Innovation is an organic process, and it seems that only with the benefit of hindsight, when the papers are written, does the rationalization of errors, dead-ends, side-tracks, and jumping on the spot, occur to make it seem linear.
The best we can do is create the conditions where innovation flourishes, just as a farmer creates the optimum conditions for growth and productivity on his farm.
Trying to get stakeholder buy-in for an idea that breaks the mould is very hard in most organisations as it challenges the dominating logic of the organisation, what has succeeded in the past, and made it what it is today.
This process can be helped by breaking the internal selling process into two parts:
Somehow, there is an evolutionally phenomenon at work that kicks in when a group gets larger than 150-200, the number that social research has repeatedly identified as the number of people that any individual can have a relationship with, first postulated by anthropologist Robin Dunbar, and now commonly known as “Dunbar’s number.“
As humans evolved, they did so in groups of 200 maximum, and there was little serious conflict inside the group, but there was constant conflict with the similar sized groups in the vicinity, even though they were to all intents and purposes, identical, apart from their group membership.
We now have social media seemingly rewriting the rules, or is Facebook and similar networks the electronic equivalent of a genetic mutation?
In a situation where you have many more than the genetic 200 having a sort of a relationship facilitated by the net, what implications does this mutation, if that is what is, have on the way we should be thinking about using, and regulating access to these sites, and what are the implications in the management of conflict?.
These are very big questions for the next 20 years thay deserve more than a passing, and ideaology driven response.
The word “leader” can have a range of meanings depending on the context.
It can mean someone who holds a position of power, and it just defines the position. It can also describe someone who inspires, who points the way, who commands loyalty without asking for it, totally independent of the position held.
Years ago, in a factory I was running, there was a quiet bloke, uneducated, and unassuming, but one who could make or break any initiative management proposed in the factory. He led, not by position, but simply by the force of his presence, and capacity to engage and inspire the others in the factory. He was a “leader” who led.
All businesses are conflicted, small ones more obviously than larger ones.
On one hand, the immediate urgency to do whatever necessary to generate the cash to pay the bills, and on the other, the necessity to build capability, relationships, and definitive market position, all critical elements for commercial sustainability, but there is rarely enough time to do both as well as you would like.
There is no easy answer to this dilemma, but in my work with small businesses there are a number of strategies, largely borrowed from large businesses that pay dividends:
Small businesses benefit hugely from these disciplines, partly because they are so important for the smooth running of any businesses, and partly because it acts as an “insulation” to the unanticipated. Most in small businesses do not see the need, as they are in daily contact with all in and around the businesses, and therefore, some of these things are seen as unnecessary bureaucracy, when in reality they are more like shock absorbers.