Continual Innovation

Imagine growing up in a world that does not value mathematics. Certain, math is around people can tell time and make change, but most folks carry calculators and digital time pieces, and the thinking abilities BEHIND mathematical concepts are not widely taught, understood or regarded as. In such a world, individuals who are mathematically inclined are considered “flaky,” seen as renegades, even geniuses, but, nevertheless they are categorized, they function outside of the mainstream. Effective people in this world are often overheard confessing, “oh, I’m not mathematical. I wish I had been.” Such individuals get their math during occasional visits to museums, or at rare performances of underpaid mathematicians.

In this fictional world, language, philosophy, ideas and concepts are not only valued, but even taken for granted as required to functioning. Only individuals who believe in large ideas and possess deep folks abilities make it into top positions. A well-liked company truism: “You manage what you imagine.”

Now, what if into this world a new trend emerges in enterprise and management thought: “metrics.” Suddenly, the most widely read enterprise journals print write-up after article on the importance of metrics, how metrics are the new organization imperative, how global cultures of metrics are the only way to stay competitive. “Measure or die” is the latest guidance. Greatest-sellers are published, speaking careers launched, and consultancies spawned, all to aid company leaders implement metrics initiatives in their organizations.

Most companies would generate distinct “metrics departments,” populated by mathematical types working together to feel up the very best metrics for their firms. Their road is a tough one, because couple of individuals within the firm respect the significance of metrics, nor can they discuss how metrics work, or are derived, since they’ve never learned anything beyond the most rudimentary math concepts. And, of course, metrics are based on math. Even top managers don’t actually comprehend what their metrics department is attempting to do, or how the metrics experts go about performing it. Whenever the metrics specialists attempt to gain data from one more department in the firm, they are looked at quizzically. They are treated, at best, as mysterious “mathematicians” possessing knowledge that can not be understood by most mortals. At worst, they come across themselves the butt of jokes about useless expenditures of corporate funds or “passing fads,” and are urged to “get their heads out of the clouds and their feet back down on the ground.”

This fictional, math-much less world illustrates the present “innovation imperative” we discover ourselves in right now. Since the manufacturing economy began, the fundamental concepts necessary to discover innovations have been dropped out of public and private education, removed from admissions tests for institutes of higher studying, absent from on-the-job training and seldom discussed in organization writing. Furthermore, these underlying KSAs (knowledge, skills and abilities) for innovation have been devalued within our culture to such an extent that those individuals who possess them are marginalized, undercompensated and even laughed at. These skills, of course, comprise creativity. “Oh, I’m not creative. I wish I had been.” Ever hear that phrase? Ever say it?

R &amp D departments and innovation initiatives are destined to fail, or at least fall short, in a society that refuses to teach creative processes or creative problem solving, and that devalues divergent thinking. Students applying to MBA programs take the GMATS, tests that leave out, entirely, any measure of divergent thinking — the starting point of creativity. Our MBA grads are the best products of our educational system: pure convergent thinkers, in contrast to MFA grads (Masters of Fine Arts) who need to integrate both divergent and convergent thinking abilities. IQ tests fail to measure creative thinking abilities as well, illustrating our cultural belief that creativity does not indicate intelligence. According to payscale.com, MBA’s earn an average of K – 0K, depending on position MFA’s earnings, on the other hand, range from K to 8K. Which degree do we value far more, the convergent thinking degree, or the divergent thinking 1? Yet we are asking our company leaders — convergent thinking specialists — to “innovate or die.” They need to feel terrified!

Innovation is the productive implementation of a new concept. It entails two distinct sets of processes: 1) ideation, a creative procedure and 2) implementation. Effective innovation calls upon our whole brain – the convergent, analytical side, as well as the divergent, creative side. Regrettably, we are not learning how to use the latter.

So, aren’t we living in a world a bit like the no-math world, where everyone need to measure or die but where couple of possess the underlying capacity to derive and use measurement systems? How are we to rise to the innovation imperative when we haven’t been given even the most rudimentary education in creative thinking?  According to Democracy Journal, the US is rapidly losing its position as an innovation leader. If American firms hope to regain and retain global competitiveness in the conceptual economy, mass remediation in creative thinking will be needed. No quantity of time spent reading endless articles and books on “innovation” can replace training in creative thinking and ideation. It’s time to stop treating our creative thinkers like kooky grown-up children and start respecting the deep practice and education they bring to their work.  It’s time to become 1 of them.