Wednesday, December 06, 2017

Quirky: Traits innovators share

Thanks to my blog, and hopefully the insights I share here, I'm often asked to review books about innovation and innovators.  Recently I was asked to review a book entitled Quirky.  The subtitle is:  The Remarkable Story of the Traits, Foibles, and Genius of Breakthrough Innovators Who Changed the World.  Their capitalization, not mine.

The traits that innovators possess or share has been an interest of mine for quite a while.  I researched this topic for years, reading academic papers, books and doing our own research to identify traits or characteristics that innovators have in common, so you can imagine this book was of interest to me.

Quirky is as quirky does

Melissa Schilling, who is a professor at NYU, took an interesting approach when writing this book.  She focused on just a handful of breakthrough innovators, going deeply into their development and lives.  This deep dive presents some interesting data, but since the population of innovators is small and, to say the least a bit strange in its selection, I wonder if everything she reports is definitive.

Schilling selects her breakthrough innovators across history, including Madame Curie, Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Tesla, Einstein, Elon Musk and of course Steve Jobs.   These are, without a doubt, important innovators and very quirkly people.  To my way of thinking this is a very expansive group, with very different innovation goals and outcomes.  Several of these never commercialized a product; they created scientific insights.  Some were very mercenary - they only wanted to create things that had value to customers.  Some were serial innovators across a wide spectrum of industries, some were deep thinkers in one specific setting.  While all of these are recognizable innovators, I wonder if the sample size is really large enough - or perhaps too diverse in a small sample - to draw conclusions.

Schilling looks for similarities across these innovators, and to no surprise finds many.  They are all self-starters, many are autodidacts, bored with day to day stuff and constantly seeking new solution.  They are passionate about their work, they have visions about better solutions.  They work till they drop and expect others to do the same.  They are almost separate from the people they live and work with.  They were extremely sure of their own insights, rarely doubting themselves.  Most were consummate outsiders.  These findings, of themselves, are interesting but not particularly new.  Clayton Christensen and others wrote about 5 traits they noticed in corporate innovators in the book The Innovator's DNA.  Others have noted that most innovators are motivated by intrinsic issues, which fuels their passion.  Anyone who has attempted to create a new product knows the struggles a new idea faces in becoming a new product or service, so passion and stubbornness are almost a job requirement for innovators.

Positives and Concerns

The book does a good job identifying and calling out some of the core traits that innovators often share.  It does this by digging deeply into the lives of the handful of innovators Schilling profiles.  In many chapters the history and backstory of a selected innovator takes up close to half the chapter.  I learned more about Tesla and Curie than I had known, and gained new insights into Jobs' early career.  This research depth is good but detracts from getting on with the points the author wants to make.

There are really seven attributes that Schilling identifies:
  1. Sense of Separateness
  2. Extreme Confidence
  3. Creativity
  4. Higher purpose
  5. Driven to Work
  6. Opportunities in the era
  7. Access to resources
But these aren't all given the same attention.  The separateness, confidence and creativity chapters are long and involved.  Toward the latter half of the book the traits aren't nearly as fleshed out and don't really illuminate the key topic as well as earlier chapters do.

While the research is evident, Schilling is often drawing conclusions or making observations with very limited data and the qualitative nature of the research shows.  In one long paragraph about separateness she uses the word "may" five or six times when showing how separateness contributes to innovation.  Suggestive but not definitive.  And she either ignored or didn't validate some traits that the innovators themselves identified.  For example, Jobs is famous for describing his approach to innovating based on "beginner's mind" - looking at a problem with fresh eyes.

Some of her research and findings conflict with other research, demonstrating how poorly defined and understood innovation is.  She focuses a lot on separateness, noting that "solitude is valuable for creativity" but often fails to note how involved and collaborative much of this work is.  Using Edison as an example for isolation is a bit much - he worked constantly with a large team, many of the "muckers" from his lab (Batchelor, Upton and others) named in the book.

The upshot

This is a good book, worth your time if only for the detailed histories of some very interesting people (Tesla alone is worth the read).  Schilling does a good job identifying some of the characteristics that this handful of innovators shared but doesn't fully prove that these are all necessary or that there aren't other attributes that are just as vital.  This is a book that was clearly carefully researched - the extensive footnotes prove that - but it seems to ignore or overlook some of the good work on innovator characteristics and traits that have been published before.

In short there's not a lot "new" here, but a good encapsulation of some of the traits innovators share and why they matter.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button
posted by Jeffrey Phillips at 6:58 AM 0 comments

Tuesday, December 05, 2017

Taking the path of most resistance

I was thinking today about one of my favorite books - The Razor's Edge by Somerset Maugham - and the quote from the book that forms the title.  I won't bore you with a rehash, except to say that the main character is told that "the path to salvation is as narrow and difficult to walk as a razor's edge".  This from a Buddhist monk the main character, Larry, meets during his journey to find himself and his purpose not long after the end of the first World War.

One of the things we are constantly taught is to find the path of least resistance - the well-defined, well-trodden path that others have taken.  This is the safest, most secure path.  The one that is easiest to travel, has the least amount of risk.  The path is known, secure and goes to a specific destination.  This is the path most of us walk every day.  The only problem is that there isn't anything new on the path.  You don't explore anything new, discover anything new.  You aren't confronted by anything new.  Plenty of people go along with you to explain the path to you and keep you safely in the path.

As you might guess, the path of least resistance is easy to walk, and has little to offer in the way of innovation.  If you want to innovate, you must leave the proven path, take the path of some or most resistance.  Because it's in the exploration and discovery, going where others haven't gone, that you'll learn new things, uncover new issues or challenges, find new opportunities or solutions.

There are several components to walking any path that we must consider here:  the path itself, the people on the path, the "off-piste" that defines the area outside the path.

The Path

While much of this post has been a meditation on "paths" and their purposes, we all live and work in stable, defined paths or processes.  We go to work, follow established and documented processes and procedures, identify and achieve short term milestones and go home.  The next day we do it all again.  These are well-worn, well-described paths that are necessary for effective and efficient operations.  Efficient processes and pathways must exist for a company to scale and operate efficiently.  The problem is that the paths and processes become barriers to thinking and exploration rather than enablers - things that were meant to get you places become things that bar you from new places.  Soon, people are improving the paths and processes, grading them and paving them for even more ease of use, which encourages more alignment and less discovery and exploration.  Soon it becomes difficult and expensive to leave a path or process, and one fraught with risk and the potential of ridicule. 

As hackneyed as the quote is, Frost is right: "I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference".

If you are going to innovate, you need to pioneer your own paths.  Sometimes you'll have a specific destination in mind, sometimes you'll simply go exploring.  But either way, you've got to get out of the existing wheel ruts, pathways and guardrails to go into the untamed areas of your business or industry.  You cannot innovate from within the safe confines of your existing paths and processes.

The people on the path

What's important to understand is that there will be two kinds of people you'll encounter on the path:  those who want to reinforce the importance of the path, and those who are interested in leading you off the path.  Those who want to reinforce the path we call "management".  Management is paid to ensure that a company gets the most from the least amount of resources, that the company is highly predictable and eliminates variability.  This means sticking to the path, and ensuring everyone sticks to the path.  Managers find people who are wandering from the path and bring them back to the path. They enforce focus and attention on the next milestones on the path.

You'll meet a few people on the path who aren't so interested in the path but who are interested in the journey.  These are discoverers and explorers, who are interested and comfortable leaving the path, no matter what the consequences.  They are rare in corporations and are usually outside the mainstream, typically a unit of one, who are allowed to roam and discover because they've proved their value, but they very rarely scale.  Unless you have a thick skin and are dedicated to leaving the path to fully embrace exploration and discovery, you want to ignore these people and never become one.

If you are going to innovate, you must ignore the people who define and maintain the existing paths and processes - which is exceptionally difficult to do within a corporation - and define your own paths and processes, discover your own destinations, experiment and explore as you see fit.  This is remarkably easier to do than it seems, if at first you learn to ignore all the concerns and constraints and just start doing it.  As Arthur Dent learns in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe, the trick to flying is  "..The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss..."

Going Off-piste

The French have a lovely word for the area outside of the safe path - off-piste.  It means the areas in a ski slope off of the groomed slope.  Off-piste is uneven, ungroomed, slightly dangerous.  There are few other tracks.  A fall in the off-piste area can lead to greater injury.  Skiing on the off-piste also means more fresh powder, more exciting experiences, more exploration and discovery.  Going off-piste has uncertainties and risks, but going with the right attitude and perhaps a guide can lead to remarkable discoveries.

If you want to innovate, you need to go "off-piste".  Following the safe and practical pathways and processes within your business or industry will only lead to at best incremental change.  To make any new discoveries, to create anything truly new and interesting, you need to leave the path of least resistance and go off-piste.

What does it mean to go off-piste?  When skiing it means more danger, fewer maps, greater risk of falling but in many cases more exhilaration.   When innovating it means leaving the company or industry constraints behind, going exploring without a set destination, learning new things, assimilating new discoveries.  It will mean new work and new experiences that when synthesized may not perfectly fit into the existing way of doing business.  Which is why the path of most resistance is pursued so rarely.  It takes an engaged, dedicated, creative individual or team to go off-piste, and a company ready to embrace novelty and change to accept what the team brings back.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button
posted by Jeffrey Phillips at 10:41 AM 0 comments

Thursday, November 30, 2017

What your language says about your innovation

I've long championed the idea that to change the way people think, you've got to change the way they communicate.  If you want big ideas, you need to encourage them, yes, but also talk about them in ways that open up dialog, thinking and idea generation to a much larger dimension.  While language, word choice and conversation may not seem to have all that much impact on idea generation and innovation, in reality these are the building blocks of a corporate culture.  As a colleague of mine is fond of saying:  we need to switch from "I'll believe it when I see it" to "I'll see it when I believe it".

Your word choice

Think, for just a moment, about the conversations and communications you have every day with your peers, your direct reports and your boss.  When you talk business, what words or phrases immediately come to mind?  Words like cutting, efficiency, process, costs, management, effectiveness are bound to appear frequently in oral and written communications.  In fairness, I'm sure the words innovation and growth will show up occasionally as well.  But for the most part these are constrained words and phrases, focused on doing well what you do today, not focused on expanding thinking and relieving constraints.  Therefore, since much of how we think is governed by how we communicate, we have people and teams that have constrained language, which equates to constrained thinking.

Explore, Experiment, Discover

Now, imagine conversations that include words like explore, experiment, discover and other such words and phrases.  These words indicate an expansive way of thinking, they signal activities that require going beyond the existing scope or constraints.  We often talk about balancing "convergent" words and activities (those that move quickly to a solution and typically revolve around doing the day to day work well) with "divergent" words and activities (those that expand scope, remove constraints, encourage new thinking, exploration and so on).  If your words and communications don't signal the importance of these activities, then your culture won't reinforce them, and your thinking will be constrained.

In all forms, in all channels

This reliance on language, words and communication to shape and form our cultures goes beyond an occasional email from the CEO, exhorting the teams to more innovation.  It goes beyond a quarterly review that emphasizes efficiency and meeting quarterly objectives.  Changing language and culture requires the introduction and reinforcement of words and phrases, which begin to change thinking and behaviors, in all communication forms (written, oral, visual) and in all channels (presentations, emails, evaluations).  The two fastest ways to change a culture and have it embrace more innovation are to 1) change the compensation and reward schemes and 2) change what the culture talks about and how frequently key words and phrases are used.

Right now we talk about innovation but the sustained communications are overwhelming the need for cultural change and embracing innovation as a sustained capability.  Until and unless you introduce the types of thinking you want by changing the words you use, you'll get the same thinking you've always had.
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
posted by Jeffrey Phillips at 6:28 AM 0 comments

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Starting the innovation fire

I've been thinking, long and hard, about the correct analogy to describe a lot of corporate innovation efforts.  I'm sorry to say that the best analogy I can come up with is a campfire.  I hope you'll stick with me on this, because I think it can be illuminating (couldn't resist the pun).

Most of us who participated in scouts or went to a summer camp where they had a bonfire are familiar with the idea of a campfire. It's a must have for any outdoor event, and rarely complete without graham crackers, chocolate and marshmallows.  It's a good place to tell ghost stories or have a sing along.  A fire, once started and with the right fuel, can burn well and hot for hours, and in some cases if not carefully tended can become dangerous.  But I digress...

How corporate innovation is like a campfire

If you think about the basic ingredients required for a campfire, they are relatively basic.  We need some type of fuel, typically small twigs which catch up quickly and larger branches and logs that don't burn as quickly but provide coals and sustain the fire over time.  We also need an ignition source, most typically a match or a lighter.  Some folks also cheat a bit and use an accelerant - gasoline or lighter fluid or "fatwood" which burns more easily and dependably.  Of course good fire etiquette (at least from my scouting days) would suggest that we clear a small patch of land so the fire is easily contained and doesn't spread to the woods.

Now, let's map what's going on in corporate settings to the ingredients for a campfire, to understand what's underway, what's working and what's missing in corporate innovation.

First, there's the desire to have a fire.  Every company wants innovation, so desire isn't always the challenge.

Second is understanding the ingredients.  For a fire this is simple:  ignition, accelerant, fuel.  In a corporate setting, these three factors are also important: ignition (what are the driving needs or burning platforms that require innovation), accelerant (what are the skills and insights that accelerate innovation) and fuel (what are the cultural and human capital capabilities to keep the projects running).  It makes sense to look at each of these in greater detail.

Ignition

For a fire, ignition is easy.  You need matches, or a lighter, or some other mechanism to create a spark.  Often all you need is a momentary flame to get a good fire going.  The same is true for innovation.  A single executive's need can spark an innovation opportunity.  A significant product line gap or the introduction of a new product by a competitor can spark an innovation need.  Ignition simply isn't the problem, although many corporate innovation activities are ignited by the wrong issues and for the wrong reasons.  The old saying - play with matches and you'll get burned holds true for innovation as well.

Accelerant

As a scout, we always carried a few slivers of "fatwood", typically wood found in the trunks of old pine trees.  Fatwood is a great accelerant because it is loaded with turpentine, catches fire easily and burns hot.  Others might cheat with lighter fluid or gasoline, but just a few bits of fatwood really help accelerate a fire.  In a corporate setting, aspects like innovation tools and knowledge of those tools, past innovation experience, third party consulting help and other factors can accelerate an innovation activity.  At this point in the innovation life cycle, many companies have conducted some training on innovation for their teams, or have access to innovation consultants, so some acceleration can be achieved, but it always works against existing culture, which typically dampens the accelerant.

Fuel

A good fire starts with small twigs and moves on to consume larger branches and logs.  These burn for a much longer time, making it easier to enjoy the fire and build a good set of coals.  The best wood is dry, not green but dead for some time, preferably hardwoods as pine or soft woods don't burn well.  The worst types of fuel are logs that are wet, or wood that is "green" - that is, just off the tree with sap still in it.  From a corporate innovation perspective, the best fuel is committed teams, working on important and relevant projects, working within a supportive culture.  As these factors mature, success builds on success, much like a good fire builds coals to sustain a fire over time.

Where does the problem lie?

The problems with corporate innovation don't like with ignition, although we could discuss for hours whether the "right" sparks are being used about the right problems.  But that's a discussion about problem or opportunity definition.

The real problems are with accelerants and fuel.  As we've described, there aren't enough accelerants in most corporations (trained people who are familiar with innovation tools and methods and a supportive culture).  In fact most corporate innovation activities look a lot like trying to start a fire in the rain:  it's easy to spark a flame with a lighter or a match, but difficult to get a real fire burning that can be sustained.  Too often the wood is too green or too wet to burn, so the fire simply smokes a bit and dies out.  The same is true for many corporate innovation activities:  easy to start, difficult to really ignite a large fire and far too quickly doused and rarely sustained.

How can we fix this problem?

Good firebuilders lay aside accelerants and prep or age the wood they hope to use in a fire, curing it and drying it to be ready when it is needed.  Likewise, corporations must improve the accelerants (training, process definition and skill building) and build the fuel (culture change and the ability to sustain innovation activities over time through strategic alignment, measures, metrics and building on success) in order to sustain a fire once it is started.  This means making an investment in innovation skills, people and tools before they are needed and keeping the skills up to date.

Today, an awful lot of corporate innovation looks a lot like starting a campfire on a cold, wet day with a good match and poor fuel: easy to start, difficult to build a real fire, and a quick, smoky end that no one wants to be around.  The way to change this is not to focus on the spark or ignition quite so much, but to focus on the accelerants and especially the fuel, which will sustain the fire long after it is burning well.
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
posted by Jeffrey Phillips at 6:38 AM 0 comments

Monday, November 13, 2017

Shared innovation language accelerates innovation

I was leading an innovation workshop recently with a company that invited in some of its customers to talk about the future.  We were interested in getting feedback from key B2B customers about the future of the industry, where things were heading and what strategies and programs my customer should begin to put in place.  I was hired to lead a trend spotting and scenario planning workshop, but I had successfully convinced my client that we needed to establish a common framework and language about innovation first.

The participants were senior executives drawn from several industries the company serves.  Each were leaders in their respective industries and several of them promote innovation as a core operating capability.  Nevertheless I felt it was important to establish a common definition and scope of innovation before moving ahead.  What surprised me was the response from the participants when I started defining innovation, and seeking their definitions so we could arrive at a common framework.

I'll know it when I see it

Like the Supreme Court justice called on to define pornography (I know it when I see it) the participants had very different, and frequently very narrow definitions of "innovation".  While they were casually tossing words around like "disruptive", they couldn't really describe what it meant.  Further, the narrow definitions extended to outcomes.  For the most part many of them were focused, when they were spending time on innovation, almost exclusively on product innovation.

Needless to say, I spent time talking about the difference between "incremental" innovation and disruptive innovation, their purposes and meaning, and the "three horizons" model of innovation, as well as a 70:20:10 portfolio plan.  Thinking about concurrent innovation across several goals and horizons was really new and interesting for these participants.

Ten Types

But we went further.  It's really a waste, I told them, to only focus on product innovation, when so many potential types are available.  I then introduced Doblin's Ten Types, which is basically received gospel to innovators but may as well be Sanskrit for most business types.  They've never seen it, never thought deeply about it, but when its deciphered they understand it immediately.  What was funny about this was several of the participants were talking about the importance of customer experience but never seemed to realize that CX could be an intent or outcome of an innovation exercise.

Freeing their thinking

By working collectively to create a shared (if just for the moment) definition of innovation, which seems like a constricting activity, we actually freed up some thinking because we were broadening the definitions of innovation, in several dimensions.  First, across a spectrum of incremental to disruptive.  Second, from discrete to continuous and often concurrent projects.  And third, from an overemphasis on product innovation to the realization that innovation can happen over a range of outcomes (products, services, channels, business models, experiences, etc).

Once you fully grapple with the opportunities and range of innovation activities and outcomes, the range of innovation possibility can seem a bit limitless.  Then will come the natural convergence to start choosing where or what you want to innovate, and a natural divergence as you start to explore the possibilities again.

Language and common definitions are critical to any interaction.  When each party has their own definitions of innovation and rather narrow definitions at that, little can be accomplished and many opportunities are left by the wayside.  Stopping to create a shared definition, expanding the range of opportunities and options, means we can explore more together.  Why we still need to do this - go back to the basics of key factors like definitions and language, exploring the range and potential outcomes of innovation - indicates that we are closer to the end of the beginning of innovation as a corporate capability, rather than at the beginning of the end.
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
posted by Jeffrey Phillips at 7:37 AM 0 comments

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Understanding the future leads to better innovation

As many of you loyal readers know (thanks Mom!) I'm a big believer that success in life, as in innovation, is about understanding the future and bringing products and solutions to the market just as the market realizes its needs.  This builds on the famous quip that to win the future you should create the future.  The unspoken but obvious counterpoint is that you can wait to see what the future holds and then react to it.  Many is the company that has decided to take the more passive, reactive, wait and see model, rather than invest a few dollars into trend spotting and scenario planning.

Why aren't we doing more work on understanding and predicting the future?  It's pretty obvious that most companies aren't good at understanding and predicting the future, and they are so bound up in efficiency and quantitative metrics about the next month or quarter that they don't believe they have the time or insights to get it right.  There's a famous quote attributed to Niels Bohr, a renown physicist, who said it is very hard to predict, especially about the future.

The future is already here

Contrast that quote with one of my favorites, by William Gibson.  Gibson is quoted as saying "the future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed".  What he meant was that there are events and trends underway in some corners of the world that are advanced and futuristic.  Imagine how primitive tribes in the Amazon jungle think about airplanes.  In the same way imagine how your grandparents think about Snapchat and Facebook.  Signals about the future are all around us.  Some places (Tokyo and Dubai come to mind) feel like they are already a few years or even a decade ahead of us.  What's required is for us to identify the trends that are occurring and make sense of them, to visit the places that are moving forward and experimenting, to see what the future might hold.

Rejecting the "straight line" future

I've coined what I call the "straight line" future, from my work with customers in trend spotting and scenario planning.  When we ask people to imagine what the future will look like 3-5 years from now, most people will imagine a future that looks and feels exactly like the one they are living in, with minor tweaks around the edges.  In other words, the journey from here to there is a straight line with few disruptions or deviations.  This is the future that we expect and want if we are comfortable and don't want uncertainty or risk.  This is not what is going to happen.

Just a few years ago, Obama was president and the thought of Donald Trump becoming president would have seemed laughable.  Hillary Clinton seemed likely to win and there were an acceptable range of leading, plausible Republican candidates.  Yet history and fate intervened and we have a future few would have expected, with very different political, economic and perhaps military consequences.

The future will look subtly different than the present does, in ways we often don't anticipate or expect.  Those companies that discover the differences with enough time to create valuable products and services will win big.  Bill Gates of Microsoft fame said that we often overestimate the change that will occur in the next 2 years and underestimate the amount of change that will happen in the next ten.  With the pace of change accelerating, we might make that 2 years and 5 years, as you'll see further down the page.


The Point of all This

The point of this post is that change is happening very quickly, and companies that wait to react to emerging events simply cannot react fast enough, with products and services that are compelling enough to win.  Rather than wait, you must create and shape the future that you want to participate in.  Much of the information and signals about the future are out there, waiting to be discovered.  Don't fall into the trap of plotting "straight line" futures, because they aren't real.  Small, subtle changes in the economy, technology or society will create new customer segments, new needs and introduce new threats and potential product or service substitutions. 

Think this can't happen very fast?  iTunes was first released in 2001 as a way to store and manage music.  It was the first really successful commercial way to acquire and manage digital music files.  Tower Records, the largest distributor of CD and albums, declared bankruptcy five years later.  An entire music industry and major distribution channel was destroyed in only five years.  And this didn't happen without clear signals.  Napster and other music sharing platforms proved that customers could strip and share music files for years before iTunes was released by Apple.  The future, as Gibson said, was out there, just not widely recognized or distributed.

Even if you aren't interested in innovation, but merely want to remain competitive and keep pace with your industry and your competitors, understanding trends and predicting the potential direction of your industry and customer base is vital.  It's the minimum to simply keep up with your market.  Good innovators will be looking for clues to find the big shifts that they can take advantage of.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button
posted by Jeffrey Phillips at 7:03 AM 0 comments

Friday, October 06, 2017

We could all use a little Sharknado thinking

I saw a sign in my Twitter feed recently that spoke volumes about innovation culture.

 Image result for somebody came up with the idea of sharknado

Let's contemplate the audacity of suggesting an idea about a movie full of sharks in tornadoes for just a moment.

Creativity and Combinations
To suggest a movie about sharks in a tornado demonstrates creativity.  Good innovation often happens when you combine two unexpected attributes or components together to create something new.  In this case I think everyone understood that Sharknado was over the top. And why not?  If you look at the rest of the movies being made, something a little tongue in cheek makes sense.  The first thing to take away that someone in Hollywood did right from an innovation perspective is making unusual connections.

The guts to go beyond the obvious
But beyond the idea of combining unlike objects, imagine the guts it takes to suggest something so new and unusual.  In many organizations even reasonable ideas get shot down very quickly.  Participants will wonder about profitability or ROI.  Others will question customer demand or technical feasibility of ideas that seem possible and not outlandish.  That's because all of the possibility and "wonder" has been squeezed out of us in the corporate world.  The vast majority of people live lives of quiet desperation, recognizing opportunities but quickly looking away, aware of the challenge to create new ideas or the price one might pay for suggestion them.  What environmental, economic, and emotional conditions must exist for people to suggest outlandish ideas?

Accepting the impossible
Now, place yourself back in that setting, where some low level production assistant has just suggested making a disaster movie, one that places sharks (looking back to Jaws and other killer aquatic animals) in tornadoes (again, looking back at classic disaster movies).  The idea combines two traditional Hollywood tropes, but in an unexpected way.  You'd think even Hollywood producers would have laughed the idea out of the room.  But they didn't, and that's why Hollywood creates more stuff (that's good and bad) than most other organizations and industries even contemplate.

Some producer or producer's assistant had the guts to say:  tell me more.  Rather than shooting down an idea that marries two very unlikely protagonists, someone accepted the nearly impossible idea and said, go further.  This is what divides innovators and creatives from the realists and the execution-oriented folks.  Realists and operationalists would scoff. They'd say "Sharks don't get caught up in tornadoes" or "That's unrealistic, no one would believe it".  Yet today we walk around with more processing power in our smart phones than a spaceship had that carried men to the moon.

We in corporate America need to regain a sense of wonder and possibility.  We need to stop thinking about what customers need next week, and start imagining what they'll be doing or what need they'll have in 3, 5 or 10 years.

But that's Hollywood, you'll say
Some of you reading this will argue that it's Hollywood's job to create funny, compelling, mindless entertainment, and that means stretching the genre or combining or creating really different concepts to attract and retain an audience.  But isn't that also our jobs in corporations?  To create really interesting and valuable products to attract the attention and revenue of new and existing customers?  Do we really think that in a time and place where change happens so frequently, societal norms and tastes shift rapidly, where information flows so freely that we can win by developing safe, me-too products?

Did AirBnB or Uber create a safe, me too product, or did they dream up something new, audacious and quite different that clearly threatens the existing industry players?  Corporations, in all industries and of all sizes need to get some of this Hollywood spirit, to foster new and outrageous ideas, to encourage new growth, to create new and interesting products and services for customers.

Conclusion

We need a little more Sharknado thinking in corporate America, and to get it we'll need a lot more Hollywood style interaction - mixing unusual stuff together, extending ideas or concepts beyond the breaking point, being willing to generate and speak out loud really outlandish ideas, with the sense that someone will say:  tell me more.  The people in Hollywood aren't that much more creative than the folks you'll find in many Fortune 500 companies, but they have an expectation and culture of creating new things, and a tolerance and expectation of failure and experimentation that many companies lack.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button
posted by Jeffrey Phillips at 6:42 AM 0 comments