Topical Categories
Archives

What do Innovative Work Cultures and Inclusive Work Cultures Have in Common? –R-E-S-P-E-C-T

I.  Most organizations fail at becoming innovative or diverse, for similar reasons.

Many leaders say they want their companies or agencies to become more innovative.  Most of their initiatives will fail because the leaders themselves won’t be willing to make the changes necessary for creating cultures that are conducive to innovation.  (The term “innovation” means much more than breakthroughs in new products and services.  Most often, it relates to the continuous improvements that streamline processes, lower costs, and improve customer satisfaction.)1

  • If the organization is in the public or nonprofit sector, it may limp along while falling short of fully accomplishing its mission and will continually grapple with morale and productivity issues.

  • With for profit companies, failures to maximize both efficiency and adaptability in a rapidly changing world often results in financial losses that end in closures or takeovers.(40% of companies in the S&P 500 will fail in next ten years; projections are even higher for small businesses and startups.) 2

Similarly, many leaders talk about increasing diversity.  Some are motivated to jump on “the diversity train” in order to improve public relations or because it seems the thing to do.  They may have heard that companies that reflect society’s changing demographics sometimes grow market share.  (Especially through the use of Employee Resource Groups (ERGs).)3  For whatever the rationale, most organizations fall short of significantly increasing diversity across their workforce and within senior management.

Here again, the failure is due to the general unwillingness of most leaders to do what it is required of them to embed the inclusion piece of “Diversity & Inclusion” (D&I) into their cultures.  Human resource departments can recruit for candidates from varying identity groups all day long, but if the work environment is not one in which all employees feel included, meaning that they know their perspectives and input matter, the best and the brightest won’t stay longer than they have to, regardless of their cultural or gender identity groups.  In many “top-down” organizations, a substantial percentage of employees “check out” and do only enough to get by, while counting the days until they can go elsewhere or retire.

What is the common thread to these two failures to launch?  — A lack of respect and trust.  The inability to create either innovative or diverse environments both result from deeply entrenched hierarchical approaches to management.  “Hierarchy” is actually the polite or PC (politically correct) term for “elitism.”  Most management in the U.S. is still based on the 19th century industrial elitist model, which maintains that the smartest people should be running things from “the top,” and employees’ roles are merely to carry out the instructions of the smart big bosses.  Management typically believes their superior capabilities entitle them to be paid considerably superior salaries.  (Sometimes, the organizational benefits of their tenures are irrelevant; thus, the “golden parachutes” even for those who bring financial ruin to their companies.)

“Respect” is an organizational value commonly cited in annual reports and on company plaques, but top-down management approaches neither reflect trust nor respect for rank and file employees.  Given that the “important thinking” is left to those up the food chain, employee voices are generally absent from the table, other than when absolutely necessary (i.e. unions) or for show.  “The mindset is that managers have all the answers and their jobs are to dictate them — not to learn from workers.  These beliefs run very deep in most organizations.” 4  As a result, the trust or respect employees might have for senior management is limited, as is their would-be engagement.

II.  What is Missing?  Both Innovation and Inclusion Require Listening, which is tied to Respect and Trust

Although command and control leaders generally assert that departmental “silos” 5 are necessary for efficiency, these structures actually serve to control the flow of communications and ideas in order to maintain the power dynamics.  They inevitably slow everything down due to continual bottlenecks.

Continuous improvement requires the input and creative problem solving from workers throughout the organization.  Innovation is generally the result of a diversity of perspectives from numerous people asking questions and looking at issues with fresh eyes.  “Kaizen” is the Japanese word for “improve.”  Through rigorous application of the Kaizen system, each employee at Toyota is expected to submit no less than nine ideas per year on ways to do everything more efficiently.  And thus, Toyota has become known as the most efficient car manufacturer in the world.  (Yorke & Bodek: All You Gotta Do Is Ask)

There is nothing either mysterious or elusive about employee engagement.  ”Carrots” are not required.  Employees invest a considerable amount of their waking hours and their skills into their jobs.  The future and security of their livelihoods are linked to decisions made by management.  And so, it is only natural that they feel a sense of ownership and organizational pride when they are respected enough to be included in important discussions that tie to the success of their companies or agencies.  As the book title above reflects, if you want to engage employees, “All you gotta do is ask.”

III.  Success in both Diversity and Innovation Management Requires Courageous Captains to Venture Beyond The Known World

There are countless documented examples of companies becoming highly profitable industry leaders as the result of leadership initiatives that flatten organizational structures and apply Servant Leadership6 or other collaborative management models  (i.e. Southwest Air, Toyota, Harley Davidson, Starbucks, Whole Foods, and Virgin Air).  So why does resistance continue to persist within the wider managerial field?  Senior managers generally pride themselves on their rationality.  But where is the logic in ignoring all of the data gathered by innovative organizations and in resisting recommended best practices and the opportunities they present?

2,500 year-old lessons from The Buddha:  When people are not behaving in constructive or rational ways, there are generally strong underlying emotions at work.  There is a Buddhist teaching that I find valuable for “root cause analysis.”  It asserts that all human behaviors result from one of two sources: they are either motivated by fear, or love.  The object of our love can be humanity, learning, trying new things, adventure, creating, making a difference in the world, and so on.  At various times, we have all been animated and driven by this kind of love, which has been at the center of human advancement for millennia.  Love is an expansive and outward energy.  

However, when we turn away from options that positively affirm and help others or that would allow us to grow in new ways, our decisions are fear-based.  Fear causes us to shrink away from others or opportunities and go into “self” protective mode.  It is a contracting energy.  Things such as self-centeredness, deception, and betrayal are manifestations of fear, but fear is the underlying driving emotion.

The ongoing entrenchment of command and control management that flies in the face of potential benefits for our workforces, organizations, missions, and society, is due to leaders’ fears.  The fear may be of not having full control of outcomes as processes become more collaborative or experimental, or uncertainty of one’s role as leader when information becomes more transparent and solutions emerge from across the organization.  Or there may be trepidation of working with employees or colleagues whose ethnic, religious, or gender identities differ from one’s own and of saying anything that displays a lack of awareness.  It is sad that there is so much truth to the saying, “Better the devil you know, than the devil you don’t.”  Initiatives to create more inclusion are often sabotaged by managers who find themselves outside of their comfort zones, because one foot never leaves the old, known turf.  Without 100% commitment on their parts, there are too many mixed signals.  Incremental approaches to the necessary management and organizational culture changes generally fail.

It is not that the leaders of innovative and inclusive organizations have never experienced any trepidation in democratizing their organizations.  Most humans go through some amount of self-doubt when venturing onto unfamiliar ground and sensing the loss of full control.  As has been said, courage is not the absence of fear, but rather learning to face one’s fears and insecurities, and forging ahead despite them.  These leaders recognize and value the opportunities that increased diversity, inclusion, collaboration, and agility present to their organizations, and then push beyond their own fears, learning to navigate through increased ambiguity,7 and embracing the collective magic their teams create.

Leaders Eat Last:  Unfortunately, most MBA programs spend far more time teaching students to correctly interpret balance sheets than to substantively explore the role of character, integrity, and courage in leadership.  Regardless of one’s political persuasions, many of us would agree that integrity is in increasingly short supply among our political and corporate leaders.  Our captains of industry and the public sphere would benefit from the training that our captains of the military receive.  In his book, Leaders Eat Last, leadership consultant Simon Sinek shares some of the valuable lessons he gleaned from interviews with admired leaders from both the military and other fields. 

As Sinek explains, standout leaders create "Circles of Safety” that foster trust and cooperation throughout their organizations.  Good leaders earn respect, not through their rank or prestige, but through the respect they demonstrate towards those within their charge.  These leaders know that respect is not an abstract concept, but is known through its actions.  Taking their responsibilities for their teams seriously, they insure they have the tools they need to do their best work, listen to their input for operational improvements, provide them with opportunities to develop and lead, and are open to learning from them.  The respect exhibited from the leadership for those in the ranks increases success throughout the entire organization.

IV.  In closing: Choosing Respect and Trust, and Following Through

In order to help their organizations to gain the benefits of diversity and innovation, organizational leaders need to start by making a basic choice: hierarchy or inclusion. 

They then must commit and follow through with the path they have chosen.

Many managers are not ready to lose the comfort of top-down approaches to running their organizations and to support broader participation and input from their employees.  And that is certainly their choice to make.  Institutions have succeeded for decades and centuries using top-down approaches.  – However, the cost to maintain a higher level of predictability is that other possibilities and agility are lost.  There may come a time that such organizations will lose capacity and/or be forced to close their doors for failure to adapt.  The managers of these organizations should simply recognize that the benefits of diversity and innovation that they say they want will remain out of reach.

There are other leaders whose desire for the benefits that increased diversity, inclusion, and innovation can bring is greater than their fear of change and uncertainty.  They are willing to make the necessary adaptations within themselves, and then to the structures and cultures of their companies or agencies.  Fortunately, they will have at their disposal numerous roadmaps left behind by those who co-led their organizations to new levels of success based on the basic principles of mutual R-E-S-P-E-C-T.  These principles are the DNA, the thread that binds leaders with employees, teams, and potential with a thriving future.  

Sing it – Aretha! 

3.  Employee Resource Groups are voluntary identity or interest-based groups that organize to provide professional development support to members, while providing their organizations with ideas related to recruiting, on-boarding, marketing, and service ideas for current prospective identity-based customer groups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.  https://hbr.org/2011/06/how-toyota-pulls-improvement-f

5.  Siloes are distinct hierarchical departments in which all information must travel up and down that department’s chain of command, and communication between departments by lower level employees is frequently discouraged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.  Servant Leadership is built on the concept that a leader’s primary role is to support his/her employees and make sure that they have the resources and systems in place to excel at their jobs in serving the customers.

7.  http://ridingthewave.net/cliff-type-notes-on-ibms-2010-global-ceo-survey-capitalizing-on-complexity/

8. YouTube video of Simon Sinek discussing this book: http://tinyurl.com/n6abhsg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proud mantis

As discussed in previous posts, it is commonly held that there is creative genius in each of us.  But, along with our innate curiosity (creativity’s inextricable partner) most of us found our creativity repressed by the tender age of thirteen by the pressure to “fit in,” not be seen as “weird,” [i] not ask too many questions, and as we got older, to go by “The Rules,” and do as we’re told if we want to succeed.   I wholeheartedly agree with Langdon Morris of InnovationLabs who wrote that “It may only take only the right mix of context, curiosity, support, and environment for it come abundantly forth.” [ii]

Pearl in oyster And so, smart managers understand that good ideas come from everywhere in organizations.  “Hence, the average Toyota worker, including those on the assembly lines, is said to contribute on average more than one hundred ideas each year.”  Despite some of its recent troubles (and current tragedies in its homeland), Toyota is universally recognized as the most efficient auto manufacturer on the planet.[iii]

Gathering and Channeling the Collective Genius:

Referring back to the top layer of the cake as described in “Let Them Eat Cake!” a couple of posts ago, below are some suggestions I have found for creating an entrepreneurial environment throughout the organization, as recommended by the innovation leaders surveyed in the 2010 IBM CEO report. [iv]

 

Mardi Gras Float Create and Communicate a Shared Vision of What Innovation Looks Like in Your Organization:

    Use cross-departmental input to create a shared language and lexicon.  (Jorge Barba) [v]
    Go beyond the mission and vision to make innovation the responsibility of each and every employee (“50 Ways…”) [vi]
    Involve as many people as you can at the beginning to get upfront buy-in.  (“50 Ways…) 

 

Co-create A Vision for Innovation with Everyone in Your Organization:

Help employees to present their ideas and make their cases:

  • Establish an Entrepreneurial Environment: Ideas come from everywhere. Give every “intrepreneur’s” idea an objective hearing. Provide management support in building the business case* in presenting the idea. (“10 Crucial Elements…,” Jim Miller) [vii]

    * I discussed this point in my 2/12/11 post on "A Shared Failure to Communicate". 

    • Ask employees what gets in the way of their ability to offer contribute creative solutions and innovation, and work to remove those blocks.   

    Create Efficient Systems for Collecting Ideas: Easter egg basked

    • Create formal opportunities for offering ideas: Intranet repositories using an idea 
      management software, internal conferences, etc.  (“10 Crucial Elements of Building an Innovative Company,” Jim Miller & “”50 Ideas…, “)

    Embrace the Numbers Game:

    • “…Harness everyone’s creativity by involving them in the ideation process; generate lots of ideas, for only a few winners will result, and then broadening your view of innovation to not just technological, products, or services, but also innovate the business model.” (Jorge Barba)
    • Have a number of ideas in the works. Short and long-term, incremental, and discontinuous.
    •  “The main difference between companies who succeed at innovation and those who don’t isn’t their rate of success – it’s the fact that successful companies have a LOT of ideas, pilots, and product innovations in the pipeline.” (“50 Ways…”)

    Create Efficient Systems for Low-Cost, Rapid Prototyping:

    • “Fail often to succeed sooner.”  Tom Kelley, GM IDEO.
    • Prototype using videos and models or other quick and cheap methods early on to visualize which projects to further develop and which to discard. (“Get Creative,” Bloomberg Businessweek [viii] and “50 Ways…”)

    Support Cross-departmental Collaboration:

    • Reroute reporting lines and create physical spaces for collaboration. …collaboration requires more than lip-service to breaking down silos… team up people from across the org chart. 
    • ‘You have to…get down into the plumbing of the organization and align the nervous system of the company.” (J. Andrew, BCG) [ix]
    • Provide “Skunkwork” spaces with visual tools like white boards everywhere, even on ceilings and floors. (“50 Ways…”)
      • Encourage informal, cross-functional networking and exchange of ideas through shared space, social activities, etc(“10 Crucial Elements…,” Jim Miller)

     

    A nd  Let Go! Confetti

    • “Innovation requires no fixed rules or templates – only guiding principles.  Creating a more innovative culture is an organic and creative act… Don’t make your innovation processes so rigid that they get in the way of informal and spontaneous innovation efforts.”  (“50 Ways…”) 

     

     

    I’ve only scratched the surface here regarding employee partnership in innovation.  Please, share your ideas, experiences, and success stories!

     


    [i] Get Weird! 101 Innovative Ways to Make Your Company a Great Place to Work, John Putzier. AMACOM,  2001.

     

     

     

    [iii] “The World’s Most Innovative Companies,” Bloomberg Business Week. (April 24, 2007).

     

     

     

    [v] Jorge Barba, http://www.game-changer.net/

     

     

     

    [vi]  “50 Ways to Foster a Culture of Innovation,” The Heart of Innovation. Idea Champions

     

     

     

    [viii] “Get Creative,” Bloomberg Businessweek

     

     

     

    This week, we'll take a not-so-happy look at the state of affairs in many organizations: underlying blocks to innovation.  Gotta look at what’s broke to be able to fix it!  Next week, I promise the happier view, looking at solutions and inspiring best practices being used by innovative companies. 

    Ducks in a row According to Bloomberg Businessweek’s “Most Innovative Companies” article, “Most businesses operate in ways that are antithetical to innovation.  They want stability, predictability, avoidance of risk…”  But “innovation is more about managing risk” than avoiding it…” [i]  The functions of quality control and Six Sigma are about “control.”  “The cultures of most organizations are set up to resist fluctuation and purge deviants,”[ii] known to others as “the innovator’s DNA.”

    “But innovation is all about novelty and the unexpected…. innovators upset the apple cart, and move the cheese!” [iv] “In almost every company there are the ‘rebel’ thinkers, people who are always looking for ways to improve things, solve problems, individuals that look to the future, not the present or the past.” [v]  Research varies, but reports that 50-90% [vi] of all new product innovations “fail” at even the most successful companies. 

    Given this predominant modus operandi, most organizations have a lot of work to do so that employees will feel safe enough to openly share their ideas and take risks.  A great amount of trust must exist in an environment in order for innovation to take place.  Very hierarchical “Win-lose organizations usually are not trusting environments…” [vii] In short, a sense of trust, safety, and partnership are key to innovation which is “a collaborative endeavor… There is little innovation without collaboration, and there is no collaboration without trust.” [viii]

    Parallel Organizations: “Skunk Works”:

    Some believe that it may be more efficient for large organizations to start satellite entrepreneurial organizations to germinate and develop the innovative ideas, rather than undertaking the significant task of changing the ways and culture of the primary organization.  These sub-organizations are often called “skunk works” or “skunkworks”: “groups within an organization given a high degree of autonomy and unhampered by bureaucracy,” tasked with working on various projects. (Wikipedia)  The term "Skunk Works" is a registered trademark of Lockheed Martin, which by some accounts, was responsible for the creation of both the practice and term around 1943. 

    This model will be explored in an upcoming post, as well.  However, I will say that I am highly skeptical about the wisdom of viewing this approach as the panacea.  It may be best for some rapid solutions or time-to-market “hits.”  However, it does not solve two significant and interrelated problems.  By simply handing over creative thinking and innovation to the parallel, more agile “David” structure versus forcing the larger "Goliath" organization to reshape its management practices leaves the same problem in place: the creative ideas and full range of talents of all of its employees continue to be blocked and wasted.  “Skunk work” organizations can only do so much.  What if the creative genius of everyone within the entire primary organization was cultivated and set to work – what would be possible then? 

    As the 2010 Boston Consulting Group report recently summarized in this blog pointed out (and other studies concur) – U.S. businesses do not have time to leave the creative thinking to the few.  All hands are needed on deck.  For the first time since Bloomberg Businessweek began ranking the Most Innovative Companies in 2005, the majority of corporations in the Top 25 are outside the U.S. as new global leaders emerge from Asia.

    From My Soapbox… 

    I believe the primary shifts that need to occur boil down to this:  “In many organizations, the Exclusive Gate real thinking is seen as the purview of a privileged few.”[ix]  There’s the rub!  From my professional experience, from what I learned in my organizational development master's program, and based on the research I have conducted thus far, innovation and management bottle-necking cannot co-exist.  That’s what many of the IBM CEO study innovation leaders were telling their colleagues.  “Flatten thy organizations!”  Lose, or certainly lessen the hierarchy. 

     “People are dying to bring their passionate, authentic selves to their jobs.  In most cases, their jobs often won’t let them.  These people often represent the undervalued intellectual capital in a company.  Choke personal creativity, and you choke that organization’s chance to flourish.” [x]

    Mannequin headsAs the saying goes, “A good mind is a terrible thing to waste.”  Sadly, most organizations, from corporations to small nonprofits to governmental agencies, are wastelands of brilliant, potentially profitable or otherwise beneficial ideas that were smothered by others before they were allowed to see the light of day.

    And on a More Cheerful Note

    In the next post, I’ll share specific practices being utilized by some to create a “thinking organization that encourages discovery and celebrates new ideas and the people who generate them.”  And then how they gather, vet, and prototype those ideas.  I hope you'll send in suggestions for some of the best practices you've encountered, as well!  Butterfly freedom image

     

     


    [iv] Langdon Morris, “Creating the Innovative Culture: Geniuses, Champions, & Leaders,” InnovationLabs. (2007).

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [vi] “50 Ways to Foster a Culture of Innovation,” Idea Champions puts it at 50-70% and Wikipedia offers the 50-90% figure.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [vii] Langdon Morris, “Creating the Innovative Culture: Geniuses, Champions, & Leaders,” InnovationLabs. (2007).

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [viii] Langdon Morris, “Creating the Innovative Culture: Geniuses, Champions, & Leaders,” InnovationLabs. (2007).

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [ix] “Fostering an Innovative Company Culture,” EOS Strategies White Paper (2010) attributed to Daniel D. Elash, Ph.D., “Thought Partnerships Build A Company's Thinking Skills.”  (2003). 

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [x] “Fostering an Innovative Company Culture,” EOS Strategies White Paper. (2010).

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Blog Link

    Subscribe to receive new blogposts below


     

    Kowabunga! Posts:

    Categories