You know that asking questions is essential. After all, when you’re innovating, you’re doing something new, which means you’re learning, and the best way to learn is by asking questions. You also know that asking genuine questions, rather than rhetorical or weaponized ones, is critical to building a culture of curiosity, exploration, and smart risk-taking. But did you know that making a small change to a single question can radically change everything for your innovation strategy, process, and portfolio?
What is your hypothesis?
Before Lean Startup, there was Discovery-Driven Planning. This approach, first proposed by Columbia Business School professor Rita McGrath and Wharton School professor Ian MacMillan in their 1995 HBR article, outlines a “planning” approach that acknowledges and embraces assumptions (instead of pretending that they’re facts) and relentlessly tests them to uncover new data and inform and update the plan.
It’s the scientific method applied to business.
How confident are you?
However, not all assumptions or hypotheses are created equal. This was the assertion in the 2010 HBR article “Beating the Odds When You Launch a New Venture.” Using examples from Netflix, Johnson & Johnson, and a host of other large enterprises and scrappy startups, the authors encourage innovators to ask two questions about their assumptions:
How confident am I that this assumption is true?
What is the (negative) impact on the idea if the assumption is false?
By asking these two questions of every assumption, the innovator sorts assumptions into three categories:
Deal Killers: Assumptions that, if left untested, threaten the idea’s entire existence
Path-dependent risks: Assumptions that impact the strategic underpinnings of the idea and cost significant time and money to resolve
High ROI risks: Assumptions that can be quickly and easily tested but don’t have a significant impact on the idea’s strategy or viability
However, human beings have a long and inglorious history of overconfidence. This well-established bias in which our confidence in our judgment exceeds the objective (data-based) accuracy of those judgments resulted in disasters like Chernobyl, the sinking of the Titanic, the explosions of the Space Shuttle Challenger and Discovery, and the Titan submersible explosion.
Let’s not add your innovation to that list.
How much of your money are you willing to bet?
For years, I’ve worked with executives and their teams to adopt Discovery-Driven Planning and focus their earliest efforts on testing Deal Killer assumptions. I was always struck by how confident everyone was and rather dubious when they reported that they had no Deal Killer assumptions.
So, I changed the question.
Instead of asking how confident they were, I asked how much they would bet. Then I made it personal—high confidence meant you were willing to bet your annual income, medium confidence meant dinner for the team at a Michelin-starred restaurant, and low confidence meant a cup of coffee.
Suddenly, people weren’t quite so confident, and there were A LOT of Deal Killers to test.
Make it Personal
It’s easy to become complacent in companies. You don’t get paid more if you come in under budget, and you don’t get fired if you overspend. Your budget is a rounding error in the context of all the money available to the company. And your signing authority is probably a rounding error on the rounding error that is your budget. So why worry about ten grand here and a hundred grand there?
Because neither you, your team, nor your innovation efforts have the luxury of complacency.
Innovation is always under scrutiny. People expect you to generate results with a fraction of the resources in record time. If you don’t, you, your team, and your budget are the first to be cut.
The business of innovation is personal. Treat it that way.
How much of your time, money, and reputation are you willing to risk? What do you need your team to risk in terms of their time, money, and professional aspirations? How much time, money, and reputation are your stakeholders willing to risk?
The answers change everything.
Image credit: Pixabay
Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.
There’s an old adage that says we should never let a crisis go to waste. The point is that during a crisis there is a visceral sense of urgency and resistance often falls by the wayside. We certainly saw that during the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital technologies such as video conferencing, online grocery and tele-health have gone from fringe to mainstream in record time.
Seasoned leaders learn how to make good use of a crisis. Consider Bill Gates and his ‘Internet Tidal Wave‘ memo, which leveraged what could have been a mortal threat to Microsoft into a springboard to even greater dominance. Or how Steve Jobs used Apple’s near-death experience to reshape the ailing company into a powerhouse.
But what if we could prepare for a trigger before it happens? The truth is that indications of trouble are often clear long before the crisis arrives. Clearly, there were a number of warning signs that a pandemic was possible, if not likely. As every good leader knows, there’s never a shortage of looming threats. If we learn to plan ahead, we can make a crisis work for us.
The Plan Hatched in a Belgrade Cafe
In the fall of 1998, five young activists met in a coffee shop in Belgrade, Serbia. Although still in their twenties, they were already grizzled veterans. In 1992, they took part in student protests against the war in Bosnia. In 1996, they helped organize a series of rallies in response to Slobodan Milošević’s attempt to steal local elections.
To date, their results were decidedly mixed. The student protests were fun, but when the semester ended, everyone went home for the summer and that was the end of that. The 1996 protests were more successful, overturning the fraudulent results, but the opposition coalition, called “Zajedno,” soon devolved into infighting.
So they met in the coffee shop to discuss their options for the upcoming presidential election to be held in 2000. They knew from experience that they could organize rallies effectively and get people to the polls. They also knew that when they got people to the polls and won, Milošević would use his power and position to steal the election.
That would be their trigger.
The next day, six friends joined them and they called their new organization Otpor. Things began slowly, with mostly street theatre and pranks, but within 2 years their ranks had swelled to more than 70,000. When Milošević tried to steal the election they were ready and what is now known as the Bulldozer Revolution erupted.
The Serbian strongman was forced to concede. The next year, Milošević would be arrested and sent to The Hague for his crimes against humanity. He would die in his prison cell in 1996, awaiting trial.
Opportunity From the Ashes
In 2014, in the wake of the Euromaidan protests that swept the thoroughly corrupt autocrat Viktor Yanukovych from power, Ukraine was in shambles. Having been looted of roughly $100 billion (roughly the amount of the country’s entire GDP) and invaded by Russia, things looked bleak. Without western aid, the proud nation’s very survival was in doubt.
Yet for Vitaliy Shabunin and the Anti-Corruption Action Center, it was a moment he had been waiting for. He established the organization with his friend Dasha Kaleniuk a few years earlier. Since then they, along with a small staff, had been working with international NGOs to document corruption and develop effective legislation to fight it.
With Ukraine’s history of endemic graft, which had greatly worsened under Yanukovych, progress had been negligible. Yet now, with the IMF and other international institutions demanding reform, Shabunin and Kaleniuk were instantly in demand to advise the government on instituting a comprehensive anti-corruption program, which passed in record time.
Yet they didn’t stop there either. “Our long-term strategy is to create a situation in which it will be impossible not to do anti-corruption reforms,” Shabunin would later tell me. “We are working to ensure that these reforms will be done, either by these politicians or by another, because they will lose their office if they don’t do these reforms.”
Vitaliy, Dasha and the Anti-Corruption Action Center continue to prepare for future triggers.
The Genius of Xerox PARC
One story that Silicon Valley folks love to tell involves Steve Jobs and Xerox. After the copier giant made an investment in Apple, which was then a fledgling company, it gave Jobs access to its Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). He then used the technology he saw there to create the Macintosh. Jobs built an empire based on Xerox’s oversight.
Yet the story misses the point. By the late 60s, its Xerox CEO Peter McColough knew that the copier business, while still incredibly profitable, was bound to be disrupted eventually. At the same time it was becoming clear that computer technology was advancing quickly and, someday, would revolutionize how we worked. PARC was created to prepare for that trigger.
The number of groundbreaking technologies created at PARC is astounding. The graphical user interface, networked computing, object oriented programing, the list goes on. Virtually everything that we came to know as “personal computing” had its roots in the work done at PARC in the 1970s.
Most of all, PARC saved Xerox. The laser printer invented there would bring in billions and, eventually, largely replace the copier business. Some technologies were spun off into new companies, such as Adobe and 3Com, with an equity stake going to Xerox. And, of course, the company even made a tidy profit off the Macintosh, because of the equity stake that gave Jobs access to the technology in the first place.
Transforming an Obstacle Into a Design Constraint
The hardest thing about change is that, typically, most people don’t want it. If they did, it have already been accepted as the normal state of affairs. That can make transformation a lonely business. The status quo has inertia on its side and never yields its power gracefully. The path for an aspiring changemaker can be heartbreaking and soul crushing.
Many would see the near-certainty that Milosevic would try to steal the election as an excuse to do nothing. Most people would look at the almost impossibly corrupt Yanukovych regime and see the idea of devoting your life to anti-corruption reforms as quixotic folly. It is extremely rare for a CEO whose firm dominates an industry to ask, “What comes after?”
Yet anything can happen and often does. Circumstances conspire. Events converge. Round-hole businesses meet their square-peg world. We can’t predict exactly when or where or how or what will happen, but we know that everybody and everything gets disrupted eventually. It’s all just a matter of time.
When that happens resistance to change temporarily abates. So there’s lots to do and no time to waste. We need to empower our allies, as well as listen to our adversaries. We need to build out a network to connect to others who are sympathetic to our cause. Transformational change is always driven by small groups, loosely connected, but united by a common purpose.
Most of all, we need to prepare. A trigger always comes and, when it does, it brings great opportunity with it.
How one man’s innovation provided the missing link for a 20th century agricultural revolution
GUEST POST from John Bessant
There’s a lot of good stuff which comes out of Ireland. Leaving aside the wonderful music, the amazing countryside (complete with its ‘soft’ rain) and some excellent food and drink (including a drop or two of the black stuff to which I am occasionally partial). But it’s also a country which punches well above its weight in terms of ideas — it’s got a reputation for being a smart economy basing its progress on putting knowledge to work. Creating value from those ideas — innovation.
That’s something which you’ll find not only in the universities and hi-tech companies dotted across the landscape but also down on the farm. Farming’s a tough business — anyone who watches the series ‘Clarkson’s Farm,’ will recognize the multiple challenges farmers face, battling all that Nature can throw at them when she’s in a bad mood plus rising costs, increasing regulation and volatile markets. It’s a field (ouch) where innovation is not just a nice to have, it’s essential.
And in Dromara, County Down there’s a statue erected to honor a man to whom many farmers, not just in Ireland but around the world, have cause to be grateful. Harry Ferguson.
Of course farming innovation isn’t new; it’s been at the heart of our progress towards being able to feed ourselves and so move beyond subsistence to doing something constructive with our newly-found spare time. Like building cities and societies. Think back to your school days and you’ll recognize many of the key innovations which enabled the ‘agricultural revolution’, increasing productivity to help feed a growing population. The early days were all about ingenious implements — Jethro Tull’s seed drill, (1701), Cyril McCormick’s reaper (1840), John Deere’s steel plow (1847) — all these and hundreds of other innovations helped move the needle on farming practices.
But better implements still faced the limitations of power — and that aspect of innovation remained unchanged for centuries. We’d moved on from back-breaking manual labor but for centuries we relied on animals, primarily horses, to pull or occasionally push our implements. Power was the agricultural equivalent of the ‘philosophers stone’ for alchemists, the secret which would turn base metals into gold (or farms into more productive units). So with the advent of steam power in the early 1800s it looked like it had been discovered; as factories, mines and even early railways were showing, a steam engine could harness the power of many horses.
But (in an early example of the hype cycle) the promise of steam power failed to deliver — largely for technical reasons. Steam engines were big and heavy which meant they had to stay in one place with their power distributed to where it was needed by elaborate systems of pulleys, belts and wheels. They were unreliable and dangerous with an unpleasant tendency to explode unpredictably. For certain tasks they held out promise — they could plow a simple flat field ten times as fast as a team of horses— but their inflexibility limited their application.
Traction engines provided a partial solution since these machines could carry out basic tasks drilling and plowing. Though they were often too heavy to work directly on muddy fields they had the advantage of power which could quickly be moved to where they were needed. Set them up on the side of a field, hook them up to relevant implements like plows and put them to work. When the job was finished, uncouple everything and move on to the next field (as long as it was fairly flat and big).
(Interestingly it was the traction engine which inspired Henry Ford to work on transportation. Reflecting on his first encounter with a traction engine on the family farm he said ‘I remember that engine, as though I had seen it only yesterday, for it was the only vehicle other than horse-drawn I had ever seen….it was that engine that took me into automotive transportation’).
So steam power wasn’t really going to change the farming world. But another innovation was — the internal combustion engine. Engineers around the world had seized on the possibilities of this technology and were working to try and come up with a ‘horseless carriage’, something which Karl Benz managed to do with his Motorwagen in 1885 in Germany. It didn’t take a big leap of imagination to see another location where replacing horses could have an advantage — and John Froelich, an engineer from Iowa duly developed the first gasoline-powered tractor, mounting an engine on a traction engine chassis in 1892.
Unfortunately he wasn’t able to make the machine in volume, producing only four tractors before closing down the business. But others were more successful; for example in 1905 the International Harvester company produced its first tractor, and in 1906 Henry Ford invested over $600,000 in research for tractors, building on his growing experience with cars. An early outcome was the ‘Automobile plow’, a cross-over concept using the Model T as the base.
Pretty soon, just as in the personal transportation marketplace, hundreds of entrepreneurs began working on tractor innovation; a classic example of what Joseph Schumpeter (the godfather of innovation economics) would call ‘swarming’ behavior. By 1910 there were over a thousand tractor designs on offer from 150 different companies.
A key part of Schumpeter’s theory of how innovation works is that many of the early entrepreneurs active in a new field will fail, whether for technical or business reasons, and there will be convergence along key dimensions — setting up a technological trajectory along which future developments will tend to run.
That was certainly the case with tractors; key pieces of the puzzle were coming into place like an ability to deal with difficult terrain by using all-wheel drive (offered by John Deere in 1914) and the trend towards smaller (and more affordable) machines, pioneered by the Bull Company. Agricultural shows began to feature tractor demonstrations which allowed farmers to see first-hand the relative benefits of different machines and an early front runner in the move towards widespread market acceptance was International Harvester with their light and affordable Titan 10/20 model.
This was a growing market; by 1916 over 20,000 tractors had been sold in the USA. As with many innovations once the ‘dominant design’ has emerged for the basic product configuration emphasis shifts to the ways in which they can be made — process innovation. Those players — like Henry Ford — with experience in mass production had a significant potential advantage. His Fordson brand became the benchmark in terms of pricing and other manufacturers often struggled to compete unless they were large, like the John Deere company which offered its Model D in 1923 for around $1000. Ford had priced aggressively to try and capture the market, originally offering the Fordson for $200 in pre-sales advertising , but eventually selling the tractor in 1917 for $750 ( a price at which he was actually making a loss).
Ford understood the principle; he’d used it to open up the automobile market by offering ‘…to build a car for the great multitude’ at a price that multitude could afford. But things were a little more complex down on the farm. At first sight tractors seemed a great idea not least because of their running cost advantages. Animals, while a flexible source of power, were also a big cost since they needed food, shelter and veterinary services, plus there was an opportunity cost in terms of land needed to grow their feed which could otherwise be sued for more profitable crops. It took around 6 acres per horse over the farming year. Tractors ran on kerosene, becoming widely available and at low cost; and they only burned this fuel when they were working.
Ford’s strategy appeared to pay off; by 1923 he had over 75% of the US market . Yet only five years later things had deteriorated so much that the company exited the business. What led to this dramatic shift was a series of challenges to which cost advantages based on process innovation weren’t the answer. Product innovation once again became a key differentiator. This time the issue wasn’t around simply replacing the animal power unit with a mechanical one; it had everything to do with what you connected that power up to.
Early tractors solved the connection problem with a simple drawbar, essentially a metal stick to which you could attach different implements. Which worked fine when the going was flat, the surface dry, the field large and simple. Unfortunately most farming also involves uneven ground, plenty of mud and rain-filled potholes, trees and other obstacles and small fields with uneven boundaries. To cope with all of that you need a utility tractor — not for nothing was the IH Farmall a runaway success in the 1920s — the name says it all. Having spent a significant amount (for a small farmer) on buying your lightweight utility tractor you want it to carry out much more than just row crop duties — helping out with a wide range of construction and maintenance operations down on the farm,.
In particular one innovation which helped endear International Harvester to many a farmer’s heart was the ‘power take off’ device — essentially making power available to be hooked up to a variety of different implements. Introduced in 1922 this opened up the market by massively increasing the versatility of tractor. All manner of attachments — seed drills, rotary cutters, posthole diggers, snow throwers — all could be run off the core PTO. We could draw an analogy to today’s IT world; buying a tractor without the ability to attach tools to it would be like buying a computer without software.
Which brings us back to Harry Ferguson (in case you thought we’d lost the Irish connection). Because connecting farm implements to tractors became his passion — and the basis for a highly successful business. In doing so he provided the platform on which so much could happen, much as Steve Jobs with the smart-phone enabled users to find and deploy the apps they wanted . And along the way he was able to help Henry Ford re-enter and revive his tractor business.
Ferguson was born 1884 in County Down, Ulster and grew up in a farming family — though he wasn’t particularly taken with the life. Nor was he that keen on school either, dropping out at the age of 14. What saved him was a love of reading and a fascination with all things mechanical — which in the early 20th century was a good interest to have. His brother helpfully opened a repair shop to cater to the emerging motor trade and Harry joined him, kindling enough focused motivation to study at Belfast Technical College. Arguably, though, his skill set was less around the mechanical detail than in the front office — sales and PR. He persuaded his brother to sponsor him and he proved adept at motor car and cycle racing — even persuading his brother to fund the development of Ireland’s first airplane which Harry then learned to fly!
Eventually he set up his own automobile business, May Street Motors, in Belfast in 1911 and one of his first appointments (a 21 year old mechanic, Willy Sands) proved to be crucial in his subsequent success. Sands was a gifted engineer; he remained with Ferguson for nearly fifty years, working in the backroom and helping develop the technologies which built business success.
Ferguson was quick to spot an opportunity in the emerging tractor market and managed to obtain a franchise for sales and service of the John Deere Overtime tractor which was being built in the UK. That gave Ferguson and Sands extensive experience in the way the tractor was put together, the repairs it needed and the context into which it was being applied.
The miseries of the Great War on the home front included food shortages and problems with imports so the British government were urgently seeking anything which could help out with farm productivity — including subsidizing investment in tractors. Harry played a part in this when he was given a contract for the Irish Board of Agriculture in 1917 to oversee government-owned tractor maintenance and production records. The duo traveled the country to advise farmers, help set up equipment like plows and understanding the problems farmers faced in deploying the tractor. For example soil compaction, caused by the heavy weight of tractors and plows of the time, was a common complaint.
All of this honed their skills at repairs and improvements to the current stock of tractors in Ireland; their next break came when conversion kits for the Model T car began to appear to create a car/tractor. Ferguson took a franchise for the Eros, a kit which involved putting larger rear wheels on the car, together with a chain transmission to them and installing a bigger radiator to cope with the engine load. His experience with farmers paid off; he realized that this lighter weight car/tractor could solve the soil compaction problem and so got Sands to design a lightweight plow for the Eros.
This — the ‘Belfast plow’ — was launched in 1917 and was the first farm implement bearing Ferguson’s name; it was half the weight of a standard plow and crucially used a clever idea for the hitch connecting the tractor to the plow. This meant that the load from pulling the plow was shared equally by all four wheels instead of just the rear ones; this made it easier to steer and drive.
But Henry Ford was not about to let the tractor opportunity market fall into the hands of conversion kits for Model Ts; instead he commissioned design and manufacture of his own tractor with a large slow turning engine. He persuaded the British Ministry of Munitions to purchase 6000 units in return for his setting up a factory in Ireland. The Fordson tractor (as it was called) arrived in 1917 but quickly ran into problems as farmers began to use it. In particular it had a worrying tendency to flip over on its back if it hit an obstacle; its powerful engine and the relative lack of weight on the front end meant it could be pulled over by an obstacle or an unexpected drag while plowing. Nonetheless its arrival spelt the end of conversion kits — and dealt a blow to Harry Ferguson’s dream.
He was nothing if not resilient; in true entrepreneurial style he turned the arrival in force of Fordsons to an opportunity, adapting his lightweight plow for use with the tractor. In particular they worked on their hitch system so that it helped overcome the tendency for the front wheels to rear up; their design included a clever depth control device — a floating skid — which stopped the problem happening when the plow dug too deep and pulled the tractor over.
This worked well with the plow but for other implements they realized depth control could be enabled by the use of a hydraulic lever which adapted to the terrain. Putting all of this together led them to a system which worked on a variety of implements including disc harrows and cultivators. In 1925 Ferguson was granted a patent for this three point hitch — and it became the basis on which he built his future success. It was the key to unlocking the puzzle of how to connect power to implements and became the dominant design, one which is still widely used today.
The significance of this design should not be underestimated, and it’s something explored in depth in an excellent review by Scott Marshaus at the University of Wisconsin. Even though other factors helped contribute to the major increase in agricultural productivity like fertilizers, better seed strains and environmental management of pests the importance of completing the mechanization cycle is central. Yes, you can replace horses and mules with machine power but you can’t plant the seeds or distribute the chemicals unless you have the means to connect power with application. Which was the problem that Ferguson did so much to solve.
Just when all looked promising the market weather changed once again, another shift triggered by the business strategy of Ford. After years of making a loss the company decided to exit the tractor market in 1927, choosing instead to concentrate resources on their new Model A automobile. Which left Ferguson with no market for his Fordson-fitting plow.
So he (and Sands, as ever working away diligently in the backroom) developed their own lightweight tractor based on the Fordson design. They included their 3 point hitch and the prototype ‘Black Tractor’ appeared in 1933. Ferguson then went into partnership with the David Brown company to manufacture what became known as the Ferguson Brown Model A; production started in 1936. Disagreements quickly followed with Brown wanting to make a bigger tractor so Ferguson pulled out of the venture.
Instead he took one of the production Model A tractors into Henry Ford’s back garden — literally. In 1938 he showed it off and tested it against the Fordson and another tractor from Allis-Chalmers at Ford’s Fair Lane country estate. It performed so well that Ford wanted to make a deal on the spot and after brief discussion the two men shook hands. This handshake deal put a version of the tractor, called the Ford-Ferguson Model 9N into production in 1939 and it sold over 10,000 in its first year. By 1940 the factory was churning out 150 per day.
All should have been plain sailing but Ferguson’s prickly nature posed problems. He was, in many ways, a classic example of an entrepreneur, seeking opportunity wherever he could find it and adapting setbacks to become new directions for development. However he was also, according to his biographer Colin Fraser,‘someone who combined the extremes of subtlety, naiveté, charm, rudeness, brashness, modesty, largesse and pettiness; and the switch from any one to another could be abrupt and unpredictable. And, he had a penchant for confrontation.”
He had hoped that Ford in the UK would start production after the end of WW2 and he wanted a seat on the board; when this was rejected he threatened to walk away and start production on his own. But his position was weak; what he didn’t know was that Henry Ford 2nd, who took over in 1945, had discovered that the tractor business was still losing money at a desperate rate. He also discovered that the Ford-Ferguson 2N was being sold at a loss to Ferguson for resale to his dealers, an arrangement that cost Ford $25 million. Not surprisingly Ford wanted to stop and Ferguson was advised that 1947 would be the last year of the handshake agreement.
Ferguson fought back, putting his own version of the Ferguson/Ford tractor into production in 1946 in a war-surplus British factory. But competing with Ford was always going to be difficult; in response Ford introduced a new version, the Ford Model 8N in 1947, conspicuously missing the ‘Ferguson’ name from the badge. Ford’s engineers had tried to improve and sidestep Ferguson’s patented ideas but the core 3 point hitch and hydraulic system were retained. Although Ford’s marketing and distribution muscle backed him into a corner Ferguson in turn fought back, suing Ford in 1948 for $251 million for infringement of these patents.
Ferguson eventually won the bitter dispute and used some of the $9.25 damages agreed to continue to make tractors in the UK. But his attempts at working independently in the USA failed and eventually he merged his business with the Massey-Harris company in 1953.He retired from the tractor business but continued to develop ideas for the world of motor sport, including creating the first four wheel-drive system for use on Formula One racing cars.
He died in 1960 as a result of a barbiturate overdose; the inquest was unable to conclude whether this had been accidental or not. A sad end for someone whose passion and drive had helped enable the later stages of the agricultural revolution. But he left a powerful innovation footprint in farming soil all around the world. remembered in the tractor brand which bears his name and in the 3 point hitch design which is still in widespread use.
When the work is new for them, they don’t know how to do it. You’ve got to show them how to do it and explain everything. Tell them about your top-level approach; tell them why you focus on the new elements; show them how to make the chart that demonstrates the new one is better than the old one. Let them ask questions at every step. And tell them their questions are good ones. Praise them for their curiosity. And tell them the answers to the questions they should have asked you. And tell them they’re ready for the next level.
2. Do it with them, and let them hose it up.
Let them do the work they know how to do, you do all the new work except for one new element, and let them do that one bit of new work. They won’t know how to do it, and they’ll get it wrong. And you’ve got to let them. Pretend you’re not paying attention so they think they’re doing it on their own, but pay deep attention. Know what they’re going to do before they do it, and protect them from catastrophic failure. Let them fail safely. And when then hose it up, explain how you’d do it differently and why you’d do it that way. Then, let them do it with your help. Praise them for taking on the new work. Praise them for trying. And tell them they’re ready for the next level.
3. Let them do it, and help them when they need it.
Let them lead the project, but stay close to the work. Pretend to be busy doing another project, but stay one step ahead of them. Know what they plan to do before they do it. If they’re on the right track, leave them alone. If they’re going to make a small mistake, let them. And be there to pick up the pieces. If they’re going to make a big mistake, casually check in with them and ask about the project. And, with a light touch, explain why this situation is different than it seems. Help them take a different approach and avoid the big mistake. Praise them for their good work. Praise them for their professionalism. And tell them they’re ready for the next level.
4. Let them do it, and help only when they ask.
Take off the training wheels and let them run the project on their own. Work on something else, and don’t keep track of their work. And when they ask for help, drop what you are doing and run to help them. Don’t walk. Run. Help them like they’re your family. Praise them for doing the work on their own. Praise them for asking for help. And tell them they’re ready for the next level.
5. Do the new work for them, then repeat.
Repeat the whole recipe for the next level of new work you’ll help them master.
Image credit: misterinnovation.com
Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.
You were born creative. As an infant, you had to figure many things out—how to get fed or changed, get help or attention, and make a onesie covered in spit-up still look adorable. As you grew older, your creativity grew, too. You drew pictures, wrote stories, played dress-up, and acted out imaginary stories.
Then you went to school, and it was time to be serious. Suddenly, creativity had a time and place. It became an elective or a hobby. Something you did just enough of to be “well-rounded” but not so much that you would be judged irresponsible or impractical.
When you entered the “real world,” your job determined whether you were creative. Advertising, design, marketing, innovation? Creative. Business, medicine, law, engineering? Not creative.
As if Job-title-a-determinant-of-creativity wasn’t silly enough, in 2022, a paper was published in the Journal of Applied Psychology that declared that, based on a meta-analysis of 259 studies (n=79,915), there is a “male advantage in creative performance.”
Somewhere, Don Draper, Pablo Picasso, and Norman Mailer high-fived.
But, as every good researcher (and innovator) knows, the headline is rarely the truth. The truth is that it’s contextual and complicated, and everything from how the original studies collected data to how “creativity” was defined matters.
But that’s not what got reported. It’s also not what people remember when they reference this study (and I have heard more than a few people invoke these findings in the three years since publication).
That is why I was happy to see Fortune report on a new study just published in the Journal of Applied Psychology. The study cites findings from a meta-analysis of 753 studies (n=265,762 individuals) that show men and women are equally creative. When “usefulness (of an idea) is explicitly incorporated in creativity assessment,” women’s creativity is “stronger.”
Both studies defined creativity as “the generation of novel and useful ideas.”
However, while the first study focused on how context drives creativity, the second study looked deeper, focusing on two essential elements of creativity: risk-taking and empathy. The authors argued that risk-taking is critical to generating novel ideas, while empathy is essential to developing useful ideas.
Does gender influence creativity?
It can. But even when it does, it doesn’t make one gender more or less creative than the other.
Given “contextual moderators” like country-level culture, industry gender composition, and role status, men tend to follow an “agentic pathway” (creativity via risk-taking), so they are more likely to generate novel ideas.
However, given the same contextual moderators, women follow a “communal pathway” (creativity via empathy), so they are more likely to generate useful ideas.
How you can use this to maximize creativity
Innovation and creativity go hand in hand. Both focus on creating something new (novel) and valuable (useful). So, to maximize innovation within your team or organization, maximize creativity by:
Explicitly incorporate novelty and usefulness in assessment criteria. If you focus only on usefulness, you’ll end up with extremely safe and incremental improvements. If you focus only on novelty, you’ll end up with impractical and useless ideas.
Recruit for risk-taking and empathy. While the manifestation of these two skills tends to fall along gender lines, don’t be sexist and assume that’s always the case. When seeking people to join your team or your brainstorming session, find people who have demonstrated strong risk-taking or empathy-focused behaviors and invite them in.
Always consider the context. Just as “contextual moderators” impact people’s creative pathways, so too does the environment you create. If you want people to take risks, be vulnerable, and exhibit empathy, you must establish a psychologically safe environment first. And that starts with making sure there aren’t any “tokens” (one of a “type”) in the group.
Which brings us back to the beginning.
You ARE creative.
How will you be creative today?
Image credit: Unsplash
Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.
When politicians and pundits talk about the economy, they usually do so in terms of numbers. Unemployment is too high or GDP is too low. Inflation should be at this level or at that. You get the feeling that somebody somewhere is turning knobs and flicking levers in order to get the machine humming at just the right speed.
Yet the economy is really about our well being. It is, at its core, our capacity to produce goods and services that we want and need, such as the food that sustains us, the homes that shelter us and the medicines that cure us, not to mention all of the little niceties and guilty pleasures that we love to enjoy.
Our capacity to generate these things is determined by our productive capacity. Despite all the hype about digital technology creating a “new economy,” productivity growth for the past 50 years has been tremendously sluggish. If we are going to revive it and improve our lives we need to renew our commitment to scientific capital, human capital and free markets.
Restoring Scientific Capital
In 1945, Vannevar Bush, delivered a report, Science, The Endless Frontier, that argued that the US government needed to invest in “scientific capital” and through basic research and scientific education. It would set in motion a number of programs that would set the stage for America’s technological dominance during the second half of the century.
Bush’s report led to the development of America’s scientific infrastructure, including agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH) and DARPA. Others, such as the National Labs and science programs at the Department of Agriculture, also contribute significantly to our scientific capital.
The results speak for themselves and returns on public research investment have been shown to surpass those in private industry. To take just one example, it has been estimated that the $3.8 billion invested in the Human Genome Project resulted in nearly $800 billion in economic impact and created over 300,000 jobs in just the first decade.
Unfortunately, we forgot those lessons. Government investment in research as a percentage of GDP has been declining for decades, limiting our ability to produce the kinds of breakthrough discoveries that lead to exciting new industries. What passes for innovation these days displaces workers, but does not lead to significant productivity gains.
So the first step to solving the productivity puzzle would be to renew our commitment to investing in the type of scientific knowledge that, as Bush put it, can “turn the wheels of private and public enterprise.” There was a bill before congress to do exactly that, but unfortunately it got bogged down in the Senate due to infighting.
Investing In Human Capital
Innovation, at its core, is something that people do, which is why education was every bit as important to Bush’s vision as investment was. “If ability, and not the circumstance of family fortune, is made to determine who shall receive higher education in science, then we shall be assured of constantly improving quality at every level of scientific activity,” he wrote.
Programs like the GI Bill delivered on that promise. We made what is perhaps the biggest investment ever in human capital, sending millions to college and creating a new middle class. American universities, considered far behind their European counterparts earlier in the century, especially in the sciences, came to be seen as the best in the world by far.
Today, however, things have gone horribly wrong. A recent study found that about half of all college students struggle with food insecurity, which is probably why only 60% of students at 4-year institutions and even less at community colleges ever earn a degree. The ones that do graduate are saddled with decades of debt
So the bright young people who we don’t starve we are condemning to decades of what is essentially indentured servitude. That’s no way to run an entrepreneurial economy. In fact, a study done by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found that student debt has a measurable negative impact on new business creation.
Recommitting Ourselves To Free and Competitive Markets
There is no principle more basic to capitalism than that of free markets, which provide the “invisible hand” to efficiently allocate resources. When market signals get corrupted, we get less of what we need and more of what we don’t. Without vigorous competition, firms feel less of a need to invest and innovate, and become less productive.
There is abundant evidence that is exactly what has happened. Since the late 1970s antitrust enforcement has become lax, ushering in a new gilded age. While digital technology was hyped as a democratizing force, over 75% of industries have seen a rise in concentration levels since the late 1990s, which has led to a decline in business dynamism.
The problem isn’t just monopoly power dominating consumers, either, but also monopsony, or domination of suppliers by buyers, especially in labor markets. There is increasing evidence of collusion among employers designed to keep wages low, while an astonishing abuse of non-compete agreements that have affected more than a third of the workforce.
In a sense, this is nothing new. Adam Smith himself observed in The Wealth of Nations that “Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.”
Getting Back On Track
In the final analysis, solving the productivity puzzle shouldn’t be that complicated. It seems that everything we need to do we’ve done before. We built a scientific architecture that remains unparalleled even today. We led the world in educating our people. American markets were the most competitive on the planet.
Yet somewhere we lost our way. Beginning in the early 1970s, we started reducing our investment in scientific research and public education. In the early 1980s, the Chicago school of competition law started to gain traction and antitrust enforcement began to wane. Since 2000, competitive markets in the United States have been in serious decline.
None of this was inevitable. We made choices and those choices had consequences. We can make other ones. We can choose to invest in discovering new knowledge, educate our children without impoverishing them, to demand our industries compete and hold our institutions to account. We’ve done these things before and can do so again.
All that’s left is the will and the understanding that the economy doesn’t exist in the financial press, on the floor of the stock markets or in the boardrooms of large corporations, but in our own welfare as well as in our ability to actualize our potential and realize our dreams. Our economy should be there to serve our needs, not the other way around.
You may think you’re a good listener—maybe someone even told you were a good listener. Or maybe not. As a leader, this is a very important question. So much of your ability to solve the problems your team is bringing to you depends upon your ability to understand them. And in order to help your team feel heard and listened to when their pitching possible solutions depends on being a good listener.
No matter what you answered to the opening question, there’s good news for all. Listening well is a skill—the skill of active listening. And while that skill is crucial for communication, collaboration, and problem-solving, it’s also learnable.
In this article, we will explore the skill of active listening and how it can benefit both leaders and their teams. To do that, we will delve into the four specific skills involved in active listening using an acronym first developed by communication expert Julian Treasure: RASA—Receive, Appreciate, Summarize, and Ask.
1. Receive
The first skill of active listening is to receive. Truly paying attention and receiving the information being shared is the first step in active listening. It involves listening without interrupting or formulating a response, making eye contact, and paying attention to non-verbal cues. By actively receiving information, leaders demonstrate their commitment to understanding and valuing the speaker’s perspective.
When leaders listen without interrupting, they create a safe space for open communication and encourage the speaker to express themselves fully. Making eye contact and paying attention to non-verbal cues, such as body language and facial expressions, helps leaders gain a deeper understanding of the speaker’s emotions and intentions. Taking notes, if necessary, ensures accurate reception of information and allows leaders to refer back to important points during discussions or when making decisions.
2. Appreciate
The second skill of active listening is to appreciate. Appreciation involves showing non-verbal signs of appreciation, such as nodding or making eye contact, to let the speaker know that their words are being heard and valued. By expressing appreciation through gestures, nods, and verbal cues, leaders create a positive and supportive environment that encourages open communication.
When leaders make the speaker feel valued and heard, it fosters trust and respect within the team. Genuine interest and active engagement in the conversation encourage the speaker to share more, leading to a deeper understanding of their thoughts and feelings. By appreciating the speaker’s perspective, leaders create a space where diverse ideas and opinions are welcomed and respected.
3. Summarize
The third skill of active listening is to summarize. Summarizing what the other person has said demonstrates understanding and allows leaders to check for accuracy. By reiterating the main points of what the speaker has shared, leaders show that they have been actively listening and processing the information.
Confirming understanding and giving the speaker an opportunity to clarify or correct any misunderstandings is crucial in effective communication. Leaders can use phrases like “What I heard you say is…” or “It sounds like you’re saying…” to summarize the speaker’s points and seek confirmation. This not only ensures that leaders have accurately understood the message but also makes the speaker feel heard and respected.
4. Ask
The final skill of active listening is to ask. Asking questions after a teammate has finished sharing allows leaders to delve deeper into the speaker’s thoughts and feelings, encouraging further discussion and exploration. By asking open-ended questions, leaders prompt the speaker to provide more details or insights, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of the topic at hand.
It is important for leaders to avoid jumping to advice-giving and instead focus on understanding the speaker’s perspective. By asking thoughtful questions, leaders show genuine interest and create an environment where individuals feel comfortable sharing their ideas and concerns. This fosters better collaboration and problem-solving within teams.
Practicing and improving these four skills will improve your active listening. But more importantly, it will improve listening and communication on the whole team. Leaders set the example for their team members to follow. And as team members emulate the example and improve their own skills, that fosters an environment of trust and respect during discussions. And a team demonstrating trust and respect is a team that helps everyone do their best work ever.
Image credit: Pixabay
Originally published on DavidBurkus.com on September 4, 2023
Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.
The stop, start, continue method (SSC) is a simple, yet powerful, way to plan your day, week and year. And though it’s simple, it’s not simplistic. And though it looks straightforward, it’s onion-like in its layers.
Stop, start, continue (SSC) is interesting in that it’s forward-looking, present-looking, and rearward-looking at the same time. And its power comes from the requirement that the three time perspectives must be reconciled with each other. Stopping is easy, but what will start? Starting is easy, unless nothing is stopped. Continuing is easy, but it’s not the right thing if the rules have changed. And starting can’t start if everything continues.
Stop. With SSC, stopping is the most important part. That’s why it’s first in the sequence. When everyone’s plates are full and every meeting is an all-you-can-eat buffet, without stopping, all the new action items slathered on top simply slip off the plate and fall to the floor. And this is double trouble because while it’s clear new action items are assigned, there’s no admission that the carpet is soiled with all those recently added action items.
Here’s a rule: If you don’t stop, you can’t start. And here’s another: Pros stop, and rookies start.
With continuous improvement, you should stop what didn’t work. But with innovation, you should stop what was successful. Let others fan the flames of success while you invent the new thing that will start a bigger blaze.
Start. With SSC, starting is the easy part, but it shouldn’t be. Resources are finite, but we conveniently ignore this reality so we can start starting. The trouble with starting is that no one wants to let go of continuing. Do everything you did last year and start three new initiatives. Continue with your current role, but start doing the new job so you can get the promotion in three years.
Here’s a rule: Starting must come at the expense of continuing. And here’s another: Pros do stop, start, continue, and rookies do start, start, start.
Continue. With SSC, continue is underrated. If you’re always starting, it’s because you have nothing good to continue. And if you’ve got a lot of continuing to do, it’s because you’ve got a lot of good things going on. And continuing is efficient because you’re not doing something for the first time. And everyone knows how to do the work and it goes smoothly.
But there’s a dark side to continue – it’s called the status quo. The status quo is a powerful, one-trick pony that only knows how to continue. It hates stopping and blocks all starting. Continuing is the mortal enemy of innovation.
Here’s a rule: Continuing must stop, or starting can’t start. And here’s another: Pros continue and stop before they start, and rookies start.
SSC is like juggling three balls at once. Just as it’s not juggling unless it’s three balls at the same time, it’s not SSC unless it’s stop, start, continue all done at the same time. And just as juggling two balls at once isn’t juggling, it’s not SSC if it’s just two out of the three. And just as dropping two of the three balls on the floor isn’t juggling, it’s not SSC if it’s starting, starting, starting.
Image credit: Pexels
Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.
This is a departure from my usual customer service and customer experience (CX) articles. While it does tie in to service and CX, it is really about leadership. In customer service and CX, resolving a complaint or crisis means resolving the issue to the customer’s satisfaction, ideally in a way that makes the customer say, “I’ll be back.” Sometimes, customers’ requests and expectations can cause frustration, but let’s put it into perspective.
Let’s say that your customer isn’t an individual or a company that calls you with a request, question or problem. Instead, that customer is a branch of the military, such as the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines or Coast Guard. Or perhaps, that customer is an entire country.
I recently had the privilege of visiting Scott Air Force Base and attending a lecture by Chief Master Sergeant Brian P. Kruzelnick, the command senior leader for the U.S. Transportation Command and principal advisor to the combatant commander and senior staff on matters concerning joint force integration, readiness, growth and utilization of the military workforce.
Chief Kruzelnick, or BK as he likes to be called, shared leadership lessons with an audience of 20 successful business owners. At the beginning of his presentation, he referred to all the people he served as customers. That caught my attention. In a way, the military is like a monopoly. If you want to “call in the troops,” you don’t shop around to determine which “brand” you want to work with, and you don’t get competitive pricing. You just get what you get.
But BK and his team take incredible pride in the work they do. They function like a group of senior leaders at a large, successful company. So, I asked, “BK, can I interview you for Amazing Business Radio and a Forbes article?” Fortunately for us all, he said, “Yes,” and the result is a number of lessons that all leaders can adopt for customer service, especially when it comes to crisis management.
BK started as if he were narrating a story: “It was 17 days in August. …” He was referring to the evacuation in Afghanistan in 2021. “We evacuated 123,334 men, women and children using 800 military aircraft. They went across nine countries and eight time zones. Unfortunately, 13 lives were lost, each one an American hero. We also had 20 babies born on those aircraft as we were evacuating them out.”
Consider the math. How many people could each plane transport? The larger C-17 planes are mainly used for cargo. They have the ability to move people, and with seats installed, usually about 120 passengers. But at one point, they put 823 people on a single aircraft. The engineers and experts knew they could do it. They actually had the passengers sat in the cargo hold and had a strap across their lap for safety. In a time of crisis, they successfully executed the largest evacuation the U.S. ever attempted.
But there was more. At the same time, there was a 7.2-magnitude earthquake in Haiti. There were wildfires in California that burned 1 million acres. A Category 4 hurricane blew through Louisiana. And if that wasn’t enough, there were safety inspections of the military’s larger aircraft that had to be completed across the entire fleet for a possible safety issue. BK proudly said, “And we got it all accomplished in 17 days in August. Wow!”
I joked about how many flight attendants it takes for 823 passengers. BK replied, “We don’t have flight attendants on C-17’s, but we have military personnel who are there to take care of business.” He shared a story about a young boy who was in the cargo hold and was laying on the floor next to his mother. He was cold and scared. One of the crew members took off his military jacket and wrapped it around the young boy, and then walked away to continue his job. Another crew member saw this and caught the moment with a photo.
BK said, “I think that defined the whole movement of what we did. Aside from everything else you hear about, that thing boiled down to humanity. Our ability to care for someone who needed to be cared for. That one picture epitomized that 17-day operation.”
In this incredible military operation, boundaries were pushed. Protocols were modified to suit the situation. The question was, how do you push or break a system that has never been stretched so far, and possibly change precedents for the future?
There is much to learn about managing a crisis from this incredible story. Let’s wrap up with BK’s six crisis management and leadership lessons:
1. Clarity in Times of Crisis: In times of crisis, there must be a clear objective that people can rally around. The goal is clarity. Everyone must understand what the commanding officer—or in the world of businesses, a leader or manager—wants and expects.
2. Extensive Training: People have to be trained to a level that makes them successful. On-the-job training is not possible in crisis situations. BK refers to this as Adventure Training. Nobody should be put into a position of questioning if something is going to work. On the contrary, there must be a level of comfort when you’re feeling the pressure of a crisis, and that comes from a foundation of strong training.
3. Prepare for the Worst: BK says, “I don’t think big companies think about their worst day. Most are building themselves to be at the best, optimal, all the time. But how many times do we think about our worst moments and how we can act and react to ensure we can still execute, perform and succeed? In the military, we run exercises all the time to make sure we can respond regardless of the situation. … There’s enough foundational training that we can operate and execute when called upon.”
4. Empowerment on Steroids: You must feel trusted enough to make decisions without fear of repercussions. BK said, “People must have the faith and trust of the organization resting on their shoulders that if they pushed the limits, which they knew they could do and still be safe, that no one would come down and try to hammer them negatively for what they did because there was trust in their expertise.”
5. Faith, Hope and Love: Let’s break these down one at a time:
Faith — As a leader, you must have faith in your organization, the processes, the people executing and yourself.
Hope — You must have hope. BK says, “Hope is critically important, because if you have hope, everybody that follows you will have hope because they’re looking to you as the leader.” I challenged that with the old saying, “Hope is not a strategy.” His quick response was, “Hopelessness is not a strategy either, so I would take hope.”
Love — Have passion for what you do and compassion for the people you do it with.
6. Bring Harmony to Chaos: As we came to the end of the interview, I asked for one final piece of crisis leadership advice. BK quickly responded, “Bring harmony to chaos. Don’t bring a can of gasoline to the fire!”
Image Credits: Pixabay
This article was originally published on Forbes.com.
Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.
If you want to do a task, but you don’t have what you need, that’s waiting for a support resource. If you need a tool, but you don’t have it, you wait for a tool. If you need someone to do the task, but you don’t have anyone, you wait for people. If you need some information to make a decision, but you don’t have it, you wait for information.
If a tool is expensive, usually you have to wait for it. The thinking goes like this – the tool is expensive, so let’s share the cost over too many projects and too many teams. Sure, less work will get done, but when we run the numbers, the tool will look less expensive because it’s used by many people. If you see a long line of people (waiting) or a signup list (people waiting at their desks), what they are waiting for is usually an expensive tool or resource. In that way, to find the cause of waiting, stand at the front of the line and look around. What you see is the cause of the waiting.
If the tool isn’t expensive, buy another one and reduce the waiting. If the tool is expensive, calculate the cost of delay. Cost of delay is commonly used with product development projects. If the project is delayed by a month, the incremental revenue from the product launch is also delayed by a month. That incremental revenue is the cost of delaying the project by a month. When the cost of delay is larger than the cost of an expensive tool, it makes sense to buy another expensive tool. But, to purchase that expensive tool requires multiple levels of approvals. So, the waiting caused by the tool results in waiting for approval for the new tool. I guess there’s a cost of delay for the approval process, but let’s not go there.
Most companies have more projects than people, and that’s why projects wait. And when projects wait, projects are late. Adding people is like getting another expensive tool. They are spread over too many projects, and too little gets done. And like with expensive tools, getting more people doesn’t come easy. New hires can be justified (more waiting in the approval queue), but that takes time to find them, hire them, and train them. Hiring temporary people is a good option, though that can seem too expensive (higher hourly rate), it requires approval, and it takes time to train them. Moving people from one project to another is often the best way because it’s quick and the training requirement is less. But, when one project gains a person, another project loses one. And that’s often the rub.
When it’s time to make an important decision and the team has to wait for missing information, the project waits. And when projects wait, projects are late. It’s difficult to see the waiting caused by missing or un-communicated information, but it can be done. The easiest to see when the information itself is a project deliverable. If a milestone review requires a formal presentation of the information, the review cannot be held without it. The delay of the milestone review (waiting) is objective evidence of missing information.
Information-based waiting is relatively easy to see when the missing information violates a precedent for decision making. For example, if the decision is always made with a defined set of data or information, and that information is missing, the precedent is violated and everyone knows the decision cannot be made. In this case, everyone’s clear why the decision cannot be made, everyone’s clear on what information is missing, and everyone’s clear on who dropped the ball.
It’s most difficult to recognize information-based waiting when the decision is new or different and requires judgment because there’s no requirement for the data and there’s no precedent to fall back on. If the information was formally requested and linked to the decision, it’s clear the information is missing and the decision will be delayed. But if it’s a new situation and there’s no agreement on what information is required for the decision, it’s almost impossible to discern if the information is missing. In this situation, it comes down to trust in the decision-maker. If you trust the decision-maker and they say there’s information missing, then there’s information missing. If you trust the decision-maker and they say there’s no information missing, they should make the decision. But if you don’t trust the decision-maker, then all bets are off.
In general, waiting is bad. And it’s helpful if you can recognize when projects are waiting. Waiting is especially bad went the delayed task is on the critical path because when the project is waiting on a task that’s on the critical path, there’s a day-for-day slip in the completion date. Hint: it’s important to know which tasks and decisions are on the critical path.
Image credit: Pexels
Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.
Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.
