Central to VJ Govindarajan’s three boxes theory of innovation is both the willingness and ability to stop doing certain activities. This prioritization allows you to focus your resources on the things with the best chance of success.
This has been a crucial distinction as it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that all innovation is equally worthy and should be supported in equal measure. A recent paper highlights this via the use of game theory. It highlights the importance of finely tuned skepticism in managers to ensure that only the best innovations receive support.
The paper focuses particularly on the best way to hire people according to the willingness of each new hire to innovate. It suggests that rather than filling the organization with innovative employees, it is best to have a combination of pro and anti-innovation types to ensure that the innovators are delivering the best new products and services possible.
Finding the sweet spot
Suffice to say, as with many things, there is a sweet spot to be found with regards to managerial skepticism. Whilst a dollop will help to ensure that aspirations remain high, too much can result in the kind of perfectionism that ruins any attempt to innovate. It’s a limit that needs to be pushed up to but not past.
It’s an intuitive finding and reflects previous posts I’ve made into the heretical nature of most innovators. A 2014 study highlighted how lonely many innovators feel within their organizations. It’s rare for innovators to have co-conspirators that they can turn to for support and advice as so many internal innovations tend to be led by a lone wolf battling the status quo.
The study suggested that for such people, the only real solace comes from inspirational books or possibly meeting like minded people at industry events. It’s all rather a sad picture at a time when so many organizations are claiming to support innovation.
In the past, when organizations have attempted to be innovative, they’ve created skunkworks style teams that are sufficiently resourced, both financially and politically, to go about their work free from interference. This is crucial, as the business as it stands exists to support the status quo. The current way of doing things may generate substantial cash and give its supporters substantial clout and rewards.
Overcoming that is difficult, which is a major reason why so many organizations succumb to the innovators dilemma. The innovation project has little of the certainty that the core business has, and whilst members and sponsors of the project may be comfortable with that uncertainty, other members of the business may not be. You may be requesting a decent sized increase in investment, with very little track record to provide confidence in that investment. What’s more, that investment may be made out of the budget of a more established part of the business.
