Three Kinds of Innovation
 Subscribe to the Three Star Leadership Blog |
| The Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. |
| For weekly tips and resources pointers, check Wally's Three Star Leadership Letter |
| Find out more about having Wally speak to your company or convention. |
| Find out more about Wally's coaching services. |
 |
The New York Times runs a little feature every Sunday called "The Boss." In it, CEOs talk about their careers. What I like most about the feature is that it usually covers a CEO that I'm not familiar with. Last Sunday it was Alex Kummant, CEO of Amtrak. Here's a core quote.
"Part of life in heavy industry involves a certain dogged persistence in pursuing incremental improvements. I contrast that with the Silicon Valley executives who say you need to have big goals and challenge the organization. I don’t disagree with that, but when you grow up in manufacturing or transportation, the incremental improvements you make every day are what create robust change in the end."
Kummant's comments reminded me that we often talk about innovation as if it were one thing, when, in fact, there are at least three kinds that matter to businesses. They differ in scope and impact and in the key success factors required. What Kummant was talking about is incremental improvement.
That is the kind of innovation exemplified by the Japanese word, "Kaizen." We're familiar with if from lean manufacturing, the Toyota Production System, and James Bryan Quinn's "logical incrementalism." The changes it brings about are cumulative. It's a management philosophy and you need a system to make it work.
Innovation can also refer to what Anthony Pascale called "stepwise improvement," the big change that makes a major improvement in a process or product. It's the kind of innovation that A. G. Lafely writes about in Game-Changer. The key to success with this kind of innovation is the process of selecting and trying innovations to keep and cultivate the best ones.
That kind of innovation causes significant change, but it doesn't change the fundamentals. For that you need the kind of innovation and change that Clayton Christiansen described in The Innovator's Dilemma. It's the "creative destruction" described by Schumpeter. This kind of innovation doesn't just change the game, it also changes your world. Success comes from being willing to uproot the past and seize the future.
Wally's Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. Click here to check it out.
Request your free copy of "Meeting the Challenges of the Boomer Brain Drain: An integrated approach."
Wally Bock has helped people learn to be great bosses for more than a quarter century. His latest book, Performance Talk: The One-on-One Part of Leadership, makes learning key leadership principles almost effortless by teaching through a story and providing lists of resources for further growth.
Click here to find out more about Wally's coaching services.
For weekly tips and resources pointers, check our Wally Bock's Three Star Leadership Letter.
Click here to find out more about having Wally speak to your company or convention.
I could not agree more that incremental change is the best way to move from average to good to great. The key in my opinion is that we need to create an environment where everyone in an organization feels a responsibility to find those incremental great ideas and support the implementation. That has to be an organization where everyone matters and they know it. Everyone at every level has great ideas on how to improve their organization but are withholding that information. On my own leadership blog most of my posts deals with how to be a trusted leader in all parts of your life and how to create an environment and culture where leaders make their people feel special, treat them as individuals, show total and complete respect to them and work hard to educate and develop them for a better job and better life down the road. Creating this kind of culture and environment takes time but time goes by anyway so organizations and individuals need to get started today. At Walt Disney World this was the kind of environment I worked hard to put into place...Lee
Reply to this
Thanks for stopping by and commenting, Lee. I especially like your comment about how everyone has to matter. If people don't matter, then it's a slave ship, no matter how good a time you're making.
Reply to this
I'm not one for lack of words, but all i can say is bravo to a great comment that Lee has posted. So much so i think i will print it out and keep it as a reminder. You should do the same.
Reply to this
Wally, this is a great breakdown of the continuum of scope along which innovation can occur. It seems to me, though, that it is difficult (for an organization) to jump the progression, at least productively and sustainably. If you don't cultivate continuous incremental improvement, you likely lack the cultural underpinnings to support the other types - at least, as an organizational characteristic. What do you think?
Reply to this
Hi Jim. Thanks for stopping by and offering that comment. I disagree with you on that because I don't see the three innovation style as being on a continuum. I think they're discrete events and each requires something different from the others. That means to me that the same organization can have all of these or none or any combination.
Reply to this
Wally - excellent! That means we may have something to talk about here. I will look forward to exploring the issue further with you.
Reply to this
Always a pleasure, Jim. Think about this. The different types are on a continuum if your choice is either/or. But a company can create a culture that encourages continuous improvement and create a stepwise innovation in design at the same time.
Reply to this
Ah! Thanks for catching me out - I mispoke. Progressing along a continuum suggests you abandon what you leave behind as you move along - in either direction. I meant something more like a hierarchy, in which some levels are more fruitful and sustainable for their being built on a solid - and ongoing - base of others.
Sounds like we may agree, after all!
Reply to this
Sounds like it, but there's not enough science in this construct to be sure. Sometimes I think I'm less a "scientist" than I am like those Victorian collectors who put together great sample cabinets of plants and animals. I go around gathering up concepts and ideas and leave it to the true scientists among us to massage them and string them together in systems.
Reply to this