Week 7 - Leading through Disruptive Times

“The key is to embrace disruption and change early. Don't react to it decades later. You can't fight innovation.”

- Ryan Kavanaugh

Week 7…it’s hard for me to imagine that in two weeks this journey will be over for the semester and I will be turning 40-years old…I had the goal of graduating with my MSLD before I turned this magical age, and although work and life had some challenges in store for me, I am still incredibly fortunate and lucky to live this life! I may be half way done with the required classes for this next achievement, but I certainly am not even remotely close learning to what this next chapter has to offer.

As I found while researching for our assignment this week, we learned that “to stay ahead of the wave…firms will need human, brand, technological, and financial resources to deploy against new and increasingly complex problems…” (Christensen, Wang, & van Bever, 2013, p. 112) so that strategically, leaders are able to strengthen their firm, differentiate themselves within the competitive marketplace, as well as learn to enhance an innovative culture that allows for a “…unique mix of talent and strength in solving interdependent problems…” that would be difficult to imitate (Christensen, Wang, & van Bever, 2013, p. 112). Moreover, as one classmate posted this week on the discussion board, our “…challenge is that it’s seldom easy to see where a new idea starts, where it’s going to go next or if it will ever stop developing” (Zeitz, 2015). I think that Dr. Edward Knab hit the proverbial nail on the head when he mentioned that “…innovation is a fundamental process in every business and organization” (Kanb, 2015), but we have to find sustainable ways to integrate and support this in a consistent manner in order for it to become a reality.

One of my favorite ways of identifying innovation would be by not only isolating what are the “…drivers of strategic action that can clarify what is needed for successful innovation” (McKeown, 2014, p. 156), but by also being able to collaborate on what strategy helps shape a better future for all involved by identifying the “…shortest route to desirable ends with available means” (McKeown, 2014, p. 156). We also found that techniques to generate innovation surround five basic ideas; envisioning a different version of the current state of the organization, idea generation surrounding and supporting the goal of the new vision which allows for various depths of exploration, argument ,discussion, and brainstorming on what the minimum expectations, results or needs will be in order to identify success, experimenting with the possibilities that will lead to the planned current disruption required to produce change, and modifying to adapt and ensure deployment and longevity within the team to emulate the desired strategic changes (Canfield, 2011).

My particular favorite uncovered tool was that of the 6-3-5 Brainwriting process. Brainwriting 6-3-5 is an alternative version to brainstorming that encompasses using “…six people, working to generate three ideas each five minute exercise” (Canfield, 2011, p. 133). The way the method works is by having six people in a group, which come up with three ideas during a five minute period. Each idea can be “…completely new, or can be variations of ideas already on the sheet, or can be additional developments to ideas already on the sheet” (uco.edu).

This week we are going to blog about the relationship between innovation and disruptive innovation from the perspective of leadership. As I mentioned in my research paper this week, I think that “innovation is about practical creativity” (McKeown, 2014, p. 147) and that half the battle that most leadership positions face is figuring out how to generate, and begin looking for new and innovative ideas (Values Centered Innovation, 2014). Innovation is about both creativity, coming up with the “big idea” as well as execution, which is traditionally where leadership tends to falter (Govindarajan, 2010). This is usually because most companies and leaders tend to think they are “…good at execution…” when in fact they tend to be “…good at execution of their core business…” (Govindarajan, 2010).

Additionally, this week we had the opportunity to explore disruption, and its many shapes and forms that allow for leaders to recognize the importance of change. As I posted in our discussion forum this week, I am able to see that the impact of disruption can actually be a rather productive and creative way to infuse critical thinking as well as innovation within the daily operations and functions of the workplace. Moreover, the importance of disruption was widely discussed; particularly how a “…systematic way to chart and pace disruption…” (Wessel & Christensen, 2012, p. 63) can be beneficial so leaders can learn to incorporate projects that can “…provide clearer ROI…revenue and market share…” into their strategic analysis (Christensen, Wang, & van Bever, 2013, p. 103).

As a classmate posted, we also have to be considerate in evaluating how disruption affects all of our shareholders; “many stakeholders were affected by poor management decisions during a time of disruption” (Sachar, 2015)and therefore we have to ensure that as leaders, in order for us to effectively manage and maneuver about disruption, that we “take stock of the entire situation; understand the market and their competition” (Sachar, 2015). I think one way to navigate this area from a perspective of leadership would be to include multiple areas of expertise all having a voice in how their teams interpret how the disruption will not only affect their daily operations, but also entail what unique ideas they collectively have uncovered during the trial and error phase once ideas have been put in motion to see which will ultimately be the best for the overall performance of the company. That way, not only are we including a variety of players from the field and purposely soliciting their inputs, but we are also making sure that many areas have the chance to research, reflect and report upon how incremental changes during the disruption period when not myopically approached and decided upon work in real time.

I cannot currently imagine a time or place when innovation and disruption would take place within my organization at the same time. I think that it could be overwhelming and confusing; too much change all at once could be too much of a good thing. I think it could definitely alter the way in which I lead for sure. As another classmate posted this week, “to maintain momentum in what is called a “wave of commoditization”…more human, financial and technological resources will be needed to combat the increasing complex problems…” (Palugod, 2015); therefore, if they were happening simultaneously, I think it would have to be done in a similar fashion to understanding that disrupters happen every day, in every industry and all the time. It is how corporations decide to respond to them is what ends up impacting our core business model and daily operations. And this is exactly where innovation steps in.

I think the best way to lead my organization through innovation and or disruption is that you have to be fluent in the organizational operations, understand whom are the experts that can be leaned upon for critical information during the decision making process, as well as understanding the idiosyncrasies of disruption can also coach us all into becoming “…savvy about assessing the jobs they need done and funnel work to the…most appropriate…” for the job (Christensen, Wang, & van Bever, 2013, p. 110). In order to incorporate this trend into our current business model, we need to practice how to strategize and innovate towards uncovering a well-known solution that has a fairly well defined scope in nature (Christensen, Wang, & van Bever, 2013, p. 111).

As I mentioned in my own posting this week, to mitigate the unsettling waters during disruption, that by isolating an “…autonomous business unit…” that is free from “…reliance on the parent organization…” will help us “anchor” as we attempt to change our current course (Christensen, Wang, & van Bever, 2013, p. 113). Secondly, we have to ensure that we find “leaders who come from the relevant ‘school of experience’ that will allow for engagement at a variety of levels as they face new problems (Christensen, Wang, & van Bever, 2013, p. 113). By allowing this area to set priorities and for them to have a separate and distinct allocation of resources coupled with “unwavering commitment by the CEO” it will allow for the core project group to be not only protected from the usual onslaught of red-tape and politics, but will allow for the team to “…reflect priorities different from those of the core business” (Christensen, Wang, & van Bever, 2013, p. 113).

Your ultimate goal with disruption is that you want your efforts to produce solutions that allow for previously “unsolved problems” to be defined, that gives you a “value-added” business process and obviously includes all of the imperative networks to gain strength within their respective structure, as change and disruption are both entirely inevitable. I think to a certain extent, the same can be true about innovation…but we have to remember the importance of execution. I think therefore, it takes more than one leader adapting and being open during this time…it takes an entire army of dedicated team leaders that have the resources and knowledge to know that they certainly don’t know everything about everything and let those whom do, lead in their own way.

Until we blog again!

References

Canfield, J. (2011). Imagine. Holland: Black Lake Studio, LLC.

Christensen, C., Wang, D., & van Bever, D. (2013). Consulting on the Cusp of Disruption. Harvard Business Review, 107-114.

Govindarajan, V. (2010, August 3). Innovation is Not Creativity. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2010/08/innovation-is-not-creativity.html

Kanb, E. (2015, May 10). Module 8: Impact of Lean Start-ups . Retrieved from Erau.edu: https://erau.instructure.com/courses/14127/discussion_topics/82448

McKeown, M. (2014). The Innovation Book. Harlow: Maverick & Strong Limited.

Palugod, C. (2015, May 3). A642.7.2.DQ - Xtreme Innovation. Retrieved from Erau.edu: https://erau.instructure.com/courses/14127/discussion_topics/48359

Sachar, A. (2015, May 3). A642.7.2.DQ - Xtreme Innovation. Retrieved from Erau.edu: https://erau.instructure.com/courses/14127/discussion_topics/48359

uco.edu. (n.d.). What is "Brainwriting". Retrieved from uco.edu: https://www.uco.edu/academic-affairs/cqi/files/docs/facilitator_tools/brainhan.pdf

Values Centered Innovation. (2014). TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES. Retrieved from Innovationstyles.com: https://innovationstyles.com/isinc/content/toolstechniques0.aspx

Wessel, M., & Christensen, C. (2012). Surviving Disruption. Harvard Business Review, 56-64.

Zeitz, A. (2015, May 3). A642.7.2.DQ - Xtreme Innovation. Retrieved from ERAU.edu: https://erau.instructure.com/courses/14127/discussion_topics/48359

Week Six - Practicing Creative Thinking Skills

“Passion is one great force that unleashes creativity, because if you're passionate about something, then you're more willing to take risks.”                                      Yo-Yo Ma

I had the best week ever!!! Week 6 was a boatload of reading and information, but I loved all of it! The best part of the week was driving up to Daytona Friday night for the MSLD meet and greet with our professors and some fellow classmates from previous semesters. Jamie and I had so much fun and it was so incredible to be surrounded by such brilliance! I am even happier to have finally met Matt, my mentor since the start of the program, and super blessed to have finally met Ed and Dr. P too – it really was an incredible night and I am looking forward to the next one. My mojitos were pretty great too…so not complaints there either.

Week six was a week of dynamic ways to approach and work with innovative ideas. I particularly enjoyed reading the DARPA article. I think the reason I was most impressed with this aspect is because most of the time, I don’t really always consider government or related entities rather intuitive, creative or ingenious. However, after reading and connecting with this article, there were several takeaways that resonated with me that can be applied for future learning opportunities.

For example, within the DARPA article, we found that being able to act swiftly, unconventionally, and effectively, such as a team of “special forces” do, we are able to uncover keys to effective and impactful innovation (Dugan & Gabriel, 2013). DARPA uses methodologies that include identifying ambitious goals, creating a temporary project team, mandating independence for the work team, specifically defining the project and how they will track progress, as well as hiring contractors, seeking out a “special breed of project leader” while establishing fixed time limits and tenure for members on the project team (Dugan & Gabriel, 2013). These type of hard and fast specifics that the team is governed by allows for robust knowledge sharing and engagement, allows the team to act independently of others motives and agendas, and moreover, by finding the right talent mix to be led by leadership that is able to determine “…what pieces of work are needed to produce a specific result, conducts a proposal competition, and contracts organizations to do the work” (Dugan & Gabriel, 2013).

Additionally, DARPA’s ability to recognize that there is a certain amount of scientific method that has to be applied to their analysis of each issue they embark upon, they were able think outside the box and recognize that “…problems must be sufficiently challenging that they cannot be solved without pushing or catalyzing the science” (Dugan & Gabriel, 2013) has certainly given them a leg up over traditional business structures and ways of dealing strategically within the organization.

Overall, the DARPA model embedded the reality that part of the failures of innovation within the corporate sector can be explained by understanding that “…traditional approaches to corporate research and development have difficulty consistently delivering breakthrough innovations” (Dugan & Gabriel, 2013) because of the fact that we tend to want to minimize risk, avoid disruption and traditionally, do not have the money, intellectual power and resources to dedicate a research group entirely devoted to going against the grain to uncover greatness (Dugan & Gabriel, 2013).

Next, we learned that “Innovation is about practical creativity” and how being practical does not always have to include linear models or tools for us to achieve this within our organizations (McKeown, 2014, p. 147). Each contributing idea, regardless of where it originated from with either add to or deter from varying levels of contribution (McKeown, 2014, p. 151). Here we identified that improvement is something that actually progresses the way we currently approach an existing solution to our problem. Whereas inventions are actually “…new ideas made into practical solutions…” that contribute to success and innovation from a whole new direction (McKeown, 2014, p. 151). Additionally, as emerging leaders, we are now able to see that “new generation” can uncover insight from a broader depth; it allows for us to see things as part of a whole solution, instead of just a component to a larger part of the system. Here we have to generate ideas that take more than just our version of what we define improvement as, and see how it actually integrates to the existing system. Lastly, we learned that “new systems” actually offer the same basic and principal idea, but allow us to solve problems in “..a whole new way” (McKeown, 2014, p. 151).

I think one common element that both the DARPA and some of the McKeown methods offer is that both must be flexible in nature to respond to changing needs within a fast paced environment, as well as offer the importance to leaders being able to respond, react and re-tool quickly and inexpensively. By using McKeown’s pyramid tool, we are able to see that each layer continues to look for more and more innovation at its deepest levels. DARPA’s entire foundation is based upon actually dissecting level by level to uncover the best results without risking rejection and rely upon what the science tells us…do we need to uncover more…or do we need to simplify the solution more?

As we found in our discussion this week while analyzing each other’s team projects, as one of my classmates posted, often times we get caught up in ideas and begin to “…argue too many choices can lead people to make unwise decisions, irrational, spontaneous decisions, or impede a decision at all (Zeitz, 2015). This is where another McKeown element can come into play; knowing what our minimum acceptable result needs to be for improvement (McKeown, 2014, p. 154). When all else fails, this allows us to find clarity and purposefulness within our work efforts. Knowing this key allows for the decision making process to result in a strategy that allows for “…shaping the future – or the shortest route to desirable ends with available means” (McKeown, 2014, p. 156).

Part of our strategic purpose needs to remain committed to breaking boundaries to lead us to amazing breakthroughs while exploring the challenges that will lead us to greater innovative ideas (McKeown, 2014, p. 159). We need to let others explore various challenges, generate as many ideas as possible, prepare for action, while delicately balancing and safeguarding “...the unreasonable passion and unrelenting playfulness on which radical creativity depends” (McKeown, 2014, p. 159).

This is the area in which I think our team project can use some work; we do not yet have full participation from all members, which of course limits our creativity at the moment. However, I think that even though only 2 of us have contributed work efforts, we may have gone overboard with our innovation…reaching for the stars…and we may have to tweak back and alter some of our current ambitions. We have definitely learned that in order for make invitation come to life, there has to be a variety of ideas, skills, and “…perspectives to explore the value and expand the practical elements…” of our newly born ideas (McKeown, 2014, p. 159). Our gap of perception and reality may be too broad to be successful at our current infant stage, however, I think that time and more team contribution will help us narrow our perspective to make our innovation a closer reality than its current state. I think my biggest downfall learned this module is that I fell into the “uniqueness trap” and added too many bells and whistles for practical usefulness to a broad range of users (McKeown, 2014, p. 161). I love to solve problems, and this class by far has had me stretching outside of my comfort zone to identify unique approaches in which to do so. But clearly I need more practice at my honing skill, which I am confident will come in due time.

Overall, this was my favorite week in the semester by far; I am so happy to have met the team in which makes my journey for transformational leadership skills a reality!

Until we blog again!

References

Dugan, R., & Gabriel, K. (2013). "Special Forces" Innovation: How DARPA Attacks Problems. Harvard Business Review, 74-84.

McKeown, M. (2014). The Innovation Book. Harlow: Maverick & Strong Limited.

Zeitz, A. (2015, May 1). A642.6.2.DQ - Discussion On the Draft Innovation Projects. Retrieved May 3, 2015, from ERAU.edu: https://erau.instructure.com/courses/14127/discussion_topics/48357

Week 5 - Making Smarter Groups

“Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose.”

― Bill Gates

Week 5…it’s hard to think that we are about half way completed with this semester. The work load was trying this week; trying to balance it all without just going through the motions was a challenge, and to top it off, our team project. I have so many conflicting priorities this week, but hopefully I managed well. This week our focus was on learning to cultivate a great team…a “volunteer army” if you will, that shares the passion and vision we need to accomplish great things throughout our organization while avoiding many of the common group pitfalls that arise. Of all of our reading, the one that I think held its own the best was done by Sunstein & Hastie.

One of the uniform messages throughout all of our reading was the importance of assembling the right team. As I submitted in our research paper this week, although Kotter and Canfield give us a great deal of information, Sunstein & Hastie’s approach to problem solving, progressing our groups towards success, as well as how we can specifically counterbalance the many ways groups begin to fail, offers an introduction, a process and a myriad of benchmarks to check our selves at every interval during the group improvement process.

Their keys, such as learning to “silence the leader”, “prime critical thinking”, assigning roles, and appointing a “devil’s advocate” (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014) has shown us this week that these types of elements, when identified, can insulate and protect “…group members from reputational pressures…”  (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014, p. 98) and thus reduces the likelihood that  the teams shared information, critical thinking, collaboration, and communications will become silenced or ignored at the detriment of the goals and accomplishments at stake.

As previously researched, leaders of innovation encourage a culture of critical thinkers, foster an environment that welcomes, supports and demands innovation and critical thinking, a workplace where leaders are consistently “…demonstrating openness to new ideas…”, as well as challenging our employees to “…develop deeper understanding…” of our business and strategic goals (Gobble, 2012). Critical thinking is imperative to creativity and innovation; “When engaged in high-quality thought, the mind must simultaneously produce and assess, both generate and judge the products it fabricates” (Paul & Elder, 2008). The Sunstein & Hastie perspective not only get into much needed detail, but also bring forth the science and psychology behind their methodologies and why they should work.

As I uncovered in my research last week, innovation comes from perseverance, “…focus, discipline and patience…” (Tobak, 2014) and a burning desire to identify challenges and remain committed to a solution focused culture. Leaders must understand that importance of critical thinking skills and their impact upon the entire process of innovation (Paul & Elder, 2008). Where I feel that Canfield began to lead us astray was as I posted in our discussion this week, our readings pulled together the idea of “strategic agility” and how important it is for leaders to learn to “…capitalize on opportunities and dodge threats with speed and assurance” (Kotter, 2012, p. 46). The Canfield linear model by definition then does not truly allow for agility, adaptability and restructuring as the team goes along the improvement process. Therefore, the Canfield model feels somewhat antiquated and complements a more rigid rationale or hierarchy of how things are supposed to work, entirely ignoring the necessary feedback and realities that come from growing pains, failures, collaboration and support of critical thinking.

Where both Canfield and Kotter complement each other, however, is by pointing out and supporting the importance of having a team in order to productively collaborate, in comparison, they more importantly both discuss how crucial it becomes once the team is actually assembled to find those whom are genuinely interested in building effective decisions “…while building effective support (Canfield, 2011, p. 61).

For example, as listed in my research and posted in my discussion, I mentioned how as leaders, we need to identify how to “build and maintain a guiding coalition…which is made up of volunteers throughout the organization” (Kotter, 2012, p. 51). This measure lends us the opportunity to see many perspectives of the big picture within the organization and allows us to “…process information as no hierarchy ever could” (Kotter, 2012, p. 52) while uncovering vital information deeply embedded within each units unique contributions and work efforts.

In contrast to Canfield, Kotter explored in greater detail that the eight accelerators discussed reinforced the steps taken usually drive a “…powerful core group…throughout the organization…to form a volunteer army” (Kotter, 2012, p. 47). This type of strategy which is the framework for the eight accelerators allow a “…dynamic force that constantly seeks opportunities, identifies initiatives that will capitalize on them, and completes those initiatives swiftly and efficiently” (Kotter, 2012, p. 47). Canfield in his work only merely mentioned “great team traits” but never truly delved into any dynamics of what makes a great team, why you want to establish a team whom is able to articulate a “…vividly formulated, high-stakes vision and strategy…” (Kotter, 2012, p. 54) as well as taking the time to align a team whom shares a commitment to the cause.

That being said, as I uncovered previously, neither Canfield nor Kotter ever mention the errors that often take place when groups are formed. As we read about this week from Sunstein & Hastie, “groupthink” isn’t the only shortfall we have to remain aware of (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014). Other areas that they dive into include that leaders need to remember that groups create their own problems by falling into patterns. This includes where the team will “…fall victim to cascade effects…” or becoming “polarized” where the team takes a stance based on whomever spoke or acted first or because they haven’t taken the time to focus on any other information in front of them because they “…focus on what everybody knows already−and thus don’t take into account critical information that only one or a few people have” (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014, p. 92). Sunstein & Hastie further complement the physiological needs of the group that Kotter brings into focus; Sunstein & Hastie talk about the human nature that can influence the groups progress, critical thinking and fallacies that come about when groups are formed and why they tend to “…go astray” and bias begins to unknowingly form (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014, pp. 92-93).

I truly felt that Sunstein & Hastie are able to articulate specific problems and solutions to  what happens with the group and what changes can be implemented to yield more practical, yet creative, necessary results.  They talk in great detail about how and why the problems occur and what “informational signals” leaders need to be tuned into so that “group members pay attention to the arguments made by other group members” (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014, p. 96) all in unison towards leading to a “smarter group” dynamic. They were able to discuss not only the problems and the ways in which the group actually tends to amplify them, such as groupthink, convergence, political correctness, intimidation, and polarization; they also brought to the table the science and tried and true ways that others have identified that the “…central goal in group decision making should be to ensure that groups aggregate the information their members actually have and don’t let faulty information signals and reputational pressures get in the way” (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014, p. 96).

In unison, however, as Crystal Cobb posted this week, “Even if a dual system isn’t a reality in my office, I think the overall sentiment is important. If you put your heart and effort into something you believe in, then the results will be more complete” (Cobb, 2015). In totality, both of the articles in conjunction with our texts this week offer us a great deal of information and as well as a multitude of solutions. Efforts such as trying to remove barriers (Kotter, 2012, p. 54), and preventing only leaders coming up with ideas and allowing others to contribute may help collaboration efforts and cultural dynamics to begin to be a way of life here for my facility.

All of our reading this week focused on things we know at face value, but seldom get the chance to dig into the “why” these reasons work. The accelerators show us, even by incorporating one of them into our repertoire, that these efforts can lead into grooming others to supporting the idea that we can all participate in successfully renewing, transforming and positively disrupting the status quo to “…create a better world” (McKeown, The Innovation Book, 2014, p. 96). 

Canfield showed us how we can, in some instances, use his linear model as a basic foundation towards process improvement. Kotter underlined the importance of underestimating the critical values embedded in forming our groups with just a few people in need of solving a problem, versus assembling a “volunteer army” for our cause that will spread throughout the entire organization. 

All four of our reading resources will no doubt prove invaluable to all of us as emerging leaders in one way or another; there is no one-size-fits-all plan that works in every situation. All points have their strengths and their weaknesses; as leaders we know we have to take the good with the bad, and apply what appears to work best at that moment. If what we decide doesn’t work, we can then switch to another prescription that may heal what disease has been uncovered at that exact moment and move forward until we hit another barrier to greater health within our organization.

Until we blog again!

References

Canfield, J. (2011). Imagine. Holland: Black Lake Studio, LLC.

Cobb, C. (2015, April 19). A642.5.2.DQ - Accelerate. Retrieved from Erau.edu: https://erau.instructure.com/courses/14127/discussion_topics/48356

Gobble, M. M. (2012). Motivating Innovation. Research Technology Management, 67.

Kotter, J. P. (2012). The Big Idea Accelerate! Harvard Business Review, 45-58.

McKeown, M. (2014). The Innovation Book. Harlow: Maverick & Strong Limited.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008, June 08). Critical and Creative. Retrieved from Critical Thinking.org: http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/CCThink_6.12.08.pdf

Sunstein, C., & Hastie, R. (2014). Making Dumb Groups. Harvard Business Review, 90-98.

Tobak, S. (2014, October 16). Where Does Innovation Come From? Retrieved from Entrepreneur.com: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/238545

Week 4 - The End of Innovation

“We have to continually be jumping off cliffs and developing our wings on the way down.”

― Kurt Vonnegut

Week 4 was an exciting week for sure. We ran the race of trying to incorporate the balance of creativity and critical thinking, as well as several fallacies associated with the innovation process and the contemplation of the end of innovation if we do not take action now during the Ted Talk with Robert Gordon.

Can Innovation save us? Innovation could come to the rescue; as Gordon discusses, the invention of electricity catapulted many offshoots of innovation and additional invention. For example, we went from using kerosene lanterns to electricity (Gordon, 2013). Electricity allowed for the invention of power tools and conveniences such as elevators and washing machines, stoves and refrigerators (Gordon, 2013). 

We went from horses and buggies to the automobile, and eradicating waterborne diseases by developing running water and hygiene standards for better healthier consumption. We have already learned this semester that innovation and creativity do not solely rely upon the next “aha!” moment of monumental proportion. As Gordon mentions in his TED talk, he believes that there are four “headwinds” affecting growth include demographics, education, debt and inequality (Gordon, 2013) which are “…all powerful enough to cut growth in half…” and need innovation to make up the gap in the decline (Gordon, 2013).

As his discussion progresses, he touches on how innovation is powerful; if it becomes less powerful and less involved in the process of growth, then growth will be even less than half (Gordon, 2013). Without the captivation of the innovation process, “Americans can no longer expect to double the living standard of their parents” (Gordon, 2013). This means no matter how hard we work, will never be able to increase our worth or our actual income.

For example, demographics changed when women entered the workforce, but as we continue to age, so do the baby-boomers and therefore what are we replacing our workforce with? What is being lost as they retire? Additionally, the cost of higher education and inflation continues to stifle all demographics from being able to pursue their version of the American dream (Gordon, 2013). The actual college completion rate compared to the actual debt students carry to show for it is abominable. How can a college student realistically pay back hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt by only making $35,000 - $55,000 right out of school due to lack of practical experience? This also ties into the mal distribution of wealth that primarily lies with the 1%’ers. Moreover, innovation and creativity come from more than just the “technological revolution” (Gordon, 2013) that many from my Gen-X roots have come to embrace, but also from a multitude of failures.

As we posted and discussed this week, innovation takes a great deal of work and resources. Being able to identify working hard towards innovation requires us to be able to measure the “…intensity, effectiveness and richness of collaboration…” (McKeown, 2014, p. 94). Some of the ways discussed regarding how to “…innovate more effectively” (McKeown, 2014, p. 89) requires measuring, calculating, monitoring, and reviewing during the process. 

As we found out, calculating talks about the inputs, resources and "direct investment” that is required to be invested in your innovative idea (McKeown, 2014, p. 89). Next, monitoring gives us the chance to evaluate how well something is being done in “real time” so we can decide what changes or tweaks become necessary as new information begins to unfold during our journey (McKeown, 2014, p. 89). Lastly, we can review “…the impact” of our efforts, as well as have the opportunity to evaluate if our strategy is working, has it helped shaped a “better future” and did we accomplish our purpose that originated our efforts from the beginning (McKeown, 2014, p. 89).

Additionally, in our supplemental readings this week, we were exposed to the common fallacies and myths regarding product development and innovation cycle process from a manufacturing perspective.  One crucial point that stuck out for me was that we have to be willing to accept constant change during the innovation process due to the “unpredictable” aspects regarding when tasks will be completed, what resources it will require and how long the learning curve will take to implement with our teams (Thomke & Donald, 2012, p. 86). This really hit home for me as I was reading because healthcare is very unpredictable, unlike most manufacturing businesses. There is a high variability from department to department, specialty skill set to skill set, as well as clinical requirements that do not universally apply to the vast majority of our departments here; we would not really be able to have broad stroke implementation of changes or procedures without a great deal of personification of needs – it would have to be innovation that was organic and flexible without a doubt.

As I uncovered in my research this week, Innovation comes from within each of us; it can come from failure or our need to make something easier or help a teammate out. Innovation comes from perseverance, “…focus, discipline and patience…” (Tobak, 2014) and a burning desire to identify challenges and remain committed to a solution focused culture. Leaders must understand that importance of critical thinking skills and their impact upon the entire process of innovation (Paul & Elder, 2008). Without purposeful thought, the cultivation of creativity would not only lack environmental support, but moreover, “…careful examination…” shows us that critical thinking skills and “…creative thought are intimately related” (Paul & Elder, 2008).

Developing creative thinking skills allows for employees to learn how to make better decisions, gives them the ability to approach challenges with greater day-to-day process understanding, as well as fosters a culture within our organization that “…values, nurtures, and rewards creative solutions” (Harvard Continuing Education, 2014-15). One area, originally that I had never thought of in great detail, is the idea that “…too much management strangles innovation…” (Gobble, 2012) and as another classmate pointed out, "When it all comes down to it, however, innovation may be a simply as thinking differently and adjusting our behaviors to accommodate the difference" (Zeitz, 2015).

As Gordon jokes, we get one, and only one, of two options. If we had a choice to keep everything that had been invented in the world up to about ten years ago, like running water, heat, electricity, and some modern conveniences like Google and Wikipedia (Gordon, 2013) or we can select option two which would include things like Facebook but then go back to using an “outhouse” which would we benefit more from? His underlying message is being able to uncover the value these give us in proportion to the future we wish to create. Our challenge as leaders and agents of change is being able to at least “match” what has already been achieved by transforming and redirecting our perceptions for what brings value to us in the future. I am willing to give up my iPhone to keep my running water and car! Just because something is new and trendy, has already proven that it doesn’t mean it is the best long-term solution for everyone.

Until we blog again!

References

Gobble, M. M. (2012). Motivating Innovation. Research Technology Management, 67.

Gordon, R. (2013, February). Robert Gordon: The death of innovation, the end of growth. Retrieved from TED.com: http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_gordon_the_death_of_innovation_the_end_of_growth?nolanguage=en%29#t-59680

Harvard Continuing Education. (2014-15). Creative Thinking: Innovative Solutions to Complex Challenges. Retrieved from Harvard.edu: http://www.dce.harvard.edu/professional/programs/creative-thinking-innovative-solutions-complex-challenges?gclid=Cj0KEQjwpM2pBRChsZCzm_CU0t4BEiQAxDVFmhCRhexEgq67ZM_Km2Hr9ob5xAXy88bsO30VnmIHckcaAlkk8P8HAQ

McKeown, M. (2014). The Innovation Book. Harlow: Maverick & Strong Limited.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008, June 08). Critical and Creative. Retrieved from Critical Thinking.org: http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/CCThink_6.12.08.pdf

Tobak, S. (2014, October 16). Where Does Innovation Come From? Retrieved from Entrepreneur.com: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/238545

Zeitz, A. (2015, April 13). A642.4.2.DQ - The hard work of innovation. Retrieved from ERAU.edu: https://erau.instructure.com/courses/14127/discussion_topics/48354

Week 3 – Lessons Learned

“Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.”

−General George Patton

Week Three and we are just trucking along on our quest and uncovering the potential pitfalls regarding creating an innovative environment. During Week Three of this semester, we were tasked with interviewing people in our organization regarding current processes that encourages others to foster or participate in the innovation process. What I found was that unfortunately, most of my counterparts felt that the healthcare environment generally does not allow for a great deal of freedoms in how we perform our clinical functions or daily operations throughout our facility (Torres, 2015).

However, one of the many ways we can introduce a culture of innovation is by “…hiring talented people…” which can be seen as the “…first step in cultivating an innovative and creative environment” (Forbes.com, 2012). Many of us have heard before that our greatest asset is our people. So why is it that we think the only way to positively impact our bottom line is directly through cost saving efforts or reducing headcount when the going gets tough?

As I identified in my research paper this week, leaders are tasked with the responsibility for creating a “…workplace…in which innovation can flourish and thrive” and can do so by finding “…the right combination of people, processes and focus” by purposely seeking out “…diverse candidates who are aligned with a common mission…” (Fallon, 2014).

But not the entire future of the company can solely rest upon just middle management; some research has shown that innovative organizations maintain diligent focus on key areas such as“...deliberately managing the innovation process; engaging in leadership practices that…involve a diverse collection of skills, styles, and talents; and intentionally working to establish appropriate conditions to encourage and sustain creative efforts” (Isaksen, Aerts, & Isaken, 2009). As one of our classmates pointed out in our discussions this week, “The best ideas come at the right time, in the right place, and in the hands of the right people.” (Gaudiomonte, 2015).

There were a few standouts, that I can continue to work towards to promote and to “…create the most desirable work setting…” without compromising the framework required for essential operational functions and patient safety (Marquez, 2015). Additionally, I can continue to work hard at the “…removal of confining barriers that tend to exist due to strict compliance regulations…” without retracting from the employee’s motivation to work and the patient experience while at our facility (Marquez, 2015). After speaking with Maria, Rana and Marlene, I think the three largest areas of focus for my particular business unit need to focus around building a safer environment for employees to share their ideas, not just with me behind closed doors, but also with others. I am completely on board if everyone does not see eye-to-eye on a subject, but I want to make sure that my team can respectfully disagree and present conflicting points of view, no matter how crazy they may be, without the worry of judgment or punishment. From a management perspective, I need to do a better job to identify people that are wanting and needing more−and specifically discuss their needs within their current roles. I want to figure out what makes my team tick so they can feel better about what they do and how they contribute to our overall goals, of course. But I am finding myself wanting to create a place that comforts, invites, and rewards their unique efforts and ideas…creating the byproduct of a great place to want to come in and work hard each and every day!

As we learned from Delta Airlines, I posted that if we can identify the culture we are surrounded in, maximize the eclectic mix of the “right” employees, and foster “…new ways of thinking about our organizational structure and operations…” to harness our efforts and focus to surround an organic environment that promotes innovation, we may have the opportunity “…to get employees invested…” as a “…deliberate process…” to complement our goals and initiatives as leaders (Anderson, 2014). I truly learned how much I want to invest more time in my employees, even though I don’t have it, what a great gift I can give each of them to show I am invested in them, as much as their future with our team. Just like Delta found that because of their unique corporate culture, they attracted unique talent and strategies that work due to their “…determination to apply innovative thinking throughout the organization” (Anderson, 2014). I want to learn how to attract the same kind of talent that will breed new tricks into my old dogs! This investment of time in my employees will hopefully do the same as Delta found…created a culture where the employees become invested in what they do, whom they do it with, with a vision geared towards innovation that provides meaning and purpose in what they do.

Until we blog again!

References

Anderson, R. (2014, December). Delta’s CEO on Using Innovative Thinking to Revive a Bankrupt Airline. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2014/12/deltas-ceo-on-using-innovative-thinking-to-revive-a-bankrupt-airline

Fallon, N. (2014, June 04). Innovation in the Workplace: How to Harness It. Retrieved from Business News Daily: http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/6535-workplace-innovation.html

Forbes.com. (2012, December 31). 6 Ideas To Promote Innovation In Your Workplace This Year. Retrieved from Forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2012/12/31/6-ideas-to-promote-innovation-in-your-workplace-this-year/

Gaudiomonte, P. (2015, April 10). A642.3.2.DQ - Making new ideas useful.

Isaksen, S., Aerts, W., & Isaken, E. (2009). CREATING MORE INNOVATIVE WORKPLACES: LINKING PROBLEM-SOLVING STYLE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE. Creativity Research Unit.

Marquez, M. (2015, April 09). Director of Patient Access. (S. Cassano, Interviewer)

Torres, M. (2015, April 7). Administrative Director of Nursing. (S. Cassano, Interviewer)