I've been thinking for a while about the problem of innovation in organizations. Billions of dollars have been spent by leading organizations of all kinds (corporate, not-for-profit, governmental) to try to help them solve problems better, innovate faster, come up with new ideas, etc. And, after all those dollars have been spent, and millions of executives have attended innovation and "design thinking" classes, I think it's patently obvious that organizations, are no more innovative, on the whole, than they were fifty years ago.
So, why is that? What is it about organizations that makes them unable (or at least makes it very difficult) to come up with new ideas and be innovative?
Of course, before I answer that, you'll want to think about those few organizations that actually are, or have been, innovative. You'll mention advertising agencies, architecture firms, and Apple, of course. Well, first of all, it's easy (ok, easier) for companies to innovate when they're focused on something outside of themselves... when they're focused on solving another company's problems (see management consulting) or on creating some jazzy new idea to market another company's product (see advertising) or when it's about creating some zoomy new form or idea for somebody else (as in architecture). But it's really hard for companies to focus their creative energies internally.
The exceptions, where they happen, are incredibly rare. Apple comes to mind as the primary example. But Apple, at its most innovative, was driven by Steve Jobs, who had a relentless sense of purpose--to achieve a level of design perfection to create an "insanely great" product--and would annihilate anyone who got in his way. I think the only way that a conventional organization can possible actually be "innovative" is to follow this autocratic model, and be driven by a singular leader on a mission who will let nothing stand in his/her way.
Normal organizations, run by committees, boards, bureaucrats, uninspiring leaders, and otherwise nice people, have a hell of a time creating much of anything. For the most part, they move things around, buy and sell stuff, and try not to rock the boat. Why is that?
Innovation is such a challenge in most organizations because of the innate human need to establish a consensus reality. That is, we work to collaborate with those around us to build clear rules for how things work. These rules might include power structures, etiquette, cultural norms (what do we talk about, how polite/rude are we, etc.). These things are incredibly pervasive, and the longer we spend together, the more complex and developed they become.
Innovation is dangerous. Innovation is rebellion. When you innovate, you are challenging the established reality, the accepted way of seeing the world, and some of the "rules" that your organization has created, by consensus, for behaving in the world. This is a dangerous thing to do socially. It's risky. It can cost you friends. It can cost you social status. It can make people angry. Now, if we're talking about the place where you work, where you earn your livelihood, the place that enables you to exist in the manner to which you've grown accustomed, the risk of offending someone could be quite significant. And it's probably better, for your own survival and long-term career prospects, to keep your mouth shut.
So, as an organization, how do you get people to innovate? Well, you either relentlessly drive them to innovate by being a complete asshole, like Steve Jobs, or you lead them to focus their innovative energies outside the organization, like advertising agencies, architecture firms, etc. But getting people to innovate, inside the organization, is going to be difficult. You'd be much better off hiring an outside consultant to do the hard work of innovating if it relates to things inside the organization. Because the only people who want to take big risks like that inside the organization are either crazy, or completely secure in their position (like Steve Jobs).
Let's talk about the iphone for a second. Only Steve Jobs, only the CEO of the organization, could ever conceivably propose to cannibalize one phenomenally successful product (the ipod) to take a risk on a new product (the iphone). Nobody else would ever have the balls to do this. In almost any organization, proposing something like this would be pointless, because it would never be approved, and you'd lose status over proposing something unpopular. By proposing to cannibalize something successful, for something unproven, you are risking the livelihood of everyone you work with, for an uncertain future. And very few leaders have to guts to take that kind of risk.
I think organizations of all kinds would be better off to recognize that innovation inside the organization isn't worth the trouble. You're likely never going to overcome the institutional inertia and drive for comfort that makes organizations safe and boring unless you drive people to it with all your effort (Steve Jobs again). Innovation should be directed outside of the organization. Let people be comfortable. Don't try to force them to go against the power structure at work every day. And, if you need innovation inside the organization, get it from outside. Buy small innovative companies. Hire a hot little ad agency. Work with a ballsy management consultant. But don't expect the employees that you hired because they were the right "cultural fit" to rock the boat.
