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)

Week 2 - Organizing for Innvoation

"To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science." — Albert Einstein 

It is hard to believe that it is the end of week 2 of our new semester! 

We seem to have a very engaged team, and I am truly looking forward to all this new class has to offer. So far we have hit the ground running…in typical MSLD fashion…and are already uncovering a great many topics, such as this week, surrounding around innovation and organizational impacts. 

This week we learned that building a bigger brain, as it relates to our innovative mind, requires us to recognize that there is no “one-size-fits-all” magical potion that can be sprinkled on every organization in order to identify solutions to improvement that universally work best for all businesses (McKeown, 2014, p. 35). As our reading this week also demonstrated, there are multiple ways in which we can attempt to approach what actions can be taken to show how complexity science can be used within an organization. Moreover, leaders can learn to identify what actions can be taken individually and collectively within the organization, what areas should be taken under for important consideration, as well as how this knowledge can create opportunity and the positive impacts that can take place within the organization as a whole. This can be done by understanding critical concepts, such as “open innovation”. Open innovation we learned one of many ways leaders can harness ideas that are solution oriented towards business goals based upon “…building networks of innovation outside the formal organization” (McKeown, 2014, p. 36). 

As mentioned in my research assignment this week, I have personally found that my “grapevine” connections often lend me support and necessary knowledge within my current leadership role that has given me an advantage over my predecessors. But one resonating factor I have come across consistently in the six years I have been with Tenet is that we do a lousy job of fostering an environment of thinkers…instead we lay heavy with deadweight “do-ers” that tend to lack in critical thinking, let alone innovation driven culture. This is partly because we are a highly litigious society encumbered by a great deal of red tape, policy, procedure, and riddled with service bulletins on best practices in healthcare. Most efforts fall by the side of the road due to what small liberties we do have become inundated to an overwhelming amount of work and a hawk’s eye management style gauged towards managing our business by our P&L and productivity reports. 

Yes, although all businesses must keep close tabs on their productivity and bottom line, the fact of the matter is healthcare is a highly specialized beast of a corporation that costs upwards of several million dollars a month to be operational and breakeven in labor costs, let alone in the black for overall plant operations. This comes from a great deal of schooling, certifications and state examinations that drive up costs of labor, licensing, even simple items such as light bulbs or television sets must be re-certified as healthcare grade to meet standards. Everyone interested in making a buck drives up the cost of healthcare…not just those that cannot afford insurance…even with their new Affordable Care Insurance provided by President Obama. 

Innovation would be incredibly useful and effective, even in healthcare, as we found in our readings and discussions this week, cultural foundations such as supporting “open innovation” allows leaders to create a culture surrounded by the ideas that can come from anyone and from anywhere in our organization. This type of open and active engagement can positively impact grater employee loyalty and commitment, as well as focused engagement and growth. My organization claims that, “By fostering an environment that embraces innovation, we’re able to accomplish amazing things.” (Tenet Healthcare, 2014). Tenet attempts to do this by, “Leveraging new technologies. Introducing new treatments. Developing new facilities. And creating new healthcare solutions for our patients, physicians and employees.” (Tenet Healthcare, 2014). 

However, the reality is that much of this never has the opportunity to trickle down to the individual healthcare facilities under the Tenet umbrella. As leaders, and our commitment to life-long learning, we know that intuitively “…new ideas start coming from new people” (McKeown, 2014, p. 39) and that our approach to becoming a more innovative culture and developing creative partnerships requires us to “…encourage problem-solving at all levels inside and outside the organization” (McKeown, 2014, p. 40). What we tend to find is that many people in healthcare have been in the business for many years. This also means that typically they learned one way to do something, are quite often resistant to any changes in the process, and when asked why we do something, the response usually centers around “…I don’t know, that is the way we have always done it…”. 

Therefore, when it comes to innovation, my current opinion, rests somewhere between talking the talk, and seldom are we walking the walk. As classmate Amanda Zeitz pointed out in her posting, sometimes businesses, managers, or companies, can “…claim to be forward and innovative…” (Zeitz, 2015). This can be the most tragic of downfalls when companies are trying to become innovative. More importantly, Zeitz points out the beautiful simplicity surrounding success in business is about people; not just people in the organization that are actually doing the work, but that, “…positive effects are most often experienced when you can help each person see and understand their purpose in the organization” (Zeitz, 2015). You might say that our success as leaders regarding innovation and incremental improvements is relative to the attitude of our senior management team supporting us and a culture that welcomes new takes on old ideas…or just welcoming and encouraging new ideas from all levels within our organization. “The speed of disruption is also the trigger that is causing entire industries to think about how to re-purpose what they have…” and not only redefine themselves, but also the expectations of their current talent level found within the organization (MacFarland, 2013). 

I think that overall, because healthcare is culture clinging deeply to policy and procedure, it may forever be a losing battle to attempt to innovate radical change. But what I can continue to do and promote is a business office culture that is not only welcoming to, but encouraging of innovation through our employees. And I can do this by demanding and creating a culture that welcomes innovation thinkers and participants (Spender & Strong, 2010). As I found out this week within our assignments, one of the most relevant ways of blossoming ideas and generating enthusiasm that I can contribute is to a continual environment of “open innovation”. Open innovation will promote my goals of creating a culture surrounded by the ideas that can come from anyone and from anywhere in our organization. My hope in doing this is that my team will experience focused engagement, commitment and growth. Because there is not really a formal or informal process for me to evaluate as it relates to innovation, I can entirely see why instilling a culture that envelopes the importance of innovation is helpful, meaningful, and required to stay current within the marketplace. What I learned this week was that everyone can be innovative and contribute something, regardless of their level within the organization and those ideas can literally come from anyone and anywhere which can in and of itself, be seen as encouraging and motivational (McKeown, 2014, p. 55). I also learned that the more key front-line people involved, the more chances of you uncovering unique ideas and approaches to problem solving. 

This philosophy, which breaks away from the traditional hierarchal idea that the upper echelon knows everything there is to know about the business, shows us that “…front line employees…are well placed to find problem-insights…” (McKeown, 2014, p. 36) and can be highly motivated and incentivized to identify work and team fostering solutions because they are the persons tasked with the daily responsibilities within the business unit and have a sense of expertise within their roles. This building of team unification and outward communication can bring a sense of closeness and purposefulness to all involved. I have been looking forward to this class for almost a year, and I truly am excited about the challenge of the next seven weeks! Until we blog again… 

"To be creative you have to contribute something different from what you've done before. Your results need not be original to the world; few results truly meet that criterion. In fact, most results are built on the work of others." — Lynne C. Levesque Breakthrough Creativity