"Control Illusionists" Make Innovation Dissapear

Reading up on this subject reminded me of another topic that I've been discussing lately:

Real Control (healthy variance reduction) versus the "Illusion of Control" (something quite different)...

Throughout my academic, entrepreneurial and professional career I've watched (and learned from) people who were masters of organizing and unifying a view of a million inputs and moving parts, enabling a more holistic outlook and decision making capability.

I've also watched some folks stare unproductively at self-created dashboards, lean too heavily on pre-fab decision-making frameworks and effectively divert themselves away from the tasks of a) understanding and b) actually solving critical problems. Instead, folks like these basically sell themselves and their bosses on an illusion of control, urging attention toward a neat set of reports that elude to selected management strengths/competencies and away from problems that may very well be out of control.

In a nutshell, the Control Illusionists I've met are great at creating a temporary calm and perhaps some job stability. They're also really, really bad at managing innovation. They certainly don't represent the kind of "magic" that you want to bring to your organization.

Quote of note...

"The innovator is a hypocrite if they leave unsolved problems on the table. Innovators who know of solutions or root causes will always seek to apply their knowledge."

-Howard Smith
BP Trends
http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/09%2D06%2DCOL%2D%237%20PTRIZTheTroublewithPeople%2DSmith%2Epdf

TED Talk on Innovation

Five Points on the Relationship between Vision and Innovation

1.) New companies tend to work backwards from a broad vision/goal of what they want to be, what problems their solutions will address, and who their ideal customers will be.

2.) Having a vision doesn't automatically engender uniquely and substantially valuable solutions- i.e., the kinds of solutions with enough market value to support the vision.

3.) Creating substantially unique and valuable solutions is difficult and requires inventive thinking for dissolving and/or circumventing the contradictions (C) that arise when one attempts to take a problem-solving step (S). E.g., "I can make the user experience markedly better with a patented new hardware interface "S", but it will require the application of new, unstable, fault-prone technology "C" on the back-end..."

Some contradictions are insurmountable, others require better talent or other resources to enable their resolution. To ignore or deny the contradictions is to settle with a faulty, incomplete, or inadequate product or solution. A really important point, I think, is that contradictions can arise in the business model itself. These need to be addressed as well and herein lies a common challenge of hubris at the strategic management level. Oversights and denials of contradictions can add up to drag down product and financial performance.

4.) Innovation Management Methodology*Creative Talent*Insight Channels = the required mix for exploiting productive, inventive thinking and hence bringing uniquely valuable solutions to market.

5.) If an organization puts its head too far down, chasing a vision without the right Innovation mix factors, then it is not giving itself a good chance at succeeding in its quest.

When good ideas get shot down...

Ever find yourself in a situation like this?