5 paradoxes of the culture of innovation in the company and how to resolve them

Here are the main properties of corporate culture, which favors innovations: tolerance for failures, readiness for experiments, psychological security, cooperation, flat structure. It seems that everything is logical and simple. Why do few people manage to introduce these practices? The professor of the Harvard business school Gary Pisano explains this by the fact that each of these practices has a couple that conflicts with it. Pisano writes about how to resolve the arising paradoxes in the book “Creative Creation” ( publishes the Publisher Publisher publishing house). We publish the chapter from it.

Tolerance for failures and intolerance for incompetence

Innovative organizations establish exceptionally high efficiency standards for their employees. They hire the best of the best and require the highest quality of work from them. Those who do not justify hopes are either dismissed or transferred to more suitable positions. Everyone knows that Steve Jobs dismissed everyone who, in his opinion, could not cope with his tasks. Amazon regularly compile an employee rating, and those who find themselves in the lower part should leave. Google, as you know, is a culture focused on employees: free nutrition, gyms, long -term maternity leave, etc. The company is regularly among the “best places for work”, but it is extremely difficult to get there (about 2 million people apply for about 5 thousand vacancies every year). Google does not dismiss people, but because of a strict efficiency management system, employees who are not cope with duties, now and then are transferred to other positions. Pixar replaces directors who cannot complete the film project after receiving comments.

How can high efficiency standards coexist with tolerance for failures? Is the fear of being dismissed not forced people to risk less? Paradoxically, tolerance for failures requires strict individual performance indicators. Suppose two employees work in your team. One you think is very effective: he demonstrates excellent technical knowledge and achieves good results. Another team member is clearly experiencing difficulties. By accepting this person to work, you probably overestimated the level of his knowledge. When implementing projects, its results can not always be called successful. Think about how you could explain the failure tested by each of these employees in the future project. I assume that if a strong member of the team is mistaken, you will consider this a rather reasonable risk than negligence. You will be more tolerant of the mistake made by him. And if a less competent employee tolerates the failure, you must regard his mistake as confirming your doubts about his abilities. But in most organizations they would not even go so far: there they simply would not allow a weak employee to take on a risky project.

The Google leadership can allow its employees to take risks and make mistakes just because he knows: most of them are higher -level experts. Really smart and competent people can endure failures when they are engaged in very complex things, and this is just about innovation. However, if you are not sure that you have a “team A”, you will not be able to unequivocally evaluate whether the failure was caused by a reasonable risk or simply careless performance.

Readiness for experiments and strict discipline

Readiness for experiments is not the efforts of a third -rate abstracter, meaninglessly dirty canvas. Experimenter organizations, as well as the abstractionists (both other artists and scientists), are very disciplined. They carefully select and plan experiments, trying to extract the maximum of valuable knowledge and information at low cost. Having received the results, they may encounter the need to stop or significantly process the project that seemed to be promising. Readiness for experiments does not mean the manifestation of infinite patience for bad ideas.

Remember the example of Flagship Pioneering, which I cited in the previous chapter. Experiments play a major role in the research process of the company, but they are usually strictly focused on specific issues. These are “killer experiments” designed to ensure obvious evidence of the feasibility of the idea that underlies a risky project. Based on the name, the purpose of such an experiment is to quickly kill the idea, and not confirm the original hypothesis. Risky hypotheses are either rejected or reformulated upon receipt of conflicting experimental data. It is also not worthwhile to just spend time on bad ideas and resurrect them, like a lazarus from the dead. Another important aspect of the discipline of experiments is their relatively low cost, which is not allowed to increase in the early stages of work and the deadlines. Flagship usually spends no more than $ 1 million and several months of work on checking risky hypotheses.

Discipline should not be confused with slowness or bureaucracy. In fact, the opposite is true: discipline means that from the very beginning you have clear criteria that allow you to decide whether to promote the idea, modify or abandon it, that is, it contributes to the speed of decision -making. The more consistent you abandon unsuccessful projects, the less risk, starting new. For example, Amazon experiment a lot, but also stops many projects. The rejection of any idea or its revision requires discipline: you must be ready to admit that the initial hypothesis was incorrect.

Psychological security and marginal frankness

We all would like to say without fear of what we think and be heard, but psychological security involves bilateral interaction. If I can freely criticize your ideas, you should be able to criticize mine just as freely. At the same time, most of us prefer to act as critics, and not to receive criticisms in our address. I myself experienced the "joy" of a hard feedback. Being a scientist over the past 30 years, I represented the results of my work at various seminars and scientific conferences. At such events, it is considered the norm when the audience indicates the speaker to the shortcomings in its work, expresses skepticism regarding data, methods, logic and conclusions. We all know that such feedback is important for improving our scientific work and without it we will not move forward. But, if someone tells you that he likes to listen to harsh criticism in the presence of dozens of colleagues, this person is either cunning, or has a very perverted sense of pleasure. Hard criticism is like fish oil: useful, but tasteless.

Frankness is crucial for innovation: it is thanks to it that ideas are developing and improving. I attended (as an observer and as a participant) there are many meetings on R&D projects, meetings of the board of directors and I can say that frankness is everywhere in different ways.

A few years ago, advising Tradyne, a manufacturer of equipment for testing semiconductors, I saw how productive frankness looks like. The company has well developed engineering culture and training culture. Engineers openly discussed technical issues, and they should have reinforced their arguments with the results of strict technical analysis. During one meeting of the project group, at which I was present, two engineers entered an extremely hot discussion about the design of the cooling system for use on a new tester (this is a very large equipment, tightly packaged, with sensitive electronic devices, so efficient cooling is of significant importance). Their voices became louder, their faces were poured with blood, and everyone was confident in their rightness and without hesitation explained why the other was mistaken. I never thought that someone could be so carried away by thermodynamic coefficients. Immediately after the meeting, I saw them in the corridor and was extremely surprised that they drank coffee together and laughed, not even remembering the cooling systems. It turned out that they worked together for many years, respected each other very much and they had excellent working relations.

In other organizations, the climate is softer. Disputes are not encouraged here, it is customary to carefully select words, soften criticism (at least public). To challenge someone's opinion means to contrast yourself with a team. I somehow advised one large company, and the manager talking with me expressed the whole essence of their culture with one phrase: “Our problem is that we are all terribly delicate. It is inconvenient for people to conduct hard conversations. ”

When it comes to innovation, companies encouraging frankness will always surpass others. Organizations of the second type, in fact, confuse politeness and delicacy with respect. Although there is no contradiction in being frank and very respectful about people. I would even say that the ability to openly criticize and accept criticism and is a sign of respect. You can calmly respond to the crushing criticism of your idea only when you respect the opinion of the opponent. Of course, talking frankly does not mean to scold or humiliate (although they often think that way). Two engineers that I spoke above treated each other with great respect, and their “struggle” never was personal in nature. It was about structures, heat transfer, thermal efficiency and other technical parameters. Everyone openly disputed the logic, data and calculations of colleagues, but not one of them doubted the competence of the other for a second. Everyone sought not to defeat the dispute, but to offer the best design of the cooling system.

However, it is worth recognizing that such working conditions are not always comfortable. For people from the outside or beginners, employees of such organizations may seem too tough and aggressive. They are absolutely straightforward in their judgments about data, logic, methods, design principles, strategies, assumptions or perception of the market. Everything that any of the colleagues says (regardless of office) is taken into account and subjected to thorough verification. No one will allow you to miss something by the ears. Most of us values ​​our ideas, so there is a very subtle line between criticism of our ideas and criticism of ourselves. Frankness plays a crucial role for innovation, but at the same time it is also the same bitter medicine that is difficult to swallow.

Cooperation and personal responsibility

In a good team, an atmosphere of cooperation reigns and a system of collective responsibility is developed, expressed in principle, "this is our common cause." (How many times have you heard how a coach or a professional athlete pronounces the standard phrase “Is this the merit of the whole team”?) However, collective responsibility does not exclude individual responsibility. Cooperation should not be confused with unanimity. As noted earlier, an important role in innovation is played by help and contribution of a wide range of employees, but quick decision -making is equally important. And it’s no secret to anyone: nothing threatens speed as the desire to make a decision unanimously. This is especially true for difficult problems where opinions can differ significantly. Of course, it is good when a group of colleagues shares one point of view - this greatly simplifies the implementation, since there is no need to “sell” the idea of ​​skeptics. But, unfortunately, the consensus between all members of the team is not always possible, and most importantly, does not always reflect the best solution. The vast majority of aircraft engineers were unanimous in the opinion that the engines could not be installed above the wings of the aircraft, however, as proved by Mitimas Fujino, this belief was incorrect. In Vertex, a consolidated point of view regarding the selection of the project was also erroneous (fortunately, Joshua Boger and Vertex President Vicki Sato eventually made the right decision).

Innovative culture provides for both cooperation (and the availability of common goals) and personal responsibility for the decisions made. All issues can be discussed collegially, each team contributes to the common cause, but in the end, responsibility for the choice of design, the functional properties of the product, suppliers, sales channels, marketing strategy, etc. Specific people carry. In Pixar, the directors receive feedback in different ways, but only the director himself decides which remarks to take into account and which are not, and ultimately it is he who brings full responsibility for his film.

Responsibility can largely contribute to cooperation. Let's imagine that you are personally responsible for making certain decisions in the organization. You won’t hide anywhere: you have to decide at your own peril and risk. When the bets are so high, working as openly as possible in your interests, without refusing to interaction, support and assistance within the company and abroad. In one fast food network, where I conducted a study, all managing stores (the so-called “owners-owners”) were fully responsible for the work of stores, and their personal income depended on profit (after two years in this position they stopped receiving a fixed salary). I was struck by how actively these managers cooperated. They regularly met to share their experience, or could spend the weekend, organizing assistance to a store that had problems (or he just started working). Notice, they did not receive any compensation for this. What moved them? The answer is simple: in their culture with a high level of responsibility, cooperation was important for the effectiveness of the work of their own organizations. I have already mentioned a story related to the landing in Normandy: imagine in what situation Dwight Eisenhower was then. More than 150 thousand troops of all military troops more than a dozen countries participated in the landing. It was a large -scale joint operation, and yet Eisenhower, as the Supreme Commander -in -Chief of the Union Expeditionary Forces, perfectly understood that the story would judge it personally for this extremely risky enterprise. It is not surprising that he demanded criticism a month before the planned operation.

Finding out whether the level of personal responsibility in your organization is high is quite simple. Make a list of important decisions made at various stages of work on the project, and for each ask the question “Who accepted it?”. If you hear answers such as the “Marketing Department”, “Department of R&D”, “Project Management” or “Higher Management”, most likely, the level of individual responsibility in the company low. Decisions here are made collegial, and in conditions of high personal responsibility, they should be accepted by specific people.

For organizations with a low level of individual responsibility, it is quite difficult to increase it. If people are not used to or are not even able to make decisions, they feel a threat to infidels, such a culture is very risky. A high level of personal responsibility in the field of innovation is even more difficult to achieve, given the fact that innovation is always inherent in risk. I have already said when it comes to innovations, failure is more common than success. This means that in the culture of high individual responsibility, a significant share of your decisions will be erroneous. “Acceptance of failure” is one of the most common slogans of many of those who are engaged in innovation today, and the expression “you must celebrate failure” confidently among the most common business cliches. It seems to me that such calls are misleading. A person cannot enjoy his mistakes - we prefer to always be right. In fact, if you have grown to the position of the top manager, your experience of failure is most likely small. And working in an organization with a high level of personal responsibility, they must come to terms with the fact that it is you (and not the team) that will “celebrate” failure.

Flat structure and strong leadership

The absence of hierarchy does not mean the lack of strong leadership. Oddly enough, flat organizations need strong leaders even more hierarchical: without clear strategic priorities and installations in them, chaos may occur. In Amazon, the structure is as flat as possible. Let me remind you that the idea of ​​Amazon Web Services was born from the initiative of a group dealing with retail outlets. The project was developed by a relatively small team, headed by the young manager Andy Yassi. Today, the teams in Amazon remain small and capable of realizing ideas. The company has a “rule of two PICS”, according to which the team should have such a number of participants that can be fed with two pizzas. При этом у Amazon невероятно сильное и дальновидное руководство: Джефф Безос имеет очень четкие представления об общем направлении деятельности компании, о принципах ее работы и об основных элементах ее культуры. Другой пример — Google (теперь Alphabet). Инновационная деятельность в ней сильно децентрализована, инженерам дают время поработать над собственными инициативами. Но, как и Безос, Ларри Пейдж и Сергей Брин из Google — сильные лидеры. Джошуа Богер из Vertex, конечно, хотел, чтобы рабочий на погрузочной платформе думал о клинических испытаниях, но в конце дня он уже собирался сделать важнейший звонок по поводу того, какой проект выбрать.

Принцип «сильное лидерство/плоская структура» применим не только к руководству, но и ко всей организации в целом. Сильные руководители (а не координаторы или менеджеры) закладывают фундамент для работы команд, устанавливая приоритеты, уточняя цели и обеспечивая проект необходимыми кадрами и финансовыми ресурсами.