Roadblock to Innovation

It goes without saying that in an open competitive market, which I will define here as non-government organizations or institutions, innovation is key and breakthrough innovation is supreme. And in today’s knowledge based society incremental changes (a.k.a. feature enhancements) in products or services are no longer enough. Minor changes in any one market are easily copied, reproduced and sold at a discount. And if we watch closely, after the first device, or gadget, is introduced the manufactures will take us on a feature enhancement journey for decades. Needless to say, feature enhancement or brand extension does not represent breakthrough innovation.

Innovation less alone breakthrough innovation is difficult to achieve in most organizations partly due to the misalignment between the need to maintain order “control” verses the chaotic state associated with innovation. Organizations, as with any institution, have to create something in the way of stability. But the question what needs to be stabilized and for how long? For example, given certain government regulations and professional practices, like accounting, organizations have no real wiggle room. Any attempt to develop innovative ways to pay taxes would probably land someone in jail. However, the need for organizational leaders to create stability and minimize chaos through “control” shouldn't become a blanket under which the majority of the business is conducted. In short, if it’s not subject to government or professional regulations then “command and control” should be the last thing you foster as a leader.

Many leaders the world over understand the importance of breakthrough innovation. And many have postured themselves to believe that they foster innovative spirits at every level of the organization. However, a true spirit of innovation runs counter to the style in which these leaders lead—command and control.

I often wondered how so many leaders (relative to position), a large portion of which are men, developed what appears to be an institutional leadership style. A few conversations with friends led me down a path which serves, in part, as an explanation to the origin of the “command and control” mindset and its relative importance. The book IKE , by Michael Korda, further facilitated my understanding as it described the purpose of the command and control style of leadership relative to military warfare. According to the book this was taught at “The Command and General Staff Schools…A staff school is highly specialized, and not designed to promote or encourage originality of thoughts or new ideas…the staff officer’s job is to reduce …potential chaos” ( p171-172). The primary reason for this “command and control” style, as stated by my friends and confirmed in this book, is that you can’t have people going off in left field when lives are at stake.

However, the open competitive market represents an entirely different type of warfare and the same rules don’t apply. Better yet, organizations had better learn how to evaluate, assess, and assimilate new game plans on a regular basis and quickly. You cannot invent something or implement a process and allow it to become dormant, untouched and unchallenged, void of breakthrough innovative ideas for decades on end. If there is a direct correlation between market shares and the welfare of the organization then let’s recognize the fact that this too is a life and death situation. Under these circumstances “command and control” will ultimately lead to your demise, lives will be lost. It’s almost as if, today’s leaders need to be deprogrammed in an effort to create a new order of business—dedicated to the discovery of breakthrough innovation found only on uncharted terrain.

Sidebar: Organizations that find themselves so far ahead of the pack (competition) that they perceive there is no external competition should create some even if it's imaginary. Void of any external competition organizations tend to create competition from within. Simply put: A house divided against itself cannot stand (Matthew 12:25). History has taught us that, eventually internal fighting will lead to self destruction. Rome was never conquered.