Waiting for the economy? That won't work.

by Adam Hartung

Every day it seems someone tells me they "are looking forward to an improved economy." When I ask "Why?" they give me a horrified look like I must be stupid. "Because I want my business to improve" is the most frequent answer. To which I ask "What makes you think an improved economy will help you?"

This recession/depression is the result of several market shifts. What people/businesses want, and how they want it, has changed. They no longer are willing to part for hard earned (and often saved) dollars for the same solutions they once purchased. They want advances in technology, manufacturing processes, communications and all aspects of business to give them different solutions. Until that comes along, they are willing to put money in the bank and simply wait.

Take for example restaurants. Many owners and operators are complaining business was horrid in 2009, and still far from the way it was years ago. And regularly we hear it is due to "the recession. People fear they'll lose their jobs, so they don't eat out as often." Nicely said. Sounds logical. Makes for a convenient excuse for lousy results.

Only it's wrong.

In "Dinner out Declines: Economy Not Sole Factor" MediaPost.com does a great overview of the fact that dining out started declining in 2001, and has steadily been on a downward trend. Across all age groups, eating out is simply less interesting - at least at current prices. When the recession came along, it simply accelerated an existing trend. Increasingly, people were less satisfied with cookie-cutter, similar establishments that had similar food (almost all of which was prepared somewhere else and merely heated and combined in the restaurant) and exorbitant drink prices. For years restaurant prices had outpaced inflation, and simultaneously family changes - along with the growth of better prepared foods at grocers and specialty markets - was enticing people to eat at home.

This is true across almost all industries. A revived economy will not increase demand for land-line phone service. Nor for large V-8 American autos costing $60,000. Nor for newspapers, or magazines - or even books most likely. Or for oversized homes that cost too much to heat and cool. In fact, it was the trend away from these products which caused the recession. People simply had all of these things they wanted, so they stopped buying. Fearful of economic change, they simply accelerated a trend brought on by shifts in technology and underlying ways of doing things. When we once again talk about better economic growth in America it will not drive people to these purchases. Rather, people will be buying different things.

For the recession to go away requires a change in inputs. Providers have to start giving buyers what they want. They have to understand market needs, and give solutions which entice people to part with their money. Waiting for "the economy" will make no difference. Government stimulus can go on forever, but it won't create growth. It can't. Only new products and services that fulfill needs create growth. That will cause spending (demand), which generates the requirement for supply.

There are companies that had a great 2009. Google, Apple and Amazon are popular names. Why? Not just because they are somehow "tech" or "internet" companies. 2009 saw the demise of Sun Microsystems and Silicon Graphics, for example. The difference is these companies are studying the market, looking to the future and introducing new products and services which meet market needs. Because of this, they are growing. They are doing their part to revitalize the economy. Not with stimulus, but with products that excite people to part with their cash.

Those who are waiting on the economy to improve are destined to find a rough road. An improving economy will be full of new competitors with new solutions who did not wait. To be a winner businesses today must be bringing forward new products and services that meet today's needs - not yesterday's. And if we start getting winners then we will climb out of this economic foxhole.





Don't miss an article - Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Adam Hartung, author of "Create Marketplace Disruption", is a Faculty and Board member of the Lake Forest Graduate School of Management, Managing Partner of Spark Partners, and writes for "Forbes" and the "Journal for Innovation Science."

Innovation - Have the Last Laugh

Book Review and Innovation Summary - "The Levity Effect" by Adrian Gostick and Scott Christopher

Innovation is hard, dirty, contentious work full of creative tension and disagreements and barriers to be overcome. All the more reason why it is important for innovation managers to not take themselves too seriously, and to know how to loosen up and allow as much fun into the process as possible. As I've said before, innovation and business success are the result of the quality of your insights and the quality of your execution.

You have to have find a way to have some fun on the bumpy road to innovation, or you will definitely fall into a pothole and stay there.

"The Levity Effect" by Adrian Gostick and Scott Christopher is all about why it pays to lighten up in business. It is no accident that many of the best places to work are also some of the best performing businesses. Here are a couple of quotes from the book that capture its essence:


"An increasing body of research demonstrates that when leaders lighten up and create a un workplace, there is a significant increase in the level of employee trust, creativity, and communication..."

"...fun in great companies is natural, organic... The relationship comes before the fun, which makes the fun real and acceptable."


I'd like to focus one particular quote from the book from Amy Lyman, co-founder of the Great Place to Work Institute - "Fun benefits from high trust and vice versa. Since people are trusting, they aren't afraid to make fools of themselves and take more risks. And in turn trust is reinforced and benefits from the fun experiences people have." - The reason you should think slowly and deeply about this quote is that, when it comes to innovation, risk-averse cultures find it the most difficult to innovate. So, if people in your organization don't find it safe to take risks in small ways, what makes you think they will feel safe taking the big risks that innovation often requires?

When it comes to Continuous Innovation, if it wasn't clear before, let me say that I believe that building a culture conducive and supportive of innovation is the real key to success (and the hardest thing to do). If you've already created a culture of respect and trust in your organization, then fun is the next step, and you should consider this book for your reading list.

You'll have to read the book to really understand the full importance of levity, but just to be clear, that when it comes to levity, they're not saying that as a manager that you have to be a comedian, but you do need allow yourself to be human, to connect with people, and to have a sense of humor. Ultimately, people are less creative and innovative when they are stressed, so if you as a manager can help people feel more relaxed and make the atmosphere a little less tense, and show people a little respect, then who knows what creativity might spring forth.


"Levity is the link between trust, respect, and the engagement of a workforce. It is human alchemy."


Want to hear something truly disturbing from the book that will really make you re-evaluate your life? A study referenced in the book found that preschool children laugh up to 400 times a day, while adults only manage 15. Fifteen! "No wonder kids think adults are about as fun as a box of hair."

• So, how much fun are you?
  
• How much fun is your workplace?
  
• Is your workplace conducive to innovation?

Please leave a comment and let us know. :-)


As a special bonus, here are Scott Christopher and Adrian Gostick talking on The Today Show about the book:





My interview with "The Levity Effect" author Scott Christopher can be found here.


Don't miss an article - Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

11 Steps to Fight the 'God Complex'

Photo Credit: Sebastian Bergmann

by Glen Stansberry

We're all awesome, right? Well, I mean we didn't create the world or anything like that, but I think most of us pretty much have it going on. However, there can be some negative aspects of being creative. Creative people can sometimes struggle with mild cases of the God Complex.

The God complex is defined as a psychological state of mind in which a person believes that they have supernatural powers or god-like abilities. The person generally believes they are above the rules of society and should be given special consideration.

Do we honestly think we're a deity, or even better than everyone? No. But some creative people are quite susceptible to picking up at least a few of the aspects of the God complex.

And who wouldn't?

Creatives spend all day creating. It's only natural that on occasion we become a bit too wrapped up in what we're developing and don't spend enough time thinking about our surroundings. Here are a few ways we might fall into thinking more like a God and less like the mere mortals we are.

[I should note that I based this article off of my own experience. You may not struggle with any of these traits of the God complex, and I applaud you. You're a better human than me.]


1. We get lost in our own little worlds

The ability to create something very unique and imaginative requires a special set of talents. However, these talents sometimes have negative side affects, and one of them being tunnel vision. More often than not, we're only focused on the project(s) we're working on, and nothing else.

Have you ever seen a kid playing with building blocks, totally consumed with what he's building? It's a lot like that. The outside world doesn't affect us when we're in "building" mode.

How to fix it:

The easiest way to fix this aspect of the God Complex is to make sure we're thinking about the 'bigger picture'. In the scope of life, what we're creating isn't as important as our families, friends, or our health for that matter. Focusing on the fact that there are other important things in life help with our perspective. Staying up-to-date with world new and politics helps as well.

Also, it's a great idea to think about things in this world (the one where everyone else lives) that are bigger than us. I find it very humbling to reflect on the size of planets, stars and galaxies. In the scope of creation, I'm a tiny speck of dust. If that.

Does the trick every time.


2. We sometimes think our idea is better than everyone else's

It's hard for creative people to believe there might be two solutions two a problem. Our ideas have to be the best because, well... we thought of them! Our ideas are like our babies. We couldn't imagine having anyone else's. Wrapping our minds around another, completely different solution can be quite hard.

How to fix it:

Having an open mind is the easiest possible solution, but it's also the hardest. Putting ourselves outside the situation and looking at another idea objectively is an almost impossible task. Instead, try thinking about how your solution could benefit from the other proposed idea. That way you're not giving up on your idea, the other idea is assisting yours.


3. We become frustrated because "people don't understand us"

Nearly every time I try to explain my ideas to other people, I get a blank stare. It's quite easy to take the negative attitude that "nobody understands me, so why should I try to understand them?" It can be a vicious cycle of bitterness between you and everyone involved.

How to fix it:

If nobody understands my ideas, is it because I'm bad at explaining them? Probably. But it's also because the other person didn't have the idea. That's what comes with the territory of being a creative person. Don't sweat it Jack! Sometimes it's just best to show someone a prototype of your idea to get the point across.


4. We have a constant desire to be enlightened

Sometimes creative folk tend to go a bit overboard with needing to know about everything. Constantly learning (and sometimes flaunting this new-found knowledge), is a way for us to feel more competent and secure in our abilities. It's more about feeding an insecurity than anything.

How to fix it:

Sometimes, ignorance is bliss. There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to constantly learn. Learning is a wonderful thing, and we should always be striving to learn and improve. That's what life is. However, becoming obsessed with knowledge can be damaging. We'll never be fully enlightened about anything, so why obsess? It's just a waste of time, and I'd rather spend it enjoying my friends and family.


5. We can be a bit too competitive.

In Greek mythology, the gods were always comparing themselves to each other and bickering amongst themselves (with the help of unlucky individuals on the earth). In this same respect, creative people might be a tad on the competitive side. Let's be honest: we compare ourselves to each other, either subconsciously or intentionally. It's kind of human nature. We want to be the best.

How to fix it:

Showing a little spunk and wanting to be competitive isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's when we take it a little too far and it turns into an obsession. Being able to take a step back and show some self-control is a hard thing to do sometimes. In order to cool an overly-competitive nature, take a step back and think about the scope of things. Is it worth being competitive over? Odds are it isn't.


6. We might look down on others

This might be just my own personal experience, (and I hate to admit it), but if I'm honest I sometimes find myself looking down on others. It's not necessarily a conscious thing, but sometimes thoughts tend to creep into my head about how much better I am at something than Average Joe. If I can compare myself to someone else and point out their faults and superior I am to them, I'll feel better. It's awful, but it's true.

How to fix it:

The first step is to become aware that we're looking down on others. It really can be an automatic, subconscious thing. Stopping the comparison in it's tracks before it starts is the most effective fix. There isn't a hard-and-fast rule on how to fix it, other than starting to become aware of the problem. Once we're aware, then we can start thinking of ways to change how we think about other people.


7. We sometimes compare ourselves

Much like looking down on others, creative people can sometimes struggle with comparing ourselves to others. "I've got more hair than that dude. Oh, I'm skinnier than that girl. My designs are so much cooler than his." etc., etc., etc. Comparisons help prove that we are, in fact, superior to nearly everyone else in some way.

How to fix it:

This again falls into the "self-esteem" category. We're all different. We all have completely different strengths and weaknesses. Trying to point out our differences only helps pacify our insecurities. We just have to keep the mindset that we're all different, and we're all awesome. Period.


8. We can take our creations too seriously

I'm especially guilty of this one. Like we said earlier, our creations are like our children. We created them. There's a special bond, (even between something as seemingly insignificant as a bit of code), to something that you've personally created. When people criticize it or make fun of it, it cuts deep. Deep. Also, we sometimes find ourselves thinking that our creations are more important than they really are. Being a creator can make us very susceptible to the God complex.

How to fix it:

A great method is ask other close friends as to what they think of the idea or project. You need the input of someone you trust who's not emotionally attached to the project. Their opinion will really help you gauge how good the idea or concept really is. The more you practice this, the more it becomes less painful when someone doesn't like your idea. But ultimately, it's your idea. If you think it will work regardless, just do it. Sometimes people just won't understand your idea until you've put it into practice.


9. We can be bad at listening to others

This is generally because we get caught up in our own little worlds (#1) or we think our idea is better than the rest (#2). Regardless of the reason, sometimes creatives just plain suck at listening to other people (myself included). Talking to a creative person can sometimes seem like it's all about them.

How to fix it:

When we create things all day, it is usually all about us. It's about our abilities, talents, problem solving skills, and not anyone else. However, when we're around other people, we have to be extra careful of listening to others and including them in the conversation.


10. We feel unappreciated

Sometimes it feels that nobody understands or appreciates what I do on a daily basis. Being creative doesn't necessarily mean I have much to show for it either. So how do you explain to people the significance of what you do, if it's not pulling in a whole bunch of money?

How to fix it:

Creatives like me need to realize that people in our lives do appreciate us, they just don't always understand us or what we do. In fact, throughout history most people didn't understand anything creative people like Thomas Edison or Alexander Graham Bell did until years later.

I wouldn't do what I do if it was about making truck loads of money. We create because we love creating. That's where our affirmation really comes from.


11. We excuse our eccentricities

Yes, believe it or not, sometimes creative people are a tad eccentric. (I can already hear readers getting upset and ruffling their feathers.) Don't worry! It's not a bad thing! However, if we know about our eccentricities and don't try to correct them, it can be a negative thing. We can't think that we're above correction because of our creative minds. Sure, Einstein was extremely eccentric and brilliant, but he never made excuses for it.

How to fix it:

We have to take responsibilities for our shortcomings, and stop blaming them on things like creativity. A personal example: I used to claim that I "wasn't good with money because my brain doesn't think that way." I would say that to myself so I didn't have to take any accountability for my terrible bookkeeping. But I realized that I was just using it as a crutch. I've since gotten help and use financial advising to keep me on the right track.


Conclusions

A culmination of the above 11 points can turn a someone into a downright bitter person if they're not careful. Because we're mostly so focused on ourselves and our abilities while we're being creative, it's easy to start thinking inwardly and become consumed with our creations. Keeping ourselves in-check with reality is the best way to stay grounded and from adopting traits of the God complex.

It turns out we are but mere men.


Don't miss an article - Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Glen Stansberry writes at LifeDev, a blog that helps people make their ideas happen. You can follow him on Twitter here.

Innovation Perspectives - Educating Tomorrow's Workforce

This is the tenth of several 'Innovation Perspectives' articles we will publish this week from multiple authors to get different perspectives on 'What product or sector is in desperate need of innovation?'. And to close off the week, here is my perspective on education:

by Braden Kelley


"We need our children to be Masters of Mystery and Einsteins of Insight." - Braden Kelley

When I first saw this topic I wanted to write about education innovation, but I resisted when a couple of the contributing authors chose this topic. I wrote about the publishing industry instead, but then this week I came across a Phil McKinney article and had the opportunity to meet Sir Ken Robinson, and my passions for an education revolution were stirred.

We sit at the nexus of amazing new education technology capabilities, the globalization of work, and an incredible transformation in the needs of employers. The path forward is not the same as the road behind, but our education system is proceeding as if it were.

Instead of pursuing the current education mantra of more, better, faster, we need to instead rethink how we educate our children because we need to prepare them for a different world. A world in which flexibility, adaptibility, creativity, and problem solving will be prized ahead of the deep technical knowledge that is fast becoming a commodity and easily available.

I've said here on Blogging Innovation that the keys to business success are insight and execution. We are ending an era of incredible business focus on execution excellence and are entering an era of an increasing business focus on insight. Excellent execution will always be valued and required, but more and more components of this execution are shifting from the developed world to the lower-wage developing world.

We are currently in a race to the middle when it comes to standard of living as the developing countries like China, India, Brazil and others climb up the pyramid and developed countries like the United States, Italy, Greece and others slide down. Those developing countries wanting to stay near the top of the flattening standard of living pyramid will have to re-tool their education systems to to prepare their populations to grab as big a share as possible of the higher-wage insight-driven jobs.

Here is an interesting chart from a Newsweek-Intel Study reformatted by Phil McKinney:


Looking at the differences in perspectives between the American and Chinese respondents in the research, I came to two possible conclusions:

1. I am Chinese
   
2. The United States (and many other developed countries) are headed in the wrong direction and better change course on education fast

You may think that my views on education are too business-focused, but look even the arts are being globalized (look at Cirque du Soleil).

I believe that we underestimate children's ability to understand the real world and I think that the education system and the business world need each other more than they realize. We need to re-imagine our public-private partnerships and expectations when it comes to education, and we need to start educating today's young kids for tomorrow's world.

The fact is that we are pushing the limits of taking today's understanding of science to improve productivity an standard of living. Going forward we will need to break through currently held physical and natural limits and an expanded understanding of our physical and natural worlds. This will require a new generation of scientists and workers who can synthesize approaches from different cultures and disciplines, that are masters of creative approaches to problem soliving, and that have the entrepreneurial spirit to breakthrough perceived barriers. Are these the kind of students we're eduating?

What kind of students is your country educating?

As an added bonus, if you haven't seen it, I encourage to check out Sir Ken Robinson's video on "Creativity versus Literacy" here:



You can check out all of the 'Innovation Perspectives' articles from the different contributing authors on 'What product or sector is in desperate need of innovation?' by clicking the link in this sentence.

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Work Can Be Fun

by Kevin Roberts

I don't get a lot of free time, and that's the way I like it. For me it's never been about work-life balance, but always about work-life integration. Finding compelling and compatible work to who I am and who I want to continue being, and devoting everything I have to performing at peak, getting into flow.

In these new straightened economic times, we're all having to work harder, knuckling down to the task at hand, and making sure we're building a future that is sustaining and rewarding. It's not easy. But it's easier if you love what you're doing, and you're doing it all the time. Naysayers will say nay, but its actually easier than ever to devote yourself to what sustains you. All you need is a computer, and the desire to make a difference.

Probably nowhere in the world is this more clear than in my home of New York City, where once again, creativity is biting back and inspiring people to throw everything they have at their situation. I don't know if the people who run the http://www.overthinkingit.com/ blog do anything else with their day, but something tells me everything they do has to be fun. At least they have enough time to bring us the graph above.

Which is fun, and will get you arguing about rock music, Rolling Stone, or crude oil. Their blog is classic pop-culture with a semi-serious spin. It's fun for the readers, but what fun is it for the bloggers themselves? These people have created their world and devoted their time for their own enjoyment. It just so happens we love it too.

Our only way to make the long road ahead through our economic crisis run faster is to enjoy ourselves, to be creative in everything we do, and integrate work and life. Start today with something simple. Eliminate the reasons not to, apply yourself wholeheartedly, make sure you're smiling, and enjoy the (bumpy) ride.

---

Kevin Roberts is the CEO worldwide of The Lovemarks Company, Saatchi & Saatchi. For more information on Kevin, please go to www.saatchikevin.com. To see this blog at its original source, please go to www.krconnect.blogspot.com.

Create It and They Will Come

by Kevin Roberts

I've been amazed by the global enthusiasm for the iPhone apps that continue to proliferate around the world. Creating an app is as simple as thinking of something useful. It's the modern day inventor's route to riches, and the modern day consumer's lifestyle compressed onto a small device. The creativity just keeps on coming, and it has the consumer at the heart of every decision.

The Urban Spoon app lets you define the parameters of what you want to eat. Anything you'd like to leave to chance, just solve with a shake of the phone. Is That Gluten Free? will tell you what you're eating while you are at the restaurant. The World Factbook '09 can solve discussions over dinner. Then GymGoal can help you work it off. And on it goes.

These apps are the ultimate conversation starter. "Have you got this app?" The power of the idea is transmitted every minute through conversation. Phones have got the world talking, but few guessed it would be in this unique manner.

Where was all this creativity before the iPhone opened a space for it? Are we using the other screens in our Sisomo family with the same creative, open approach? Cinemas, TV's, billboards and bus stops are all waiting for the app magic. The future is wide open, and screens are everywhere. Let's bring the world's creativity to every screen, not just the little ones.


Image Source: http://www.walyou.com/blog/2008/11/28/free-iphone-apps-this-black-friday/

---

Kevin Roberts is the CEO worldwide of The Lovemarks Company, Saatchi & Saatchi. For more information on Kevin, please go to www.saatchikevin.com. To see this blog at its original source, please go to www.krconnect.blogspot.com.

Building 21st Century Skills

It Doesn't Matter How Long They're in School as Long as They're Learning Skills for the Future

by Kathie Thomas

Yesterday I wrote about the pros and cons of three-year college versus four-year college. That got me thinking about what we need to do to really teach our children to succeed in the future.

As the mother of two elementary-school-aged girls (and stepmother of three young 20-somethings), I believe one of my chief responsibilities is giving them the best possible education I can, one that will teach and prepare them to excel in all stages of life. I believe they need to be taught, at a young age, how to learn and solve new problems, and that known facts can change and learning never stops.

Therefore, it doesn't really matter how long they're in college - for three years, like U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) argued in Newsweek, or four. What matters to me is whether students are learning what they need to be able to cope and adjust in an ever-changing world.

Even Alexander admitted that "the average amount of time students take to complete an undergraduate degree has stretched to six years and seven months." One possible reason for this is that brains are still developing, even into a person's 20's.

In fact, in a 2002 report by ACT for Youth Upstate Center of Excellence (ACT), Dr. Jay Giedd of National Institute of Mental Health said this means that students "may actually be able to control how their own brains are wired and sculpted." And, according to ACT, a collaboration of Cornell University, University of Rochester and the New York State Center for School Safety, "kids who 'exercise' their brains by learning to order their thoughts, understand abstract concepts and control their impulses are laying the neural foundations that will serve them for the rest of their lives."

So why worry about school length when their entire future is at stake?

According to "Learning for the 21st Century" in 2002, American writer and futurist Alvin Toffler once said "the illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn."

"Learning for the 21st Century" is the first report and mile guide by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21), a leading advocacy collaboration "focused on infusing 21st century skills into education," which brings together the "business community, education leaders and policymakers... to ensure every child's success as citizens and workers in the 21st century."

According to the P21 Framework Definitions Document from May 2009, students should master the four following interconnected knowledge, skills and expertise in order to "succeed in work and life in the 21st century:"

• Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes: English, reading, foreign language, math, economics, science, geography, history and government AND global awareness, civic literacy, health literacy, and financial, economic, business and entrepreneurial literacy.


• Learning and Innovation Skills: Creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, and communication and collaboration.


• Information, Media and Technology Skills: Information literacy, media literacy, and information, communications and technology literacy.


• Life and Career Skills: Flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self-direction, social and cross-cultural skills, productivity and accountability, and leadership and responsibility.

To help school districts ensure that every child learns these skills, P21 provides them with self-assessments that allow them to plot where they are on the "spectrum of 21st century skills integration," chart a course for improved integration and better implement a 21st century skills model for learning.

Additionally, P21's Route 21 program provides educators with professional development and resources and curricula they can use to better teach 21st century skills to their students.

These are skills that are quickly becoming increasingly important today. They are essential not only to my children's futures, but to the future of the world. But many of them weren't even taught to 20-somethings when they were in school just a few a years ago - we didn't know we needed to teach them. We need to make sure that our children are being taught social skills, along with compassion for diversity and self-acceptance. They need to become deep learners who are passionate about new ideas and experiences. And they need to be competitive, to be able to stand up for themselves but also be humble.

It is my hope that these skills will help them find solutions that will make our world sustainable, not just from an environmental perspective, but from a social justice perspective. But I don't want the world to just survive, I want it to thrive. According to the Brookings Institute, education in any country has a powerful impact on safety, health and wealth. Education dramatically helps "reduce the risk of instability and lay(s) the groundwork for more stable, democratic political systems to emerge." If all children receive primary education, "as many as 700,000 cases of HIV" could be prevented each year. And, "every one percent increase in the level of women's education generates 0.3 percent in additional economic growth."

We already know that we live in a rapidly changing world. It is for that reason that our children need to learn to how to change with the world. As the original "Did You Know" video taught us, students today are being trained for jobs that don't even exist yet. And technology will have changed drastically by the time college freshmen become college seniors. It is crucial to our survival that we teach our children these skills.

Are your children learning these skills?

How are you helping them prepare for the 21st century?

---

Kathie Thomas is the Director of Innovation and a senior partner at Fleishman-Hillard. The global Innovation practice group Kathie leads offers proven tools and approaches for helping organizations and teams inject a new level of innovation and productivity into their strategic planning and program development.

Importance of Enterprise 2.0 Connections to Innovation ROI

by Hutch Carpenter

In a recent post on the Spigit blog, Study - Collaborative Networks Produce Better Ideas, I described the research of Professor Ronald Burt. He found that employees who are better connected across the organization generate higher quality ideas than those with limited connections. Wider access to the ideas, knowledge, experiences and judgment of colleagues makes employees stronger in innovation.

I posted this write-up in the Continuous Innovation group on LinkedIn. One person made this observation:


"Need to keep in mind that collaborative networks have little to do with technology. There are certain personality types that keep the organization connected. The proportions of those people in an organization is related to the specific corporate culture."


There's a good alternative perspective. That really, the same people that connect via collaborative networks are those that would be doing it in an offline world as well. The rest of the employee population likely continues to work in a more insular world.

I see it differently though. First, I agree that there are people with natural connector personalities. They would span the different parts of the organization no matter what. Anyone think David Armano wouldn't be one of those types?

But not everyone need be an uber connector to see benefits from plugging into a more connected network. My personal experience on sites like Twitter and FriendFeed tells me that everyone benefits from these online social networks. We may not all be uber connectors, but we do increase our degree of connectedness.

The graph below is my concept for how this effect manifests:



Assume a population of employees: 25 in this hypothetical example. The blue line is the level of connectedness for employees working the way they have for decades. Your connections tend to be local and departmental, with some tenure you gain a larger informal network. In Professor Burt's terms, most workers are relatively insular in terms of who they access for information and ideas. But some broker connections across different corporate 'tribes'.

The red line represents the level of corporate connectedness for employees including the ability to find others online. To me, this is a no-brainer. Of course people are going to connect with others they wouldn't have otherwise. The number, diversity and depth of connections increase.

The gray zone between the red and blue lines represent that improvement. Some people won't get too much increase. They really are in-person types of connectors. But others thrive in the online environment. They have more specific interests, and didn't know who else in the organization held them. Through the social software, they find more people with interests similar to theirs. Or at least with experience relevant to their interests.

Don't need to be an uber connector there. Just need to be able to make connections.

Next..the ROI math.


The Natural Logarithm Method

Take a look at the graph below. It shows the scatter plot of how ideas were rated for different employees (Y axis). The X axis represents the degree of connectedness for employees, based on actual social network analysis conducted by Professor Burt in his study:



The scatter plots show that employees who have a high diversity of connections across the organization provided higher quality ideas. The converse holds true as well.

Regression shows the equation that represents the observations:


Value of Idea = 5.51 - 0.91 * ln(Level of Network Constraint)


The equation shows that, on average, every increase in a person's level of connectedness with different parts of the organization produces higher quality ideas. Note the natural log curve. The effect increases as connectedness improves. What I like about that is that the benefits increase, even if the work of increasing employees' network diversity gets more difficult as you try to connect those last holdout groups.

Extrapolate the effect out to the organization at large. Raising the overall level of workforce connectedness will have a salutary effect on the average quality of ideas generated. In an era of ever higher levels of market volatility, improving the organizational 'innovation IQ' is a critical aspect of surviving and thriving.

One thought on the accelerating benefit - increased idea quality - as connectedness improves. In a large population, would this have any correlation to network effects?

It's not perfect, but Professor Burt's analysis demonstrates a strong ROI basis for leveraging social software to increase the diversity of connections.

---

Hutch Carpenter is the Director of Marketing at Spigit. Spigit integrates social collaboration tools into a SaaS enterprise idea management platform used by global Fortune 2000 firms to drive innovation.

Does Integrated Creativity Exist Today?

Where does it exist? D-Schools Or B-Schools?

by Idris Mootee

Someone asked me who the design head is in our company. I am not sure. My answer would be everyone. Everyone is a strategist and everyone is a designer (or design thinker) in our company. We understood long ago that strategy doesn't necessarily come from a strategist, and that a design idea doesn't necessarily come from a designer. Design wants to change the world and often ends up over-thinking and under-doing. Strategy wants to change the world but often is stuck in an old paradigm of management. Strategy, management and design are not what they used to be.

Strategy is distancing itself from competition and innovation is distancing itself from invention. Strategy now needs design and design needs strategy in order to have impact. I met John Maeda today and his idea of the difference between art and design is that design should be 'relevant' and art should be 'free', and design is 'producable' where art is 'imaginable'. Those are good observations.

Let's come back to business strategy for a moment, if strategy is predictable then innovation is unknown. Business schools are not very good at teaching people to see, imagine, conceptualize, and visualize the future. Design schools are very good at training people to imagine and ask questions, but terrible at understanding from a system view how the world works.

Strategys ultimate goal is to create power and exercise it to your benefit. Design's ultimate goal is to come up with solutions to a predefined problem. Art's goal is to ask questions and reflect on some of our paradoxes and express deeper concepts that sometimes words fail to do. If strategy is ultimately about effectively exercising power, the answers to these questions may convey a good deal about how we think strategically. There is ample ground to conclude that our ability simply to cope with, much less shape, a future of pronounced complexity, uncertainty, and turbulence will depend in large measure on the prevalence of strategic thinkers in our midst. Ideas and the ability to generate them seems increasingly likely, in fact, to be more important than capital and weapons.

We need thinkers that have the intellect to dissect the status quo, grasp the big picture, discern important relationships among events, understand causation and events, generate imaginative possibilities to inspire, and operate easily in the conceptual realm as well as understand execution and change. However, this kind of integrated creativity simply does not exist today.

As Maeda puts it, "Right now, our nation sees left-brain thinking, focused on logic and reasoning, as critical to future economic development. You can see this in the emphasis on the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) subjects. What's missing from STEM is right brain thinking -- embodied by what I call the key "IDEA" (Intuition, Design, Emotion, Art) subjects. We need both both halves of the brain to work together and channel brilliance through our hands, and to propagate ideas throughout our world." That's what we meant by the power of D-schools + B-schools.

---

Idris Mootee is the CEO of idea couture, a strategic innovation and experience design firm. He is the author of four books, tens of published articles, and a frequent speaker at business conferences and executive retreats.

Mumbai's Innovation Hub

by Vyoma Kapur

Innovation in the developing world, as many people may tend to think, comes from either large conglomerates or small entrepreneurial communities which have had the good fortune of venture backing. Especially in a free market economy, such as India's, innovation is often thought of as the mandate of thriving businesses equipped with the know-how.

In Mumbai, India's economic powerhouse, the real social innovation is coming from the grassroots. These are people, who despite having little, are the answer to Mumbai's mounting waste management problem.

The dwellers of the Dharavi slum, the largest in Asia, have created a massive recycling industry. Invaluable for the social impact it has created, the slum's existence is supported by high-strung officials and ordinary civilians alike. Using simple machines in their home factories, these dwellers are recycling anything from plastic bottles and metal cans to paper and cotton, saving the city from the wrath of its own garbage. Over 80% of the plastic waste of Mumbai is recycled in the Dharavi slum.

As the consumerism of Mumbai's upper and middle classes disposes of thousands of tons of waste material everyday, energetic young men of Dharavi sift through piles of trash to gather anything with the potential of being recycled. Different types of junk is given a new life and then sold for a bargain. With support from non-profit organizations such as ACORN International, rag-pickers are taught how to manage solid dry waste.

With an increasing number of micro-entrepreneurs entering the recycling business, this industry has seen an astonishing level of organic growth. The slum produces a jaw-dropping $1.3 billion worth of recycled output every year. There are approximately 400 recycling units, and the number is increasing every month.

Spreading across approximately 174 hectares, this slum is like any other. It lacks food and proper sanitation and is rife with squalor. For a few hours everyday, some areas of the slum are supplied water and electricity. Despite making only a fraction of the salaries earned by their counterparts in more developed areas of Mumbai, many of these dwellers are finally finding their way out of poverty through the huge demand for their services. Needless to say, environmentalists are in full praise of this green industry, a rarity in the hustling cites of India.

Having spent a few years in India, I find this commendable. I have not seen the Dharavi slum, however; I've seen many other slums, just like those depicted in Slumdog Millionaire. That slum dwellers could become social entrepreneurs within their own capacity to fight for survival never crossed my mind.

The Dharavi example made me wonder; do we always need a team of experts and comprehensive research data to innovate? Is it not about solving the problems in front of us and seeking ways to improve what is defined and traditional? To the Dharavi dwellers, the waste piled up around their homes was not a problem, it was an opportunity. They became rag-pickers and set up mini factories with whatever little they had. In time, they turned Dharavi from being Mumbai's biggest headache to one of its greatest assets, setting an example for similar communities around the world.

---

A marketing professional turned entrepreneur, Vyoma avidly supports and practices open innovation. Earlier this year, she founded Colspark LLC (www.colspark.com), a crowdsourcing platform to help companies tap into student talent for ideas and solutions.

Creative Capitalism + Social Innovation

New Social Enterprises That Make Money and Change the World

by Idris Mootee

We need more (and more innovative) social enterprises and I really want to see a top tier MBA programs with specialization in Social Enterprises. Call it B-school needs S-school. There are so many problems out there and sometimes we feel we are almost giving up. Our capitalist system is not adjusting well to these shocks. It is almost pointless for these endless debates on how things got to this point and who is to blame. The point remains: We've got to change it - and change it fast - and change it for the better.

The last thing we want to replace these problems with a set of newer problems, I've seen in many case when smart people think they have a solution, but they are simply migrating the problems. There is hope. The good surprise is that business - the same institutions that bear a fair amount of the responsibility for the current situation - is also the most potent force for bringing change. No government alone can make that happen. Businesses are powerful, if we can align the forces. There are hundreds of social enterprises are doing exactly that.

Who invented the social enterprise? Or the better idea is how do we reinvent social enterprises so they can be good business and good citizens. Not good business and bad citizens or bad business good citizens. Peter Drucker argued that in this post-capitalist society (not sure I agree with that tern), managers must learn to negotiate a new environment with a different set of work rules and career expectations. Businesses exist to serve social purposes, they have to function in ways that make sense to the society in which they are situated - and in the case of multinational corporations, they often have to function in ways that make sense across more than one society, at a deep level.

Social enterprises can change the world for the much, much better. If social entrepreneurs can navigate around the challenges and become some of the most popular brands of the world. For now, they need to improve the odds and make sure that they can proof that it works. I am very convinced that the concept works, it is just exceptional challenges that needed to be overcome. Some realities. I don't know the success rate of social enterprises. I don't think it is higher or lower than the average business. Like any business, social enterprises fail - because businesses fail. But how come social enterprise didn't scale - like many other businesses with successful business models?

The way I see it, it is not uncommon that traditional social enterprises did not attract the best and the brightest entrepreneurs, many are into the mission and not interested in the business. The other reason is there is a lack of appetite or aspiration for them to take it global or to a larger scale. And then there is the question of capital availability and time frame to achieve scale. Too many are forced to think survival, rather than innovation and growth. There needs to be series ambitions to make sure the social enterprises is leverage its mission and commitment to changing the world and transform our future. That's a big mission. And it is not mutually exclusive to pursue the mission and not ignoring the competitive dynamics of the industry that you operate in. What's the best example? Here is one.

Rubicon Programs is a $16mm social enterprise in SF focusing on helping with employment. It started initially as a drop-in center in Richmond, California, for very low-income people with severe disabilities. Their first social enterprises were very small programs that were seen more providing with some training than anything else. Today Rubicon has evolved into an organization that today serves low-income, homeless and mentally disabled people in the businesses, housing and services it provides. About one-third of the people currently served have a mental health disability, so its original focus is still a part, but not the largest part, of what Rubicon does. It is a one-stop shop for those trying to escape poverty. It not only helps clients find homes and jobs but also offers career, mental heath, and family counseling, as well as technological training and money-management programs.

Take Rubicom Bakery as an example, they produce a range of delicious cakes and tarts. The high-quality and handcrafted products are baked from "scratch" recipes and use only the best of ingredients including fresh-grated carrots, Maine blueberries, real butter and Dutch chocolate. We use absolutely no preservatives and our products include no transfats. The bakery also serves as a unique training center, preparing people for employment with Rubicon or other employers. Job training, counseling, and peer support provided in a dedicated baking workshop, classroom with audio-visual capacities, and a job search center with computer terminals help participants develop their work and life skills. Everything integrated, almost like the Cornell School of Hotel Management. There is even an online store too.

---

Idris Mootee is the CEO of idea couture, a strategic innovation and experience design firm. He is the author of four books, tens of published articles, and a frequent speaker at business conferences and executive retreats.

Creative Destruction and Newspapers

by Steve McKee

I love reading the newspaper. I like the feel of the broadsheet in my hand, the anticipation of turning each page to see what's next, and the sense I get of being plugged into the world through the rhythm of daily reading. I am a newspaper loyalist, and I'm an endangered species.

That, of course, is not news. Newspapers are shrinking and their circulation shriveling, like a mirror reflecting the Internet's growth and expansion. Politicians and pundits (including many newspaper editors and publishers) who aren't schooled in business don't recognize the absolute and inescapable law of creative destruction. They wring their hands as if what's happening is a tragic thing. I see it simply as the way of the world.

To a news consumer, the Internet offers many advantages over ink and paper, from timeliness to portability, affordability to dialogue. And for a generation of readers spawned in the wake of the Web, getting their news online is not only better than in print, it's more natural. Even old guys like me who love the sound of the thump on the driveway in the morning increasingly turn to our Macs and Blackberrys to keep up with breaking events.

But while the Internet is rapidly replacing ink, paper and newsstands, the Web is to news as an aluminum can is to Coke - a terrific way to deliver the product but not the source of its value. Newspapers are struggling because newspapers are confused - they forgot they were in the business of building an audience and focused instead on selling the audience (to the advertisers who increasingly bore their cost of operating). That was fine as long as they had a monopoly on distribution, but it led them to spend their limited resources on adding more ink colors rather than more color to their ink. Now that advertisers have (ultimately) infinitely more choices, newspapers are stuck.

But the answer isn't so difficult. The key to the future of the newspaper industry lies in its past. There will always be a market for news, and newspapers still have core competencies in gathering, reporting and interpreting what's important to their readers. If they do their job well, they'll continue to be able to provide the exclusive content for which readers will pay, regardless of whether or not it results in ink-stained fingers.

The more the newspaper industry focuses on 'news' rather than 'paper', the better off it (and we) will be. That will enable it to embrace evolving distribution opportunities and find new sources of revenue and competitive advantage. Just like every other industry must do.

---

Steve McKee is a BusinessWeek.com columnist, marketing consultant, and author of "When Growth Stalls: How it Happens, Why You're Stuck, and What To Do About It." Learn more about him at www.WhenGrowthStalls.com and at http://twitter.com/whengrowthstall.

Here's to the Passionate Creatives

"Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."

Apple ad, "Think Different", 1997




by Hutch Carpenter

Why did Apple's ad resonate so well with you? After all, how much time do we spend disagreeing. Admit how happy it can make you when your manager praises you for executing well on an assignment. I know I feel it. No "think different". More like "think excellence".

But that Apple ad. It was damn good, wasn't it? Seemed to reach inside us to something else beside the praise we get for doing an assigned job well. It was celebrating some thing in each of us.

John Hagel recently wrote A Labor Day Manifesto for a New World. The post is a call to action for work that better fits our human nature. Our desire for creating better ways to address problems, in ways that fit our personality, interests and skills. To reach our full potential. We're not all doing this though.

Hagel terms people whose personalities and drive are based on making situations better than what currently exists as "passionate creatives". There have always been these types, but recent changes in the global economy and shifting market dynamics (e.g. digital technology rewriting one industry after another) are increasing their importance.

Passionate creatives exist within organizations, and as independent entrepreneurs. For those inside firms, Hagel notes:


"They experience deep frustration today with the institutional barriers that have been put in their way as they seek to more effectively achieve their full potential. They want and need platforms that can help them connect with others and drive performance to new levels."


For many of us, even if we wouldn't label ourselves "passionate creatives", the point about frustration resonates. How often have you had an idea, but can't attention for it, nor resources, nor figure out who else to work with? I've had jobs like that in the past. You know some things are not working well, and you can see how to improve the product/delivery/business model. But you can't make headway on iterating through new possibilities.

Hagel's manifesto is a great read. I want to hit on two points I take away from it:

• What is the role of "passionate creativity" in daily work?


• The gathering of passionate creatives at the edges and the accelerating rate of change in markets

The Role of Passionate Creativity in Work

Very few of us get to live a life of unfettered passionate creativity. The realities of the mundane trump the thrill of the new. And that's not a fault of the system. If all we did was work on new stuff, there'd be no stability and no scalability. More like mass economic anarchy.

But that's too heavy handed a look at it. We can be quite productive and help our companies, and careers, while working on tasks that hit our passionate creative sweet spot. A good question to ask is, how much of this passionate creativity infuses our work days?



Take a look at those two Venn Diagrams. They're saying different things. The left one says that we all have to execute on tasks assigned by others, or assigned by ourselves for the role we fill. In some of that work, we'll have the opportunity to reach deeper, to deliver creativity on an activity that animates us. But the primary focus is executing on the plans and processes already in place.

The right one indicates a job which is dominated by passionate creativity. Hagel's call-to-action is more aligned here. We work primarily on things which stimulate and energize us regularly. But there is a twist to this notion. It doesn't mean spending one's time on only starry-eyed big picture thinking, producing little of tangible value for your organization. It includes work by those "who are searching for new and creative ways to do the most 'routine' tasks."

Which model of work are we likely to see arise in the next decade or two? Both. Neither. Yes.

Hagel's manifesto is not so much a clear-eyed plan for rearranging organizations. Rather, it's a wake-up call to the corporate world that the nature of work and what employees seek is changing. As he says:


"Why will more and more people evolve into passionate creatives? Because we live in a world that is shifting inexorably from an obsession with efficiency to an obsession with learning. We have come to call this the Big Shift."


In that statement, I draw some conclusions that relate which model above will emerge. First, note that the Big Shift is a shift in "obsessions". From efficiency to learning. That's a shift in attention, and in resources. It's a shift in the dynamics of the supply side of the equation.

What hasn't shifted is the demand side of the equation. Consumers worldwide still depend on the massive efficiencies that Tayloresque methodologies have brought to our economy.

So there's the quandary: if we're all working on things that inflame our passionate creativity, who is minding the massive scalability store?

My sense is that the Venn Diagram on the left is closer to what we'll see. Enlightened companies will follow the examples set by Google and 3M, encouraging employees to pursue initiatives outside their regular routines. This does a couple things:

• It provides an outlet for growing passionate creativity on a wider basis


• Some of those initiatives will turn into full-fledged projects

The second point then lets employees live a life in the right-side Venn Diagram.

Passionate Creatives at the Edges

Another point Hagel makes is that passionate creatives tend to occupy spaces that are "edges":


"Passionate creatives are everywhere among us, but they are not evenly distributed. They tend to gather on the edges where unmet needs intersect with unexploited capabilities. Edges are fertile seedbeds for innovation."


Reading this, I was struck by how well this fits with the observation that Gary Hamel made. The pace of change in markets is faster now than it ever has been in history. What this means is that Hagel's edges - unmet needs intersect with unexploited capabilities - will be more frequently found.

Companies need to get better in pivoting to meet changes in their markets. And this keeps CEOs up at night. IBM surveyed global CEOs in 2008, asking them about their view of changes in their markets. The results are eye-opening:


"Collectively, CEOs set their organization's ability to manage change 22 percentage points lower than their expectations for the level of change they will have to manage - a 'change gap' that is widening."


A wide 'change gap' there, isn't it? If Hamel identifies the problem companies face, Hagel identifies the types of workers who will make a difference in addressing the problem. The passionate creatives.

The edges are places of opportunity and uncertainty. It's hard to know what the demand dynamics are, and existing infrastructure and processes don't address the changing market needs. New alternatives are emerging, it's time for fresh approaches by existing firms.

Companies are best-served by allowing employees who are attracted to these changes to pursue innovative ways to address them. Why? They get energy. They get an experimenter's mentality. They get a happier workforce. Let employees exercise some form of self-organization to accomplish this.

The alternative may be incumbent staffers who have fallen into routines, or have reason to protect the status quo. This does not help companies address rising levels of volatility. Free the passionate creatives!

Passionate Creativity Will Fall on a Spectrum

My sense is that work will evolve, over years and decades, to allow people to shift attention to work that energizes them more fully. It will happen on a spectrum, with daily jobs that fall between those two Venn Diagrams above. Society cannot get away from the requirements of predictability, efficiency and scalability. We're all going to have elements of our jobs that are routine.

I think Hagel's post is right on though. It will be a slow change where companies integrate the existing passionate creatives more effectively, and develop the passionate creativity in all employees. Companies doing it well will need to celebrated and publicized repeatedly for the value to be understood more widely in the market. Over time, we'll see the change.

Note what G. Michael Maddock and Raphael Louis Viton wrote in this recent Business Week article. Passionate creatives like to "follow the challenges":


"Stop and think about the last truly great person who left your organization. First think about what made that employee great. We bet you name such characteristics as action-oriented, driven, passionate, fun, and genuine."


Now think about where that worker went. Chances are, to a position with a perceived promise of putting his or her talents to better use - moving into a role with greater challenges and opportunities to learn and make a difference. It wasn't about money.

It will happen. Here's to the passionate creatives.

---

Hutch Carpenter is the Director of Marketing at Spigit. Spigit integrates social collaboration tools into a SaaS enterprise idea management platform used by global Fortune 2000 firms to drive innovation.

Teach Your Children to Innovate

by Drew Boyd

Parents teach their children many things: morals, etiquette, religion, sports, cleanliness, walking, cooking, riding a bicycle, reading, writing, math, discipline, safety, driving a car...the list goes on and on. What if you could give your child the life-long ability to innovate? What a gift indeed. This issue surfaced after a string of emails with one of our blog readers who wants her child to learn innovation (thanks, Trish!). Can children learn a corporate innovation method at such an early age?

I've taught children how to innovate, and it is one of the most rewarding feelings you can have. I taught 6th, 7th, and 8th graders the method called Systematic Inventive Thinking. I was surprised and a bit unnerved how well they did. After teaching the five templates of innovation (over a five weekly sessions), each child completed a "final exam" by innovating a new-to-the-world product using one of the templates in just 30 minutes! I was amazed. The PowerPoint slides I used for this training are in the READING section of the blog if you wish to download them.

Here are some pointers for teaching your children to innovate:


1. Equate innovation to other skills-based activities

• Innovating takes skill just like sports or dancing. Don't let your children think innovation is some special, innate talent that only certain people have. This creates an artificial barrier, one that I see too often in the corporate environment, and it prevents people from trying to be innovative. Innovating is a skill, and it can be learned by anyone, even those who are not creative in the traditional sense.

2. De-emphasize patents

• For some reason, kids are fascinated with patents. They tend to see patents as the ultimate reward of innovation. Patents do not equate to successful innovation; rather, they equate to getting legal status regarding an invention. If a child invents something that has already been invented, this is a success. In fact, it is a huge success because it shows an ability to create novel ideas that have a track record of success. Be sure to reward your child if they invent something that exists. Send the message: if you can invent something that is already shown to be successful, you can definitely be the first to invent something new and useful.

3. Apply innovation across a wide variety of situations

• It is not just for inventing new products. Teach you children to apply innovation methods to things like writing a poem, doing school work, or getting dressed in the morning. Have them invent a new way to clean their room or play with a toy. Help them equate innovation with creating novelty in the everyday things. Make innovation a routine way to tackle new situations.

4. Distinguish between innovation skills and problem solving skills

• Both are useful, but are often confused as the same. They are related, but different. Help them see problem solving as what to use when the problem is very well defined and must be solved. Help them see innovating as the set of tools to use when new approaches are needed for an existing task. Example: Innovate a new way to clean their room, but problem-solve when they want to avoid having to do it.

5. Teach "ambidextrous" innovation

• Help them understand the two directions of innovation: Problem-to-Solution and Solution-to-Problem. Example: if the kitchen toaster burns the bread every morning, and they see a novel way to fix it, that is Problem-to-Solution. Other the other hand, if they imagine the toaster is like a TV that is "on demand," then make the connection that this would help mom get toast ready precisely when everything else is ready, that is Solution-to-Problem innovation.

6. Set an example

• Parents struggle teaching children anything unless the parents demonstrate those skills themselves. Whether it is table manners, proper grammar, or how to treat other people, parents must "walk the talk." Innovation is no different. Let children see how you and others, especially other children, use innovation methods to do cool things, fun things, important things.

(Pictured are two future innovators, Emerson and Margo, from Cincinnati, Ohio)

---

Drew Boyd is Director of Marketing Mastery for Johnson & Johnson (Ethicon Endo-Surgery division). He is also Visiting Assistant Professor of Marketing and Innovation at the University of Cincinnati and Executive Director of the MS-Marketing program. Follow him at www.innovationinpractice.com and at http://twitter.com/drewboyd

Innovation, Jazz, and Improvisation

by Stephen Shapiro

What do jazz and innovation have in common?

Quite a bit.

Many years ago, in 24/7 Innovation, I wrote...

"Most businesses are run like classical symphonies - long, with elaborate compositions (detailed workflows) that leave little room for interpretation. Employees are expected to follow these compositions rote.

Unfortunately, by the time they learn the score, the music would have to be changed. This organizational symphony no longer works in today's age of change.

Instead we need jazz-like organizations. Innovation is not random. In fact, it emerges best when there is a structure to nurture it, much like jazz in the world of music. Jazz is heavy on innovation ('improvisation' in musical terms). Just as innovation is not random, neither is improvisation. Jazz has a simple structure, like 12-bar, B-flat blues. It has a rhythm, chord progression, and tempo.

Businesses need much the same to succeed: Simple structures that allow innovation to emerge, in the moment, when it is needed most."

A little while ago, I attended a session at Harvard's Kennedy School led by Frank Barrett. The title of his presentation was "Cultivating a Culture of Creativity and Innovation: Learning from Jazz Improvisation."

He focused much more on music and jazz than on practical application to business. Regardless, there were some interesting points. He has seven 'tips' for improvisation:

1. Unlearn habits

• Be suspicious of patterns. He quoted Miles Davis, "If it sounds clean and slick, I've been doing it too long."

2. Say 'yes' to the mess

• No matter what happens, don't go into problem solving mode. There are no do-overs. Appreciate the screw-ups and figure out how to leverage them. He quoted Peter Drucker, "A leader's role is to maximize strengths so that weaknesses become irrelevant."

3. Have minimal structures that maximize autonomy

• See my quote from 24/7 Innovation

4. Embrace errors as a source of learning

• Builds on point #2. He quoted Miles Davis again, "If you aren't making a mistake, it's a mistake." I like that one.

5. Provocative competence

• This is my favorite. I wrote about this last year in an article entitled, "Relearning What You Know." His point is to add just enough 'provocation' to disrupt habits just enough to force creativity. His example was a jazz standard which is always played in the key of F. On stage, in front of a live audience, the leader counted off and said, "Play it in E flat." Although 99% of the song was the same, it was down one note causing band members to pay extra attention. Instead of playing rote, they were fully present.

6. Alternate between soloing and support

• On high performing teams, everyone leads some times, and follows on other occasions. Both are needed.

7. Strike a groove

• This is when the musicians are 'in the zone'.

These are great rules for any form of improvisation whether it be music or improv comedy.

After the presentation, someone asked, "What is the business equivalent of chord progressions?" For jazz to work, musicians need to know which chords to play when. This builds 'trust' that everyone will know what to do and when to do it. But there are few similar, unambiguous structures in business.

In a future blog entry, I will discuss my thoughts on the business equivalent of jazz and chord structures. In the meantime, I welcome any thoughts you might have...

---

Stephen Shapiro is the author of three books, a popular innovation speaker, and is the Chief Innovation Evangelist for Innocentive, the leader in Open Innovation.

Are You Crushing Creativity?

by Paul Sloane

CEOs have much more power than they realize. They can patiently create a climate of creativity or they can crush it in a series of subtle comments and gestures. Their actions send powerful signals. Their responses to suggestions and ideas are deciphered by staff as encouragement or rejection.

If you want to crush creativity in your organization and eliminate all the unnecessary bother of innovation then here are ten steps that are guaranteed to succeed. On the other hand, if you want innovation to flourish in your organization, then you should avoid or eliminate these counter-productive processes completely:

1. Criticize

• When you hear a new idea criticize it. Show how smart you are by pointing out some of the weaknesses and flaws which will hold it back. The more experienced you are, the easier it is to find fault with other people's ideas. Decca Records turned down the Beatles, IBM rejected the photocopying idea which launched Xerox, DEC turned down the spreadsheet and various major publishers turned down the first Harry Potter novel. The same thing is happening in most organizations today. New ideas tend to be partly-formed so it is easy to reject them as "bad." They diverge from the narrow focus that we have for the business so we discard them. Furthermore, every time somebody comes to you with an idea which you criticize, it discourages the person from wasting your time with more suggestions. It sends a message that new ideas are not welcome and that anyone who volunteers them is risking criticism or ridicule. This is a sure-fire way to crush the creative spirit in your staff.

2. Ban brainstorms

• Treat brainstorming as old-fashioned and passe. All that brainstorms do is throw up lots of new ideas that then have to be rejected. If your organization is not holding frequent brainstorm sessions to find creative solutions then you are not wasting time on new ideas. Instead you are sending a message to staff that their input is not required. If people insist on brainstorm meetings then make them long, rambling and unfocused with lots of criticism of radical ideas.

3. Hoard problems

• The CEO and senior team should shoulder the responsibility for solving all the company's major problems. Strategic issues are too complicated and high-level for the ordinary staff. After all, if people at the grass-roots knew the strategic challenges the organization faces then they would feel insecure and threatened. Don't involve staff in serious issues, don't tell them the big picture and above all don't challenge them to come up with solutions.

4. Focus on efficiency not innovation

• Focus solely on making the current business model work better. If we concentrate on making the current system work better then we will not waste time on looking for different systems. The current business model is the one that you helped develop and it is obviously the best one for the business. After all, if the makers of horse-drawn carriages had improved quality, they could have stopped automobiles from taking their markets. The same principle applied with makers of slide rules, LP records, typewriters and gas lights.

5. Overwork

• Establish a culture of long hours and hard work. Encourage the belief that hard work alone will solve the problem. We do not need to find a different way of solving a problem -- rather we must just work harder at the old way of doing things. Make sure that the working day has no time for learning, fun, lateral thinking, wild ideas or testing of new initiatives.

6. Adhere to the plan

• Plan in great detail and then do not deviate from the plan regardless of circumstances. "We cannot try that idea because it is not in the plan and we have no budget for it." Keep to the vision that was in the plan and ignore fads like market changes and customer fashions -- they will pass.

7. Punish mistakes

• If someone tries an entrepreneurial idea that fails then blame and retribution must follow. Reward success and punish failure. That way we will reinforce the existing way of doing things and discourage dangerous experiments.

8. Don't look outside

• We understand our business better than outsiders. After all we have been working in it for years. Other industries are fundamentally different and just because something works there does not mean it will work here. Consultants generally are over-priced and tell you things you could have figured out anyway. We need to find the solutions inside the business by working harder.

9. Promote people like you from within

• Promoting from within is a good sign. It helps retain people and they can see a reward for loyalty and hard work. It means we don't get polluted with heretical ideas from outside. Also if the CEO promotes people like him then he can achieve consistency and succession. It is best to find managers who agree with the CEO and praise him for his acumen and foresight.

10. Don't waste money on training

• Talent cannot be taught. It is it a rare thing possessed by a handful of gifted individuals. So why waste money trying to turn ducks into swans? Hire good people and let them learn our system. Work them hard and they can emulate the success of the CEO as he leads the company forward into the future.

---

Paul Sloane writes, speaks and leads workshops on creativity, innovation and leadership. He is the author of The Innovative Leader published by Kogan-Page.