Idea Deficit Disorder – Stopping the Epidemic
 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. |
 |
| Contact Wally about coaching, consulting, or speaking to your group. |
There is an urban legend that claims the head of the US Patent office either closed the office or recommended that it be closed because "there is nothing left to invent." Suggested years for this outlandish quote are 1875, 1890, and 1932, among others.
We can laugh at the idea that there's nothing left to invent. But many companies act as if it's true. That's because they don't listen to their own people.
Woody Morcott was chairman and CEO of the Dana Corporation when he visited Japan to see what he could learn. Among other things, he probably saw the difference in the way that ideas of frontline workers are used.
In Ruthless Focus, we report on a 1980 study that compared the suggestion system at General Motors to the one at Toyota. The GM system generated less than one suggestion per person per year and accepted about a quarter of them. The Toyota system got 17.9 suggestions per person per year and implemented 80 percent.
That means 1,000 GM workers offered slightly less than 200 usable suggestions per year. A thousand Toyota workers came up with more than 14,000. Since Toyota workers probably aren't 17 times more creative than GM workers, there must be a difference in the systems to explain the difference in output.
When Morcott returned from his visit he asked a very simple question: "Why did we hire 55,000 brains and use only three of them?"
Today that would be an even more important question. As Jack Welch says, to succeed today you have to have "every brain in the game." But it does no good to have those brains suited up for play if you don't listen to what they have to say.
Morcott's idea was to expect every Dana employee to submit two ideas every month. He expected an 80 percent implementation rate.
That worked for him and for Dana. What can you do to cure Idea Deficit Disorder (IDD) on your team?
Remember human nature. Human beings are natural idea generators. At work they usually have plenty of ideas. They don't share them because most of their bosses didn't want to hear new ideas.
Encourage new ideas. Tell people you want them to share ideas. Make it explicit.
Thank them. When someone shares an idea with you, say "Thank you." Do not comment on the idea. Do not tell them why it will not work. Just say, "Thank you."
Remember this. If you kill one idea with a roll of the eyes or a hasty dismissal, you also kill the possibility that you will get another idea from that person.
Share ideas with others. Most ideas are just the start of something good. By sharing ideas you can improve them.
Understand how innovation works. Innovation is what happens when you take a good idea, modify it, and turn it into a change in the way you do things. Here's how it happens at Nucor, as described in Ruthless Focus.
At Nucor, everyone is expected to contribute ideas. But no one at Nucor expects all the ideas to work.
Nucor accepts the premise that half their investments in new ideas and technologies will yield no usable results. That's why every plant has a storehouse for the equipment that was tried and rejected. They're kept around so Nucor's people can learn from things that didn't work or maybe get an idea about how to make it work in a different situation.
Boss's Bottom Line
New ideas are the lifeblood of improvement. Let them bubble up naturally. Modify them and try them quickly.
Resources
Idea Deficit Disorder – Treating Yourself
Ruthless Focus: How to use key core strategies to grow your business
Categories: Ruthless Focus, Innovation, Creativity
Tags: Ruthless Focus Innovation Creativity
True - when someone says, 'We can't innovate any more,' what they really mean is that THEY can't innovate any more. People are naturally creative and ideas have a way of growing when they come into contact with other ideas.
Reply to this
I might even go farther than that, Laura. I think it means they've chosen not to innovate anymore.
Reply to this
Enjoyed the direction of this article. I think sometimes we say no too much or make it too difficult to implement new ideas, so people become discouraged from generating or sharing the ideas.
Reply to this
Thanks for commenting, Christine. I think people catch on quickly The comparison of the GM and Toyota suggestion systems speaks to that. At GM, workers put their suggestion in a box. Later, often much later, they would hear if their idea was accepted for trial and even later they would get a cash award, if one was awarded. At Toyota there were no cash awards, but ideas were tried quickly and feedback always included a "thank-you" from the supervisor.
Reply to this
Just read that in Ruthless Focus. I think it more than backs up Dan Pink's assertions in Drive and shows that some things just can't be incentivized. The sad thing, they still don't change.
Reply to this
Thanks, David. You're right. What drove the Toyota suggestion system was a culture where there were rewards in being a productive part of the team. It was also a culture where lots of small improvements were sought, instead of fewer, more dramatic improvements. And, last but not least, it was a culture that valued the knowledge and ideas of line workers. All those factors were in play.
Reply to this
Wally,
Thanks very much for this post. It should be required reading everywhere, from the top down.
John
Reply to this
Thanks for those kind words, John.
Reply to this
I think trying ideas quickly is much more important than anything you say. Yes thanking people is nice. But far too many organizations do this and that is it. People want to see ideas acted on not just be thanked. It is fine not to adopt a bad idea but find something good to try in many ideas quickly or people will lose interest.
Reply to this
Thanks, John. You're right that trying things is probably the most important thing. But I still think too many organizations come up short on the thanking. How about we thank and get right to seeing if the idea will work?
Reply to this
Yes, I agree that is best. I hear much more people talking about the expressing appreciation part and just in my experience the follow through part is missing way more. Still doing both is better.
I just don't think doing the thanking without action is really of any value. It makes people happy for a few minutes maybe. But after they do get thanked a couple times without any action, it is even worse than nothing I think. I could be wrong. Your post said it well - emphasizing thanking AND taking action quickly.
Reply to this
We can agree on thanking and trial. I've come to believe that thanking alone doesn't even make a person feel good for a little while, if thanks with no action is a regular pattern. I have no data to support this, but my sense is that when thanks-with-no-action is the norm, folks tend to perceive the thanks as pure BS.
Reply to this
Thoughtfully written. True, we are natural idea generators. Even if ideas are not invited on a day to day basis, something like an internal b plan contest(held annually) inviting improvements/ideas at workplace could help tremendously.
Reply to this