Don’t we all enjoy to be part of an innovative working environment? Innovative cultures are generally portrayed as pretty fun. They are also fairly hard to create, facilitate and sustain. How come?
The easy-to-like behaviors that get so much attention are only one side of the coin. Innovative cultures are paradoxical. They must be counterbalanced by some tougher and frankly less fun behaviors, according to research of Harvard Business School Professor Gary Pisano. As reported by Pisano, the following seemingly paradoxical statements entail the hard truth about innovative cultures:
- A tolerance for failure requires an intolerance for incompetence.
- A willingness to experiment requires rigorous discipline.
- Psychological safety requires comfort with brutal candor.
- Collaboration must be balanced with an individual accountability.
- Flatness requires strong leadership.
Tolerance for failure but no tolerance for incompetence
You often don’t know what you don’t know, and you have to learn as you go. “Failures” under these circumstances provide valuable lessons about the next steps. A failure should only be celebrated if it results in learning. The transparency on the learnings is what counts. Creating a culture that simultaneously values learning through failure and outstanding performance is difficult in organizations with a history of neither.
For all their focus on tolerance for failure, innovative organisations are intolerant of incompetence. They set exceptionally high performance standards for their people. People who don’t meet expectations are either let go or moved into roles that better fit their abilities. This sounds harsh, but it reflects organizations should put their money where their mouth is. The organization should raise its standards for hiring, HR and talent management. It is essential to have the right people with the right capacities working in the right role. But after that, also fully trust them to deliver. Management should quit the command and control behaviors if you ask me.
Willingness to experiment but highly disciplined
Organizations that embrace experimentation are comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. They experiment to learn. I particularly like the metaphor used by Pisano here. A willingness to experiment, though, does not mean working like some third-rate abstract painter who randomly throws paint at a canvas. Discipline-oriented cultures experiment carefully. They establish clear criteria, like business cases, and face the facts generated by experiments.
Senior leaders need to model discipline by, for example, terminating projects they personally championed or demonstrating a willingness to change their minds in the face of the data from an experiment. Being more disciplined about killing losing projects makes it less risky to try new things. This is behavior that I have rarely seen in organizations. In general more projects or experiments are started and/ or less successful ones might die silently for a lack of follow up. It is hard to kill your darlings, but in some cases essential at the same time.
Psychologically safe but brutally candid
Psychological safety is an organizational climate in which individuals feel they can speak truthfully and openly without fear of reprisal. Psychologically safe environments also support learning and innovation in organizations. Unvarnished fairness is critical to innovation because it is the means by which ideas evolve and improve.
When it comes to innovation, the candid organization will outperform the nice one every time. The latter confuses politeness and niceness with respect. There is nothing inconsistent about being frank and respectful. In fact, I would argue that providing and accepting frank criticism is on of the hallmarks of respect. Interesting question for managers: how often do you demand criticism from your direct reports?
Collaboration but with an individual accountability
Accountability and collaboration can be complementary, and accountability can drive collaboration. Oftentimes, collaboration gets confused with consensus. Ultimately, someone has to make a decision and be accountable for it. An accountability culture is one where individuals are expected to make decisions and own the consequences. When everybody is responsible, no-one is. A feeling of ownership is key to move forward.
Flat but strong leadership
Breaking big bureaucracies into smaller units doesn’t magically create an innovative spirit. Also, lack of hierarchy, doesn’t mean lack of leadership. Without clear strategic priorities and directions there’s likely chaos. Leaders must be very transparent with the organization about the hard realities.
These cultures are not all fun and games. Getting the balance right between flatness and strong leadership is hard on top management and on employees throughout the organization. For employees, flatness requires them to develop their own strong leadership capacities and be comfortable with taking action and being accountable for their decisions.
Closing thoughts
Creativity can be messy. What strikes me here: once again, discipline is an enabler to achieve the best possible results. As well as strong leadership, both personal and by management. From this point of view one can conclude that innovation is driven both by creativity and discipline. I am curious to know what other insights can be found on encouraging innovation in general. But for now I am keeping this paradox in mind while I observe and reflect. How disciplined is your organization when it comes to innovation?
Source: The hard truth about innovative cultures by Gary P. Pisano. Read the full article here.
Essence of Change 