch artist, product placement on TV, etc.).
Disney didn't really do it alone. He attracted his early acolytes by doing the coolest stuff. His mission was to make the highest quality and most inspiring animation possible. Camaraderie developed as young people pursued these goals and made it up as they went along. Even as the definition of quality and inspiration shifted, people knew Disney Studios was the place to be.
For the formative part of his career, nothing would stand in the way of Walt Disney's vision and personal pursuit of quality. Not people, not money and sometimes not even the tastes of the American public. His comrades became first his hands then merely objects to pursue his goals - often easily disposed of and abused. It seems working at the studio downright sucked at times. Gabler's Disney is moody, singularly-focused, ruthless and a tyrant. If something couldn't be made the right way, his way, Walt Disney would berate or delay or disengage completely. Despite all of this, the productively being on the edge somehow worked.
Over time, Disney's approach to the organization changed as did his role in it. Check out Disney's begrudgingly conceived, process-based organizational chart from 1943 (discussed in the book and sent to me by Colin and discussed in atissue):
First, Disney was everywhere and in everything. Then, he was in the middle. Once this chart was drawn, he found himself at the start with the story. Then, once he was disillusioned with the animation and enthralled with Disneyland, he was nowhere.
There were all kinds of great connections for me in this book, but what really resonated for me is this:
Not only did the development of Walt Disney Studios and Enterprises provide a blueprint, Walt Disney himself was the prototype of creative leadership in all of its gritty, flawed and wonderful glory. We can all be Walt Disney every once in a while.
If you're interested in such things and stuck with me to this point (and want a shorter starting point), I'd also recommend reading the Ed Catmull Pixar piece in HBR and Hugh MacLeod's Ignore Everybody.
On Saturday I saw something that was pretty striking. I went to the MOMA to see a variety of things, but I was stopped in my tracks by Song Dong's Project 90 show. The piece of work on display is called Waste Not. Here's a snippet from the MOMA description:
(A view of the show shot from above by sixteen-miles via Flickr. Our iPhone didn't cut it.)
Experiencing the piece, I went on a little journey of revelation. I wondered where and how the artist's mother stored everything. I imagined how she might have imagined using what was kept. I saw how foresight and thriftiness becomes a daily, necessary activity: self-insurance against an uncertain future.
In the end, I realized how little I was doing with what I was consuming and how carefree I felt in my ability to consume more tomorrow. I definitely consume this many bottles in a year, yet I marvel at how this woman kept them or found those that others failed to keep (via sixteen-miles).
So back to business design... It made me wonder...
How might we better design products so that they can
be there tomorrow for us or for someone else to use them or get value
them?
How might we make thriftiness a daily routine? Something to be cherished? Something thrilling?
How might we make one person's trash another person's recyclable? In urban or rural environments?
How might we consume less, yet enjoy more?
Any other ideas?
On his Design Thinking blog, Tim asked one of the central questions that should be answered when designing an innovation strategy. I've been challenging leaders and innovators with it this way:
For some, it's people-related. For others, it's technology-related. For others, it's money-related. My sister, an accomplished physician and medical researcher, is motivated by the thrill of scientific discovery. I can work with that. My buddy Joe loves to structure a deal and measures it based on the financial outcome. That one is a bit tougher (and has led to some fallout), but ok. My travel agent Janine truly loves serving people and giving them great travel experiences. Bingo. I'm not judging right now, they're just different.
This isn't just some higher-order, transcendental kind of question though. The way Tim posed it is key: what advantage does a purpose give you and what does a lack of purpose say about your ability to do anything new and interesting over the long-haul?
The answer to the purpose / inspiration question has implications for what an organization should be good at and how it should align its processes and strategy as a result. It says something about how an organization should differentiate itself both in the market and back at the ranch. You can be in the exact same industry, yet have a very different purpose and be quite successful. It frees you up to answer the classic Levitt / Marketing Myopia question more fluidly and perhaps span industries.
But the people aspect is what's primal.
Purpose is inspirational and engaging. Inspiration feeds purpose. Inspiration and engagement drives innovation. To sustain innovation, you need to sustain inspiration and engagement. You might get an extra dose of self-motivated passion from some individuals for a period of time, but they often burn out or leave (we call them "innovators", "mavericks" or "insane"). To have it scale, perhaps you have to select for engagement through hiring and engage broadly through purpose?
The answer to the question gets people up in the morning and excited to come to work most days, staying late to accomplish something amazing or taking a risk nobody's taken before. If you could hire your strategy and innovation team based on their fundamental engagement with a purpose, you likely would.
I suspect that one of the reasons mission, values and purpose statements are so distasteful is that they don't align with what really happens in a company. Consistent disappointment isn't going to consistently get people giving their all. So when companies manage out the connections its a long-term killer and when they half-heartedly try to get them back, it's sometimes just as bad.
I led with some examples of personal motivation. I think that an organization's purpose serves as one basis for forming community collective. Some purposes are more suited to community; especially when there are strong cultural norms. Perhaps that's why some innovative organizations are smaller or why some innovation is pursued most passionately and effectively by individuals?
Whew! What a great question. More on the central questions for designing an innovation strategy soon.
Please comment over at Tim's blog.
