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