What ever happened to "all good things come to those who wait" ? !

We live in interesting times, do we not ? ! You order today, the delivery arrives tomorrow, and are getting impatient if it does not. You want to watch a film, no need to wait for a DVD to be delivered, you just stream it. You want to play a game, you just download it and get started. You no longer wait for photos to be developed, you cannot only have a look at them, you can modify, print, share them, instantly. (Does it not almost sounds ridiculous to point this out?) Instant gratification has become the norm for so much. Everything is about speed: grow a company quickly (to sell it), manipulate gens, inject hormones so our food grows quickly - completely ignoring Molière's wisdom that “Trees that are slow to grow bear the best fruit” and never minding that we throw away a large portion of our food! In fact, in the UK alone we throw away 15million tonnes of food, with people like you and me (ie individual households) being the biggest culprits. One rather annoying thing is that we still have to wait to move from one place into the next, no 'beam me up Scottie' just yet. Annoying .... is it? What ever happened to patience, and waiting, and anticipating? Can Chronos finally declare victory over Kairos? If you are wondering what I am on about, I found a lovely explanation of these terms by McKinely Valentine:

The ancient Greeks had two words for time, and kairos was the second. The first was chronos, which we still use in words like chronological and anachronism. It refers to clock time – time that can be measured – seconds, minutes, hours, years. Where chronos is quantitative, kairos is qualitative. It measures moments, not seconds. Further, it refers to the right moment, the opportune moment. The perfect moment. The world takes a breath, and in the pause before it exhales, fates can be changed.

How much do we react, rather than pause, then act? Chronos rules the world, it seems. And what might the consequence be? As if on cue I just spotted the following tweet by Vinay Gupta (@leashless): “Most of my co-workers worry that we are not moving fast enough. I worry that we are not going in the best possible directions.” While running so fast, do we indeed check whether we are heading in the right direction? Will we even notice if, like the lemmings, we are jumping over the cliff, running so fast because everyone else does so? I am certainly often guilty of that. Those who are at the receiving end of my sometimes cryptic emails or texts can attest to that: in the desire to respond quickly I do not even take the time to read what I have written. Sometimes the consequences are funny, some times rather rude! Yet there are more important reasons to take time to slow down. Let me explain hat I mean in a round-about way. During my PhD work I came across the work of Guy Claxton. In his book ‘Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind’ he makes some interesting observations about the way we think. In addition to 'instinct" (an automatic response where we do not think consciously about the situation and a possible response) he identifies two further modes of responding to a situation. The first of the two mode is based on ‘conscious, deliberate, purposeful thinking’. Claxton calls this the ‘d-mode’ or the ‘hare mode’. The following is an extract from the traits he has identified for the d-mode:

D-mode is much more interested in finding answers and solutions than in examining the question.D-mode treats perception as unproblematic.D-mode values explanation over observation.D-mode seeks and prefers clarity, and neither likes nor values confusion.D-mode relies on language that appears to be literal and explicit.D-mode works with concepts and generalisations.

It seems to me that we could replace ‘d-mode’ with ‘management’… Traits of the d-mode are important and necessary for completing a task: a preference for structure, the ability to plan and organise, to be in control. Structuring and planning help within keeping to a set time frame. Hence, the d-mode is efficient and effective when the problem is clear-cut and when there is one possible, straight-forward solution. The d-mode is less appropriate when the situation is intricate, ill defined or complex – does that not just sound like innovation? If faced with such a task Claxton suggests that the second mode of response, the ‘tortoise mode’, is more likely to yield satisfactory results. Here we are more concerned with understanding the questions than with providing an answer fast. This mode of responding is slower, less conscious and less ‘provable’ which is why results of tortoise mode thinking often feel like they have come ‘out of the blue’. Claxton remarks that ‘time pressure increases the likelihood to rely on existing habits and knowledge’. From an innovation perspective, speed, or time pressure, and the d-mode does not sound very promising!

How about a different perspective on patience and taking some time: “Patience is power. Patience is not an absence of action; rather it is "timing" it waits on the right time to act, for the right principles and in the right way.” Fulton J. Sheen's wisdom, not mine (though I fully subscribe).

If you are not yet convinced, let me throw in one more argument. I am sure many of you will have heard the 21st century being described as 'the VUCA World' whereby VUCA stands for volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous. Which mode of mind do you think might work really well in VUCA conditions?

Writing this I feel reminded of my first (and only ever) boss, architect and town planner Manfred Tennert. He would often sit and stare out of the window. Others in the office would comment on it, make fun of it. Yet when he stopped 'sitting and staring' and started 'doing', remarkable solutions would emerge. Perhaps we should all take the following poem by William Henry Davies’ (1871 to 1940) a little more to heart:

What is this life if, full of care, We have no time to stand and stare. No time to stand beneath the boughs And stare as long as sheep or cows. No time to see, when woods we pass, Where squirrels hide their nuts in grass. No time to see, in broad daylight, Streams full of stars, like skies at night. No time to turn at Beauty's glance, And watch her feet, how they can dance. No time to wait till her mouth can Enrich that smile her eyes began. A poor life this if, full of care, We have no time to stand and stare.

A Mindset for the 21st Century ?

Education, education, education. We hear a lot about the importance of getting the education for our children right. I absolutely agree. For example, if we were not educating creativity out of children we would not struggle so much revitalising it once children have become grown-ups… British comedian John Cleese has shared some interesting thoughts on creativity (and many other things) in this video.

However, in many respects I am more concerned about the education of those in devision-making positions today, rather than the upcoming generations. Why? For those growing up right now, the reality of the 21st Century is their ‘normality’, given that we tend to perceive as ‘normal’ that which we experience on a daily basis. They inhale the speed of change, the interconnectivity, the convergence, the uncertainty and complexity every day; for them linearity and predictability are concepts of the ‘olden days’.

Yet not so for many of those in decision-making positions today who are often too busy ‘doing’ to sit back, observe, think and reflect. And don’t forget: their way of thinking and behaving has taken them to where they are today ... at the top. Yet management guru Gary Hamel pointed out in his Harvard Business Review article “Strategy as Revolution” (back in 1996!), ‘Experience is valuable only to the extent that the future is like the past. In industry after industry the terrain is changing so fast that experience is becoming irrelevant and even dangerous.’

Even those who take some time out to keep in the learning loop and attend executive programmes to further their thinking will find that most executive training runs along the well trodden paths of the 20th century, no chance of creating a mindset appropriate for the 21st century. (Well trodden paths always reminds me of a poem by Sam Foss that Mark Brown, creator of the Dolphin Index and good friend, once shared with me - have a read!). Where is the experiential learning that facilitates deep understanding? Where is the deep integration of content that is required to match reality’s high levels of complexity? Where is the courage to put soft skills, emotional intelligence and intuition at par with analysis, predictability and numbers? I am all with H.R.H The Prince of Wales who said, “Much of our education seems to have been designed to destroy what is so unique in humanity - the balance between our rational and intuitive selves.” (I found this lovely quote in one of Penelope Tobin's newsletter - have a look at her blog).

We are talking about the need for a different skill set - as for example, shown in the list of top 10 skills required in 2015 and 2020 from a 2015 report of the World Economic Forum(you can read more here). Yet do you feel that is something that is being taught ? At school? In executive education?

Yes yes, I know there are exceptions, and that’s what they are ... exceptions, and certainly not as widely spread as they would need to be to have an impact and change mindsets on a broader basis.

“What if we stopped thinking in discrete steps and started to think in never-ending journeys instead?”

Something I have been thinking about more and more recently are the implications of what seems to be a human condition and the preferred modus operandum of our brain: thinking in boxes. Can I hear some of you groan, “Oh no, not another one asking us to ‘think outside the box’!”? That is not what I suggest; what I suggest is much scarier than that.

I suggest that in the 21st century we need to learn to think without boxes! Boxes, linearity, discrete and separable steps are what we are used to, and yet I believe that the context of the 21st century is such that we have to move beyond that. I used to call this phenomenon ‘convergence’ and it started by the realisation that products no longer fit into neat boxes - think about smart phones and all their different meanings and functions! Think about the blurring of boundaries between products and services. Think about the blurring of boundaries between professional and private lives –(while I am aware that many Germans have 2 phones, one ‘professional’ and one ‘personal’, I believe they are the exception. Think about the blurring of industry boundaries. Think about the shifting and blurring boundaries of consumer profiles - the days of using demographics and socio-economic groupings are well and truly over. And think about the way we used to think about our lives: childhood, education, work, retirement—does it really still work like that? Once you start looking, you see dissolving boxes everywhere… Good bye to 'either/or'. Hello to 'and'!

Either/or worked in the past when things were changing slowly…when there was time to focus on one thing at a time. Looking around to see whether it is just me or others have been thinking along these same lines, I found some supporting evidence. The first is from the fields of Chaos Theory and Complexity Theory. Both invite us to re-think our assumption of linearity and predictability.

A source of support are Quantum Physics and Schrödingers Cat, which confront us with the fact that there is no certainty, only probabilities—and that something can be in more than one state. In the case of Schrödinger’s Cat, the cat can be both dead and alive (well, until we actually observe it…). Curious? Watch Schrödingers Cat Explained.

Letting go of boxes requires a willingness to live with uncertainty and give up the illusion of control. It builds on awareness and understanding, rather than knowing. It means constantly monitoring and observing, in order to be able to embrace what changes and opportunities may emerge. Letting go of boxes also means that endpoints are imaginary and that all becomes part of a journey.

Before we start exploring gender differences in the context of innovation, let me say that there is nothing I believe in more than the wisdom of the American Indian Irokese Tribe who knew that “It will take all of us to save us”.

However, while there does indeed seem to be a growing consensus among companies worldwide that gender diversity and equality is an imperative both from an ethical and a business perspective - are you aware that one of McKinsey’s core themes is ‘Women in the economy’ - reality still shows a different picture; to quote from an article published in The Guardian December 2013 “Yet women are still less likely than men to be associated with leadership positions in the UK: they account for 22% of MPs and peers, 20% of university professors, 6.1% of FTSE 100 executive positions, and 3% of board chairpersons. Income inequality has risen faster in the UK than any other OCED country and today women earn on average £140,000 less than men over their working careers.” At the same time I believe that there is something about the wider context of the 21st century that calls for a stronger presence of attitudes and behaviours commonly more associated with women, such as being caring, collaborative, involving, future oriented. In fact, when Harvard Business School professors John Gerzema and Michael D’Antonio asked 64,000 individuals from 13 countries about the top 10 desirable leadership qualities for the 21st century, then followed up asking about half that number to classify 125 different human characteristics as either masculine, feminine or neither, they found that 8 out of the 10 leadership qualities were viewed as female.

While there are also many who hold the view that men are more creative than women - as represented in this article from the Huffington Post - there are others, such as Adi Gaskell, who points out flaws in this generalisation. Adi quotes a study from 2013 which revealed that women have as many ideas as men, but their ideas are often not taken seriously or listened to with the same attention as those of their male counterparts. It also emerged that these ideas were given less support to bring them to fruition. In part this may have to do with the way women communicate; women tend to be apologetic, and use many qualifiers which undermines our argument and credibility. Looking at actions rather than words, it seems though that women do rather well when it comes to entrepreneurship! Which is why Kevin O’Leary, Canadian entrepreneur and Shark in the American ‘Shark Tank’ television show, prefers to invest in women. In a recent interview he pointed out that all of his successful investments were run by women, attributing their success to superior time and risk management skills. One last point, whether women ‘are living up’ to traditional stereotypes or not very much depends on the context and what kind of behaviour and performance is ‘expected’ by their friends, family, society. Authors Adam Galinsky and Maurice Schweitzer believe that power differentials are the underlying driver for gender differences.

We have been seeing an optimistic change in many organisations' mindset when it comes to collaboration. For many years, we heard that working together can lead to a big mess – too many misunderstandings, too much consensus, and too much convergent thinking. Lately, almost all of the work being done around the topic of innovation is highlighting the importance of collaboration. Why? For us it comes down to people understanding and valuing the outcome of diverse teams. For instance, collaboration increases the chances of associations and iterations between ideas that result in innovative solutions and combinations. According to Robert Weisberg, author of Creativity: Understanding Innovation in Problem Solving, Science, Invention, and the Arts, innovative outcomes are a result of chains of connected ideas that flesh out the original thinking. And this is only possible through the connections and energy from a wide and multi-cultural group of people.

So it is not really surprising that collaboration, crowdsoucing and ‘matchmaking’ platforms are springing up like mushrooms after full moon! Just in our little network we have representatives from those that are associated with opening up the crowd for problem solving such as NineSigma and Innocentive, more recently Innosabi, Hype and Hyve, to ones that allow finding the right people at the right point in time such as Bridgelight and MaxImpact. And not to forget Katerva which has set itself the goal of ‘accelerating the future’ by identifying, assessing and scaling sustainability-driving innovation. Being passionate about innovation, collaboration and sustainability and holding the belief of shaping the future rather than letting it happen to us, has led Bettina to get more involve in Katerva recently, helping to develop, bring together and engage Katerva’s diverse communities of innovators, spotters, experts, amplifiers, investors, and corporations. Watch this space - and let us know if you too might like to get involved!

This piece was originally written as a contriobution at the UnitedSucces Symposium in Rome May 2015, then adapted for Synquity's newsletter.

Why CEOs are not happy with Innovation Results

While we have talked for quite some time now about the importance of innovation, study after study finds that CEOs are not quite happy with the results. Why? The first piece of the puzzle revealed itself to me over 20 years ago when I started working for myself. I often got the reaction of: gosh, how brave, how courageous! It did not feel like that to me! Doing a job I could not feel passionate about would have taken much more courage… Working for myself was the easy way out.

It became very clear to me then that we obviously have a different understanding of what constitutes risk, bravery, and courage. Those with an idea are generally enthusiastic, communicating excitedly about how they are going to change the world. Those they are communicating with, and trying to sell the idea to, have often a different frame of mind: they might not get so excited by changing the world, in fact, they’d prefer things stayed as they are (often because they were the ones putting the current system into place).

As I always want to understand, I asked myself, What happens when we are uncomfortable, or to put it more drastic, feel threatened? Here some insights from neuroscience come in handy. (What I am saying now may be rather simplified but I think it makes the point.)

Put very simply, our brain is divided into two main parts: the ‘old’ or limbic part of the brain, called Amygdala, to which I will refer to as the ‘red zone’. Then there is the ‘new’ part, the Prefrontal Cortex, to which I will refer to as the ‘blue zone’. Each part has different functions, and being in the red or the blue is triggered by different things. Another important point to mention here is that the amount of energy available to the brain is fixed, meaning that if energy is used by one part of the brain, e.g. the red zone, it is not available to the other, e.g. the blue zone.

Let’s take a look at the red zone first; It is triggered by stress hormones and increases heart rate and blood flow to the skeletal muscles. It is focused on self, is sensitive to threat; it is the seat of anger, fear and depression. It is about fight or flight and instinct, about impulses and desires; it is also about low order learning (e.g. memorising rather than applying knowledge), and importantly, it is resistant to change.

We end up in the red zone through things such as a physical threat, fear, anxiety, guilt; but also by a lack of clarity, rejection and sarcasm, exclusion and not being listened to, perceived unfairness and being judged, and being told how to think. Indeed, it is hard to think straight when we are angry or stressed (in fact, we see ‘red …).

What about the blue zone? It is reflective, managing our impulsive desires; it is slower and more resource intensive. It is the seat of affiliation, generosity and goodwill; it is the home of imagination and creativity, where options are considered, and higher order learning takes place, i.e. combining things. We get into the blue zone fundamentally by feeling safe; this involves feeling respected, trusted and loved, being listened to - receiving authentic attention, being acknowledged and included, having clarity and permission, experiencing generosity and also when others show vulnerability.

Now let’s come back to our starting point: about organisations struggling with innovation. What generally happens? The CEO stands up saying: we need more innovation, all of you need to become more innovative! If risk, uncertainty and ambiguity are outside the comfort zone - which they certainly are for many of us - which zone do you think will be triggered?

Getting people out of the red, making innovation more comfortable depends on three things:

Accepting people just the way they are, with their differences in preferences, not least with regards to risk, uncertainty and ambiguity. If we want innovation and not just creativity we need all of them anyway!Understanding that the request for more innovation is likely to push many people into the red - and perhaps especially managers and decision makers in many organisations. So you might want to think carefully whom you want to ask to make decisions about taking on high risk projects...Consciously working on getting those people back into the blue zone.

How to do that? Well, we know what triggers our energy to get into the blue zone: -

Involve them, by perhaps asking their opinion, and listen to them with an open mind and heart (meaning also that we stay calm and open when they give it to us…).Respecting what is currently in place (they might have been the ones who put it there!)Providing clarity, and making that which does not yet exist more tangible, be it through storytelling or prototypes.And finally, humor and laughter dissipates tension and is one mechanism of bringing the energy from the red back into the blue part of our brain.

In the first two posts of this trilogy I described the daily life of many school children today, and described the issue I have with occupying our children 100% of the time, providing them with constant structure and input. Not that I cannot imagine how it came about: in the days of the British Empire where the British ruling class was busy elsewhere (conquering the world); to make sure their offspring was safe and sound, they send them off to boarding school in England. Keeping children safe and sound was also the reason boarding schools instituted classes and games on Saturdays - what better way to keep their charges out of mischief? Times have changed though and I believe it is time to ask the question, is the way we are currently educating out children still the best possible way? Both in terms of structure, and in terms of content.

I am sure many of you know the wonderful video where Sir Ken Robinson shares his view on the education system, why it is as it is, and why it is no longer suitable for today’s context. The video makes very clear that we need to understand things in the context, which also means that we need to revisit what we put in place periodically to ensure it is still fit for purpose, ie whether it is addressing the needs and requirements of a particular context, at a particular point in time. By the way, this advice is relevant to ANY aspect of life and work ….

Before moving on to what education of and for the 21st century should deliver, quickly two more aspects of the current education that concern me that as I believe they are the underlying causes of much of the challenges we are facing today.

The first is that the current system is that our obsession with measuring and ranking has led to a culture where all that matters is getting as many pupils with as high grades as possible through the system. This is reflected in exams consisting of multiple choice questions - easy to grade and rank - yet which brings with it an overemphasis on memorising (rather than understanding) in order to pass exams. I still remember sitting my GMAT which is largely multiple choice, thinking in the ‘reasoning’ section, well, this option if and when…, that option if and when… I felt given half the opportunity I could have argued most responses! But I am straying of course… In current times where the answers to any of these questions and facts can be googled within seconds, does it really matter? Particularly as I will have forgotten most of in in a matter of weeks anyway?

What we need in todays fast moving and complex world is the ability to transfer things from one context into another. To be able to do that we need a deeper level of understanding.

The second is that the current education system instills from very early on an ‘exclusiveness mindset’, meaning that the belief that everything is black or white, right or wrong, is deeply embedded in mindset and thinking. The aforementioned multiple-choice questions are the epitome of that. Not only that, there is the, often implicit, suggestion that there is one right answer, and one right answer only. Those who propose an alternative are often laughed at and considered somewhat silly.

You may ask why I am so concerned with the black and white mentality. I would like to link this kind of mindset to the resistance innovation and change often face. First of all, if we search for the 'one right answer' we will be nervous to experiment, and we will be nervous to commit. We don’t want to fail, to embarrass ourselves, to get it ‘wrong’.

Second, if indeed we believe that there is indeed one right way regardless of time and context, and if then someone suggests a change, does not mean that I must have been wrong all along? How many of us become defensive when someone suggests to change how we do things, or even just asks us to explain why we do the things the way we do… I was quite delighted to see that in his recent posting on Insead’s Manfred Kets de Vries [http://knowledge.insead.edu/users/manfredke] argues for executives to learn to think in ‘shades of grey’ rather than black ad white. Indeed.

But enough complaining about what is, what are the qualities I propose for an education that is worthy of the possibilities and opportunities of the 21st century? As well as being necessary for addressing the numerous and unprecedented challenges we are facing? What is it that will help future generations to survive in the fast changing and complex context, and also help them make it a better place?

After thinking long and hard how best to capture the essence it is perhaps not surprising it is more about a mindset than it is about a skill set, it is about how we are rather than what we do; I believe that we need to find a way to educate (and bring up) our children in a way that gives them resilience and humility. Let me explain a little more why I believe these to be so important.

Resilience

In this context resilience for me is about inner strength, about an awareness and understanding that enables us to depend less on the voice, recognition and acceptance of others. In our comfort and self belief we are less reliant on external forces and feedback. Why do I consider this to be of importance? This thoughts was triggered when recently reading an article in the magazine of the RSA of which I am a Fellow. In one of their articles research was being cited that had found that: ”… when people find that other people disagree with them, they tend to think of themselves as less likeable and competent that they did before!” I found that rather worrying, particularly in the awareness that much innovation arises from a disagreement with the status quo (and hence with those who are aiming to preserve it). I immediately though, if we are to address the challenges we face we need to be able to be comfortable to disagree, we need to be comfortable with conflicting perspectives and different viewpoints! We need to be comfortable and secure enough in ourselves to keep asking ‘why’ questions and propose crazy ideas. We need to embrace and accept disagreement - not to agree to disagree but to use the differences to explore different perspectives and viewpoints, and with that open doors to new possibilities and solutions that have not been thought of before. It is not for nothing that InnoCentive noticed over the years that solutions particularly to tricky or ‘’ problems do hardly ever come from within the knowledge community where the challenges originates; more often than not they come from entirely unrelated fields.

Here a few other words that I associate with resilience: openness, adaptiveness, flexibility. Resilience is not about not being affected by change; resilience is about the ability to bounce back. Unless there has been a change, an impact, something that has affected the status quo there would be no need to bounce back! Therefore it seems clear to me that in times of change, which is what we experience and which is not likely to go away, resilience is essential.

Thinking about the ‘bouncing back’ bit though, if we are experiencing change, then it does not seem possible to bounce back to where we were before, perhaps we should start thinking about resilience as the ability to bounce forward! In times of change we need to be open, flexible and adaptive, and have the courage and confidence to bounce forward into the changed status quo. In the face of adversity and change resilient people do not resign, the re-design!

Of course there is always the danger of things being changed for the sake of it, just because we can - and that is why the second key ingredient for educating for the future is so important: humility.

Humility

Looking at the mindset and progress of humanity to date, there is one thing we can NOT say about us humans as a whole (at least no in the western world…): that we are humble. Considering ourselves to be the pinnacle of creation, we like to believe we are in control and know what’s best, for everyone and everything. (Should you ask me, the following has a lot to answer for: “And God gave them his blessing and said to them, Be fertile and have increase, and make the earth full and be masters of it; be rulers over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing moving on the earth.” Genesis 1:28. Lots of room for interpreting that in a superior and destructive, rather than caring and responsible way!)

Being humble is to acknowledge that we are but part of a whole, part of an interwoven system where all aspects depend on the respect, appreciation and nurturing of each other for the system to retain the precarious balance that has developed over thousands of years. Humility is about respecting what someone else has put in place. Humility is about looking for what we can contribute to improve a situation rather than ask what is in it for us. To instil an awareness of the interdependency which quantum physics helps us to understand, to understand how and why we, as individuals, need to accept responsibility for our actions and their impact on the wider system are challenges of education in the 21st century.

Here a few other words that I associate with humility: awareness, respect, and compassion. Humility is about awareness about why things are as they are, it is about respecting those who have put them in place, and be compassionate when they show resistance and fears in the face of change.

Some interesting initiatives that seek to create new paths:

In my previous post I wrote about the typical school day of my boys, asking whether a 10 hour day, 6 day week is really what we want for our children. Here I'd like to explore why I am rather concerned about it, in a third blog I will contrast the present with a possible future.

There are two main reasons for my concerns. First, do we not often here that teenagers do not know what to do with their time? Well, hardly surprising when from the word go they are put into contexts where others constantly decide what they are to do with their time: from nursery to primary to secondary school. Are we not creating mindsets that wait to be told, that are not used to taking responsibilities and making their own decisions? Mindsets that lose the ability to imagine, to explore and experiment, based on their own thinking? And yet we hear so much about the need for more entrepreneurial minds and that entrepreneurs are our future.

Having grown up in Germany I was home around lunch time, with free time after homework was done - which is probably why I react strongly to what I observe here in the UK, and that I notice it in the first place. As I like to say, normality is what we experience on a daily basis... and what we consider normal we tend not to questions. (By the way, it concerns me that in Germany too there is a move towards 'Ganztagsschule' that occupies children the entire day.)

Yet being the entire day at school, is it for the benefit and best of the children or for the convenience of grown-ups? Has it become a necessity because both parents have to work to finance the family, because there are so many single parents, or because both parents seek stimulation and fulfilment in their professional lives? If this is so, should our children then not at least be allowed to leave their 'work' behind when returning home, ie do we really need homework? I will come back to this in my third post in this topic.

If my first reason concerns the consequences at the individual level, the second is about the consequences at the systems level, the consequences for society as a whole.

The times we live in are characterised by what I call the 5C: increase pace of change, increased connectivity, convergence at many levels, changing consumer behaviour, all of which leads to increased levels of complexity. (If you are interested in finding out more the 5C, there will be another post on this soon).

In such times it is in my view absolutely essential to have time to reflect, time to think, time to understand what the implications of all this are, and what they mean for our future. A future which we may not be able to predict or plan yet which we influence through our actions and decisions today, individually and collectively. Do we want the future to just happen to us by not being aware of the implications of our actions and decisions? Do we want to travel in the accustomed roads that were appropriate in the past when our context is changing so much and so fast? The answer or anyone who has children ought to be: No.

In order to become aware, to make deliberate and conscious decisions we need time to reflect and think. We also need to give our brain the space to make connections subconsciously, while being relaxed or sleeping; may of the connections made in such a state we would not be able to make consciously. This kind of stuff can only happen when we are not keeping out brain busy otherwise; it happens when we are day dreaming, and when we sleep. In short, we need to have some space and time to just be. As dear friend of mine once said, "I think we seem to have forgotten that we are supposed to be human beings, not human doings."

Does our current systems of educating facilitate this essential ability to just be? More than ever before children - all of us - are exposed to a constant flow of stimulus: radio, television, computer, smartphone. We are always 'on' and contactable, we are busy and kept 'doing'. Who is not available via their smartphone 24/7? Who dares to leave their phone and computer behind during weekends or holidays, and how many of us consider it the smaller of two evils to respond to emails if and when they arrive rather than coming back to an inbox that sends stress levels sky high before we have even started work again?

Where in all this is the time to reflect and understand and be, something I believe we need more of, not less. Do we want the next generations of human beings to grown up, not knowing how to just be? If indeed we want our children to learn to ‘be’ as well as to ‘do’, then our current system of education surely has to change.

In the third post in this trilogy I take a look at what I consider key aspects of the current education system and propose what we might want instead.

It is Monday morning, 6.00. The week starts again after a weekend that was too short. At least getting up at 6.00 means there is not too much of a rush in the morning - nothing worse that starting the day in a rush - though the older one sometimes finds it hard to get out of bed. Well, actually I am sure the younger one does too, he is just incredibly disciplined about these things, very determined and strong willed. 7.00 o clock, time to leave the house and get to the train station for the half hour train journey. The trains are not too bad in the mornings, at least they get a seat (the afternoon is a very different matter...) After the half hour train journey, just before 8.00 they arrive at the small town that is their destination; another 15 minutes walk up the hill and they are finally there. Once there it is not too bad, some of their work they quite like, and they get to see their friends. The official end of the day is 15.45 though they are expected to take part in the activities organised after that. Despite being so overcrowded that it is sometimes difficult to even find standing room trains only run once an hour, so they will only be back home by 18.00, sometimes later.

They feel that all of that would not be so bad, were it not for the work they were expected to do at home - at least an hour a day they are told. Then there is also the fact that they have to go in on a Saturday. If they are lucky they are back at 14.00, but last Saturday the older one was back only at 19.30 - and had to be back again by 8.30 the next morning for some more extra-curricular activity. Sometimes they look at the grown ups who talk about nine to five jobs with envy and wonder whether it will really get better when they grow up. Then at least work will stop once they are home...

They are 13 and 15 years old now, and have been doing this for the past 5 years...

If you are wondering where these two boys live, it is in England.

My question is, is this really the kind of perspective on life and the kind of mindset we would like to instil in our children?

Is it not time we rethink what is important in the upbringing of our children, what kind of skills and mindsets we need to nurture for our children to have a happy, satisfying and sustainable future?

This is the first of three blog posts in which I take a look at our current education system, share my thoughts why I consider it a problem, and what I believe we need instead.

Here a piece I wrote in 2010 as a contribution to the INFU (Innovation Futures) Project.

Perspective

One of the questions that seems to have started forming over the last one or two years is the following: what will the shape and role of organisations be, in 20-30 years time?

In this document I would like to share some ‘happenings’ and observations that have fed into and shaped this question, how I can imagine these weak signals amplifying and becoming stronger in the future, and what I envisage some consequences for the shape of organisations as we know them to be today.

Happenings & Observations

Happening 1: The Exodus of the Creative & Innovators

Observation 1 – a trend towards self-employment

Upon completing my MBA in 1992 I started to work for myself. A rather unusual situation at the time – most graduates sought employment in predominantly large organisations in general and top consultancies in particular. If people started their own venture it tended to be with a small group of friends and colleagues, and with the ambition to grow and build a larger organisation. Today it seems that many more people out there operate on their own, as I have done for nearly 20 years, with neither desire nor ambition to build empires. In fact, according to a 2010 report by the European Commission, 45 % of all Europeans would like to be self-employed, the figure is even 55% in the US. 1 They may link up with others to respond to particular project needs, but fundamentally remain independent.

Observation 2 – innovation responsibility as ejector seat

Since 1999 I have been involved in running innovation-focused networking initiatives whose members were primarily drawn from large organisations. Over that time period ‘innovation’ has moved to being discussed by some to infiltrating every annual report and CEO statement. Over this time period the profile of those asked to ‘make our organisation more innovative’ has changed too: from keen, bright and young highflyer with no experience, reputation or clout in the organisation (often female) to the highly respected and experienced and versed company old-timer (generally male). What has intrigued me is that a rather large percentage of these innovation leaders leave the organisations. A few points are interesting here,

The departure can be either voluntary or forced, but is generally a result of a misalignment with what the innovation leader deems necessary to improve conditions for innovation and what the organisation (i.e. its leaders) are willing to accept, i.e. innovation leaders cannot introduce the changes they consider necessary. It seems to be the case that people who delve deeper into what makes for an innovative organisation invariably come to the conclusion that a systemic / holistic approach is required, and that it is fundamentally about values and behaviours; truly embracing and engaging this message is not within the comfort zone of many decision makers. As the Innovation Champions are infected incurably with the innovation bug and will settle for no less they see no option but to leave.

Most of these people set up their own consultancies, aiming to package their insights and learning and sell them back to organisations like the ones that have ejected them. Many of them fall into the group mentioned in my fist observation: they become de facto sole traders.

Upon investigating this issue of innovation leaders leaving their organisation rather than moving on to another role within, I came across the study by the US-based Association for Managers of Innovation (AMI, which is part of the Centre for Creative Leadership) which had started in 1981; again it was a group of innovation-focused people, drawn from large organisations. Noting a significant turnover in members they conducted a study in 2000 to investigate why about 1/3 or 15 of their members were no longer part of the group. This is what they found: “Of the 15 innovation champions, 10 have left their organizations and become consultants, 4 have joined smaller or start-up companies, and 1 has retired. As indicated previously, none has returned to a Fortune 500 company. Most who have become consultants have as their clients Fortune 500 companies and, in some cases, their former employers.” 2

Of course, not all organisations are like that; there are those who attract creative talent and make conscious efforts to retain them. Not surprising such organisations include IDEO, Apple, Google – those organisations that are known for their obsessions with innovation (and design).

Observation 3 – … and it is not only the innovation leaders

While the above refers explicitly to innovation leaders the exodus seems to go further. A colleague related to me the results of a study conducted within a large consumer goods company who wanted to find out who the people behind their big innovations were. The findings were rather interesting, all of those innovations that had made a large contribution to the company’s fortunes could be traced back to a particular person – not all to the same person but all to an identifiable person. That was the exciting bit. Not so exciting was that all of those people had since left the organisation – and not because they had retired but rather because the constant drive for cost savings and efficiencies had driven them – and people like them – out. 3 Admittedly, this story is some years old but given the current economic climate, cost cuts and other innovation undermining activities are only likely to have worsened the situation.

Happening 2: Where the creative energy goes

Observation 1 – people like to contribute…

Research by Dixon (2005) found that a large percentage of people willingly give their time – even for free – if the cause is something they believe in. 4 I think this might have gotten lost towards the latter part of the last century, perhaps it was not so strong then, but it certainly getting stronger now.

To illustrate this I would like to share the story of a communications consultancy which as planning its Christmas Party; in the previously year it had been a grand affair where everyone had flown to Monaco for a big, glitzy party. When starting the planning the organising committee wondered how they might be able to top that – and went around asking what people felt and thought. To their amazement it was nothing like the previous year! What people the employees actually wanted to do is give back, and they did in the form of helping to repaint and refit a community centre close to their offices in North London. People like to be helpful. Do you not get a nice warm feeling when you let some fellow driver into a seemingly impenetrable snake of traffic?

Humans are creative by nature; human beings, as a rule, like to belong, and like to feel that they are making a contribution. Many organisations today do not satisfy these needs. People are being treated like numbers – particularly evident in times of ‘head count reduction’, they are considered a resource to be managed; their views and opinions are often not listened to. Despite this people rush forward to share their thoughts and ideas if companies put out a ‘call for ideas’, as many have done at the outset of their journey to become more innovative. Those who have put out a call for ideas have generally been overwhelmed with the response – clear evidence for a desire to contribute.

However, most of these initiatives were not prepared for the flood of responses and hence did not respond sufficiently to the submissions; in addition they were also often unfocused and lacking selection criteria which meant that what could have been an inspirational and engaging exercise often turned into a negative experience, leading to disappointment disengagement.

If most employees cannot satisfy their basic needs of belonging and contributing, of being considered as individuals and being listened to inside the organisations they work for, where do they take that energy? Just think about sport clubs run by volunteers, by charity organisations, and so on – these were the outlets until the recent past. Facilitated through the Internet, a new era has started; the internet provides a vehicles that not only satisfies people’s desire to belong and to contribute, in addition it also provides a medium through which to express their creativity and make themselves heard.

Observation 2 – beyond crowdsourcing

Given the above this second observation will come as no surprise. However, what would have been your reaction if 10 years ago someone would have told you that masses of people would give their time, most of them for free, to help large corporations develop new (mainly) products? I for one find it rather amazing, and against what one might expect.

Crowdsourcing generally refers to a company asking for input. I can see this changing. People are not waiting to be asked for their thoughts by others, they are pursuing ways to realise their own ideas, with like minded people. If you feel strongly about something there is a great chance that there will other people out there who share that passion, and through the internet it has become rather easy to find these people and connect with them. I came across one rather amazing example – a start-up company in Germany – only recently.

The company, called ‘Unser Aller’ (www.unseraller.de), is using a facebook application to invite people to come together to design and develop new products. Their first project, aligned with ‘traditional’ crowdsourcing, was conducted on behalf of a company: developing new mustard recipes by exchanging ideas online, then receiving toolkits to experiment at home followed by again sharing their thoughts and insights again online, all the while refining recipes and even providing input to the design of the label. Their next project, however, was not on behalf any organisation; this one was about the development of bath-bombs, those lovely smelling fizzy bath ingredients. Here it is the community developing the product, designing the packaging – and then also sharing in the profit; the percentage share depends on the number of times logged on, contributions of ideas as well as comments on others’ ideas, and the quality of ideas (as rated by others).

Another development I see having a big impact is 3-D printing where I can design a piece of furniture at my computer at home, send the specification to someone with a 3-D printer and get my finished product delivered to my front door.

Admittedly, for now it might be fairly simple products, but I am convinced that advances in technology will allow more complex products to be produced this way.

Observation 3 – …the emergence of social innovation

What I find fascinating is how much of the activity in the crowdsourcing space has social or environmental concerns at its roots. Just to position ‘social innovation’, the definition of the Young Foundation, which has been promoting social innovation for the past 50 years reads, “innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of meeting a social need and that are predominantly developed and diffused through organisations whose primary purposes are social.” I rather like the definition offered by Centre for Social Innovation (http://socialinnovation.ca/) which reads, “Social Innovation refers to new ideas that resolve existing social, cultural, economic and environmental challenges for the benefit of people and planet. A true social innovation is systems-changing – it permanently alters the perceptions, behaviours and structures that previously gave rise to these challenges.”

Of course, such innovation has always happened. To quote from a report on Social Innovation by the Young Foundation, “During some periods civil society provided the impetus for social innovation. The great wave of industrialisation and urbanisation in the 19th century was accompanied by an extraordinary upsurge of social enterprise and innovation: mutual self-help, microcredit, building societies, cooperatives, trade unions, reading clubs and philanthropic business leaders creating model towns and model schools. In 19th and early 20th century Britain civil society pioneered the most influential new models of childcare (Barnardos), housing (Peabody), community development (the Edwardian settlements) and social care (Rowntree).”

The reason for picking it up here is that it seems that it has become much more widespread, and hence is being talked about much more widely; from initiatives driven by individuals it seems to have become more of a movement – enabled and driven what has been described in Observation 1, combined with some deep concerns for the state of our planet and our future as well as a feeling of a responsibility to action the observed challenges. Before the arrival of the internet it would have taken time and resources to identify like-minded others, and to move from concern to action.

Being involved in the teaching of students, generally on slightly outside the box MBA programmes, I have noticed that a large percentage of MBA students take on topics in their project work that reflects social and environmental concerns and considerations. But it is not only the MBA students I encounter, it seems generally that much of what is happening in the field of social innovation is driven by the younger generation, which leads me to Happening No 3.

Happening 3: A new generation that is different

Observation 1 – beyond money matters

Perhaps this is what everyone starting to belong to the older generation thinks: the young generation is somewhat different. But if the saying ‘don’t keep doing the same things and expect different outcomes’ is true, then certainly the reverse is true as well: don’t start doing things differently and expect the same results. Given the elemental changes in the way how and where we communicate as well as how and with whom we connect it would perhaps be more surprising if the younger generation weren’t different.

And of course, much has been written about Generation Y. One of the things said about them is that unlike many of their parents, they want to work to live rather than live to work. 5 But it is not only money that seems to matter less (if it requires sacrificing living by working too hard); I also get the impression that their social conscience and environmental awareness is stronger developed than in many of the older generations. I have already mentioned that much social innovation is driven by the younger generation.

The generational differences in values came to light for me particularly in the presentation of the Earth Award finalists. The panel of those quizzing the finalists seemed all grey – from the colour of their hair to the colour of their suits (and all of them were men). The questions of the panellists were around money in general and return on investment in particular – the puzzled faces of some of the finalists clearly indicated that their priorities lay elsewhere.

In the annual report on “Generation Y and the workplace” commissioned by Johnson Control (2010) you can read that “Generation Y values sustainability, is flexible, mobile, collaborative and unconventional. Generation Y is full of contradictions … They think like entrepreneurs and value relationships, are tech savvy and creative, and are environmentally conscious and mobile.."

Observation 2 – a different ways of connecting and forming trust

Thinking about how my father worked and developed trust and relationships, and how this happens even for me (let alone the next generation) I can observe significant differences. I don’t think my father would have travelled half way around the world to speak at a conference just because someone who knew someone he knew invited him. My trust extends by proxy’.

What I mean is, that is someone I trust refers someone else to me, I extend my trust to them. I guess that is only one part, as it is also rather easy to find out about others – and quite a lot – online.

To give you an example, the son of a friend of mine was travelling to Asia. He did not use travel guides nor travel agents but Facebook to plan his journey. It is important to remember that this Generation Y is the first one with little memory of a pre-web world and having the latest technology in their workplace is simply expected. So how else would you plan your holiday trip but go on Facebook and ask people you have never met where to go and what to do?

Observation 3 – seeking a different kind of education

“The current education system is largely failing this generation in terms of preparation for the workforce, especially concerning communication and numerical skills, approaches to learning, creativity, working with others and rewards and development.” 6 This statement stems from a report by the UK-based Ashridge Business School.

The aforementioned study by Johnson Control comments on Generation Y and work, “For them, work isn't just a place they go to from nine to five, then go home. They want an office and a work culture that's an extension of themselves and their home life - a place that supports what they value - and it better be green.” The leader of this research effort, Marie Puybaraud comments, "That they consider work as a social element in their lives comes through very strongly. For them the workplace is a social construction and work is social. They want emotional engagement and the sense of community. They choose employers [because] they are looking for meaningful work and opportunities for learning, because of quality of life issues and work colleagues."

I am teaching innovation management at post graduate level, generally at slightly out of the ordinary MBAs [programmes]. These programmes are not generally that popular with established educators. They tend to spring up at the fringes, in places that are not in the top 10 traditional MBA rankings – but they attract amazing people, and they are in demand with students. To give just one example, the One-Planet-MBA that Exeter University are setting up in collaboration with the World Wild Life Fund has students queuing up before marketing has even started.

Clearly there is a desire for a different kind of education, an education that takes changed values into consideration.

What does this mean for organisations as we know them today?

Let me recap my happenings and observations which were,

It seems that those who are creative and can innovate are leaving (large, traditional) organisations;As people like to belong and contribute and enabled by new technologies they are finding new ways and forms to contribute and express their creativity – and make money from and with it, e.g. ‘unser aller’ mentioned earlier;Younger generation seem to amplify these trends by giving more importance to a life-work balance, using the new media to connect and achieve what is important to them, and seeking education that is reflecting their changing values.

In my view this poses serious and very intriguing questions around the future of organisations as we know them today. Considering the happenings and observations together it seems that there are changes taking place at a wider systems level. What can I imagine the consequences for the shape of organisation in the future to be?

I can imagine the business model of ‘unser aller’ taking off, where consumers, as individuals or collectively, create and develop products, including the packaging design. I can imagine the manufacturing of such products to work like 3-D printing today, with ever increasing capabilities to turn out ever more complicated and complex products. Safety and environmental regulations are built into the systems, preventing the design and development of products that would harm the environment, and those that are not 100% cradle-to-cradle o go into production. Raw materials are sourced via a computer programmes that know where the most suitable, sustainable ingredients can be found; prices are based on the triple bottom line, i.e. always take environmental impacts into consideration; one of the consequences is increased local sourcing.

From an outright ownership things move to time-based ownership whereby the mentality is not ‘we inherit things from previous generations’ but ‘we look after things for the generations to come’. This shift in mindset overcomes current issues with things that are not owned generally not being treated quite as well as those that are. Such a shift will have been achieved through a reputational system that allows items to be priced based on treatment of rented items in the past, i.e. the more careless someone treats rented items the more he or she will have to pay next time.

Let me imagine a few scenarios:

I would like to have a shampoo that suits my fine fair, helps with keeping the grey at bay. There are also certain fragrances I like and dislike. First thing I do is go online and see whether there is someone else already producing exactly what I want. If not, I go to a special website where I can design my own cosmetics. It automatically prevents me from combining ingredients that might have harmful effects. If I have a product of which I like the consistency, smell, its properties, I can have it transferred to other cosmetic products such as body lotions and creams. I can keep my product to myself or make my recipe available to the wider community for a license fee.

I would like a new kitchen table. Again I go online to see what is already out there; if there is nothing I like I can design my own bespoke table. I can also decide whether I make the design available to a wider audience or whether it is for my exclusive use, in which case it would be more expensive.

I need a new washing machine. Well, actually I would not really need one, at least it would not be like the ones we know today. Cloths are cleaned via force fields which are integrated into my wardrobe, so every time I hand my things into the wardrobe they get automatically cleaned.

This means…

… that most people are their own company, managing their reputation and ‘brand like companies do today; the quality of their reputation will influence who would like to work with them as people will join with others around shared interests, whether it is to build new houses or develop new products or services;

… that profits arising from joint developments are shared based on the input – providing ideas, building on ideas, quality of input;

… that most factories are entirely automated and serviced by robots responding directly to individual consumer demands.;

… that shopping takes place primarily online, offering a visual, tactile and olfactory experience;

… that while designs can be sourced globally, final production or assembly will take place ‘at a place near you’.

Whether this is the kind of future we would like, or if we would like a different future, we need to start taking steps to make our desired future happen, now.

References

1 European Employment Observatory Review: Self-employment in Europe; published by the European Commission, see also http://bookshop.europa.eu.

2 Hipple , Jack, David Hardy, Steven A Wilson & James Michalski, 2001, Can corporate innovation champions survive? Chemical Innovation, November 2001, Vol.31, No 11

3 I do not have a formal reference for this as the report was not published; the study has been related to me by the person who conducted the research, at the time working for the consultancy Synectics.

4 Dixon, P. (2005). Building a Better Business. Profile Business

5 E.g. the Guardian newspaper quotes research to that accord in their article They don't live for work ... they work to live; by Anushka Asthana; The Observer, Sunday 25 May 2008.

6 Generation Y: Inside Out. A multi-generational view of Generation Y - learning and working, Honore, S. & Paine Schofield, C.B. (2009) Generation Y: Inside Out. A multi-generational view of Generation Y - learning and working, Preliminary report, Ashridge, Spring.

7 Quoted in Gen Y's green demands for the workplace 20 May 2010, Leslie Guevarra, GreenBiz.com, BusinessGreen.

Below some thoughts from the summary of the 2014 the Hernstein Symposium

Vienna, Austria 6th November 2014

Während Digitalisierung, Technologisierung und Globalisierung einen radikalen Wandel ausgelöst haben, scheint sich in den Führungsetagen noch nicht allzu viel verändert zu haben. „Wenn sich ein ganzes System ändert, wie kann dann ein Aspekt gleich bleiben“, fragt Keynoterin Bettina von Stamm, Leiterin des Leadership Forums in London. Erzeugen die ganzen Veränderungen zu viel Geschwindigkeit, zu viel Komplexität, mit der wir kaum mithalten können, geschweige denn sie in ihrer Omnipräsenz erfassen können?

Das traditionelle Top-down in Unternehmen funktioniert nicht mehr, Führungskräfte stehen heute vor der Aufgabe, vertikale Verantwortlichkeit und horizontale Vernetzung näher zusammenzubringen. Führungsaufgabe von heute und morgen ist es, ein Umfeld zu schaffen, in dem Veränderung und Innovation jederzeit möglich ist. Dazu braucht es Offenheit und Flexibilität, das Verständnis unterschiedlicher Sichtweisen, Lernbereitschaft, ein Interesse für neue Ideen und Impulse und natürlich starke „Leadership Skills“, die Begeisterung schafft. Führungskräfte gestalten die Voraussetzungen, Rahmenbedingungen und Richtung und müssen nicht unbedingt selbst in der Rolle des Innovators sein. Doch durch ihr aktives Interesse und ihre Unterstützung wird guten Ideen Leben eingehaucht, anstatt sie in der Schublade verenden zu lassen. Denn gute Ideen allein sind noch keine Innovation. Diese beginnt, wenn Ideen umgesetzt werden, beim „Adapting“. Unbedingte Zutat: eine starke Vision und Risikobereitschaft. Und die Überwindung eines technologiebezogenen Verständnisses von Innovation hin zu Innovation, bei der die Konsequenzen für Mensch und Umwelt berücksichtigt werden.

In this blog we like to share our thoughts on the last two of the six dialog skills: suspending and releasing.

These skills have a lot to do with our awareness about our individual, group, and cultural belief systems and mental models. Who has not fallen into the trap of evaluating or judging straight away? We hear something and immediately react: 'that is not possible', 'yes, but...'. One that is often also not particularly helpful: 'yes, and I...' Or 'I know exactly what you mean'. While generally meant well, it easily leads to the person talking to us feeling that they are not really being listened to, that they have not been heard - how could someone else claim to feel or have experienced exactly the same? It also means that the focus is taken away from the person who is talking and brought back to the listener. If that happens, if we do not truly listen first, then no real dialogue can take place. Let us explain a little more what we mean.

Particularly in the context of innovation open and deep listening next to suspending our spontaneous judgment are essential - even though this almost means acting against what our brain is programmed to do! Why? Our brain help us in amazing ways to navigate the complexity of modern everyday life: when encountering something somewhat different or new, immediately it automatically searches the 'database' for something similar, for something already known. If that something can be found then our brain reacts with: “case solved, I no longer need to investigate this and can focus my resources on something else.” Neuroscience research shows that this is how humans learn: by comparing something new to things we know. However, it also means that we might jump to conclusions, that we see (or indeed hear) what we believe to be there, before witnessing and grasping real reality.

In order to suspend immediate judgment we need to develop an awareness for our implicit assumptions and world views, of what we believe is and isn't possible - including those cultural views, economic and societal models and thought patten that have been shaped by both our professional and private lives. Too easily such views move from being ideas - possible scenarios - to becoming ideologies - only possible ways of looking at the world. In a consequence of this often there is only ‘one right way’ inherent in our world view. Once we are in a frame of mind of 'right and wrong' it happens so quickly to shut oneself off from considering and accepting different points of view, different perspectives on reality.* However, only if the customary mindset of 'right or wrong' are put aside an atmosphere of trust and (personal, emotional) security can develop. And this atmosphere is so critical for innovation: the crazy ideas that are so often at the bottom of innovation are only shared if people feel safe and secure. Einstein’s put it nicely: “If an idea is not utterly crazy at the outset, there is no hope for it.”

Clearly, it would be rather difficult to give up believes and assumptions all together. This is also not what suspense is about! All that needs to be done for real dialogue to happen is to put ourselves (our ego, our self importance) to one side, letting the said resonate and linger, reflect back to the person what we have heard, and thereby create some space for new possibilities, meanings, opportunities. It is in the space of suspense where we can unlearn - release - and where new things can emerge.

Suspense is the space between two breaths where we neither breathe in, nor breathe out, it is the moment where we just are. Only after a period of suspense should we start to bring our own thoughts and experiences to bear, if appropriate. Unless we pause, suspend, we will only be able to see a hat, not that, really, it is a snake who has eaten an elephant - or perhaps an ufo that has crash landed.

Let us close with out eighteenth insight: In order for true dialogue to take place we need to put our assumptions, beliefs and egos to one side, only then new ideas, realties and world views can emerge, and old ones can be released.

* Depending on whether we can create an open and trusting atmosphere or not we are ending up in either the Drama or the Empowerment Triangle - we will explain more about this in our next blog!

This interview with Bettina was taken by Lisa Szeponik, Young Leaders for Sustainability Program Manager January 2014; originally published on the website of the Collective Leadership Institute (www.collectiveleadership.com/en/publications/newsletter/interview-with-dr-bettina-von-stamm.html).

Lisa Szeponik: Dear Bettina, over the past decades you have been in pursuit of understanding and enabling innovation. How did the concept of innovation change over the years?

Bettina von Stamm: When talking about innovation 20 years ago, people would have automatically thought of technology, patens and R&D. The scope of what we meant by ‘innovation’ was relatively narrow. Buzzwords of today such as business model innovation and social innovation were not really on the agenda.. These different kinds of innovations have always existed but it is only over the more recent years that we talk about them, and that organisations are making a more conscious effort to pursue such types of innovation.. To illustrate this, I am often using a matrix that looks at different levels and different types of innovation. By ‘levels’ I mean incremental, radical and transformational,. When I came across the framework for the first time about 15 years ago it only referred to products, services and processes as ‘types of innovation’. When using the matrix in my text book published in 2002 I had added business model innovation, when the second edition came out in 2008 the concept of social innovation was emerging, so I added this one as well. So the concept of what we mean by innovation has expanded considerably over the years. This is one of the reasons why it is important to establish a shared understanding of what we actually mean by ‘innovation’, particularly when we say we want more of it.

Lisa Szeponik: Where does innovation start?

Bettina von Stamm: To answer this question, the framework we just talked about can be quite helpful. If we want to innovate we should first ask, do we want incremental and radical or also transformation? In terms of radical and incremental one questions is of course, “radical from whose perspective?” One reason it is important is that what is radical for one person might not be radical for another. This questions also matters as it will influence where we need to focus our attention when it comes to the challenge of getting our innovation adopted. If a new product is radical from the organization’s perspective but incremental from the user’s perspective, then my main concern should be how to embed the change inside the organisation. If my new offering is radical from a user perspective my concern should be, how can I best communicate the advantages and differences to the customer. Will I have the same customers as before? Do the same distribution channels work? How ‘radical’ something is depends on how much change is required to embrace it / make it a reality. I believe today organizations need some of each whereby the mix will depend on the company’s positioning and the industry context.

The second question is, what types of innovation do we want. Product? Process? Service? Would we truly be ready for business model innovation? I So it is really important that we are a little more explicit what kind of innovation we want; it helps provide focus, and manage expectations.

Lisa Szeponik: Today everybody wants to be innovative. Why is that?

Bettina von Stamm: I think the urgency to innovate has increased over the past years because organizations started to realize that if you do what you’ve always done, you will get what you always got - in fact you get increasingly less as the context is changing faster than ever before. If you don’t innovate, someone else will do it - and take your customers away from you. . Hence most organisations - commercial and otherwise - have realized that innovation, which may have been a nicety in the past, has become a necessity.

Lisa Szeponik: What are necessary pre-conditions for innovation?

Bettina von Stamm: I think a first important point is, why do we want to innovate? Where is innovation, which is a means to an end not an end in itself, supposed to take us? It seems that in many organizations people will struggle to answer questions such as, : Why do we want to innovate? Where do we want to innovate? What kind of innovation do we want? For an organization it is crucial to be able to answer these questions before asking everyone for their ideas and committing resources; hence providing a clear vision and strategy is important. The next important thing to acknowledge that innovation requires a holistic approach. It is not enough to put a process in place or nominate an innovation champion; while processes are useful in supporting flow and management of innovation, in themselves they will not be enough. What is more important are the right kinds of values and behaviors - and organization structures, procedures and measures that support these behaviors and values.

About 15 years I have developed a framework based on insights where innovative companies do something different form their less innovative counterparts, and the tricky thing is that all aspects of the framework need to be considered if you want to create a truly innovative organisation; this framework looks at five internal aspects - Strategy & Vision, Leadership Style, Processes, Culture, Physical Environment - as well as an organization’s interaction with the outside world, i.e. how it engages with customers and suppliers (and increasingly how open they are towards open innovation and crowdsourcing), and how they interact with the wider industry context.

Lisa Szeponik: Do I need special Leadership skills to deal with innovation?

Bettina von Stamm: Not necessarily so. What I think is most important is an awareness of your own attitude and comfort levels when it comes to ambiguity, uncertainty and risk taking. If you feel uncomfortable with risk, but are not aware of it may struggle to actively support innovation. The rational part of you may know that innovation is key to the future of your organisation yet your emotional side might signal : “Oh my goodness, that is too scary, I cannot go there!” Which means that you may not say ‘No’ outright but find lots of reasons why a project cannot go forward.

Lisa Szeponik: In other words: You’ve got to love risk.

Bettina von Stamm: Of course you do. Though this does not mean you should be reckless. It does mean that you need to understand and manage the risks you take, for example, don’t commit to the project outright, do lots of prototyping and experimentation, involve a diverse group of people, particularly those affected by the change. . You also need to understand, if you truly want (radical) innovation you cannot expect everything to succeed. You have to accept a certain amount of failure - or rather ‘learning’.

Lisa Szeponik: Can you define the role of a leader in one concluding sentences?

Bettina von Stamm: For me the role of a leader is to create the conditions in which innovation can thrive, which means that they need a deep understanding of what these conditions are, as well as awareness of their own preferences and comfort zone in the context of innovation.

Innovation. Surely one of the most used and abused words of our times. Whether it is government, business, not-for-profit, the milkman on my doorstep, they all talk about it. Someone starts painting the office walls bright orange and people excitedly shout: oh, how innovative! Someone suggests to invite external people to an idea generation session and you can hear the shout ‘oh how innovative’ again. Each time that happens I cringe. Everyone and everything have become innovative! Though when challenged to explain what innovation actually means and requires, things tend to get a little confused and confusing. To some people it is about inventions, to some people it is about creativity, to some it is about great ideas; it is for specialists, it is for those in white lab coats, it is for those with bow ties.

Let me put the first couple of stakes into the ground: first, Innovation is for everyone – the degree of departure from the existing and how we express it are different – and that’s fine. Second stake: creativity and invention are but the point of departure for innovation. Only once you do something with that idea, the invention, and find someone who is willing to engage with, use, buy it, can you talk about innovation. How many brain storming and idea generation sessions take place in your organisation? And how much of the material disappears into draws, never to be heard of or seen again?

A third stake is innovation not only being about tangible products; if you seek to innovate you can do so with much greater impact if you go beyond ‘product’. How about selling farmers weed-free fields instead of selling them pesticides (this is what the American company Dow Chemicals did). What about creating an offering that gives people a device and allows them to legally download and store music, paying for it in ways not thought of before? Quite right, I am talking about the iPod. You already know it because it is obvious: by changing the business model and creating multifaceted, interdependent offerings you make it rather more difficult for competition to copy you than by just going one up on their existing product. Combining physical and non-physical innovation is the key to impact and transformational change.

And you ain’t going to see any impact or transformation unless the innovation is meaningful and relevant. With all the hype around innovation there is far too much change for the sake of it, too much innovation for the sake of being innovative. That’s not the point and is just not good enough; in fact, it is an irresponsible waste or your organisation’s resources. Innovation is a means to an end, not the end in itself. Perhaps you should stop talking about innovation and start talking about making a bigger difference, creating bigger opportunity, delivering better value. So the fourth stake: innovation is, first and foremost, about the creation of value. Mind though, this value does not only have to come in the form of money; learning, understanding, insight, awareness all create value. This means innovation is relevant to individuals as well as organisations, and regardless of whether you are part of a for-profit or not-for-profit organisation.

Understanding innovation this way also puts failure into a different light. Think about your own life, think about progress in your organisation: how many times has failure been the essential stepping-stone to a big leap forward? If you want innovation without failure you better stop now. If you are truly covering new ground, how can you possibly know, right from the outset, what the right approach and path will be? This does not mean that you should take thoughtless risks, but rather that you should identify the challenging aspects of a project as early as possible, not ignore them (which seems to be our preference) or worse, use them as an excuse not to proceed. So my fifth stake in the practice of innovation is that it cannot possibly come without failure, and that exploration, experimentation and dead ends are invariably part of it. It is not avoiding failure but how you deal with it that matters.

As to my final stake, this one is probably the most difficult to accept as it has the most significant consequences: if everyone can (and should) feel responsibility for innovation (which implies that a lot of collaboration is required) and if innovation depends on experimentation and a different attitude towards failure, then creating an innovative organisation is about nurturing a certain set of values and behaviours. Yes, processes, structures, roles etc. are helpful when pursuing the creation of an innovative organisation but they are not sufficient; it is a different kind of mindset, a different way of understanding and thinking that is required; and saving the toughest for last: it is an organisation’s leadership who need to get their heads around this. If leaders ask for innovation but do not understand the implications for mindset, behaviours and culture you will find that creating the innovative enterprise will remain a pipedream.

So, are you ready to put the stakes into the ground for creating an innovative organisation?

Notes from my Keynote titled "Building Business Success without Innovation? " given at the conference “Innovation for Business Success, Fife Partnership, Dumferline Scotland, 24th March 2010

We hear a lot about diversity, the value and importance of it. Especially in the context of innovation - and I could nto agree more! I often quote Walter Lippmann, American writer, reporter, and political commentator who once said, "If everyone thinks alike, no one thinks very much." Quite.

However, talking to those who have worked in highly diverse context there is often a lot of frustration, and the complaint that such projects under- rather than over perform. What happens is that participants settle on the lowest common demoninator rather than truly combining their skill and knoweldge sets to create something new ...

Since diversity has been a key corner stone in my thinking around what truly enables and facilitates innovation, I have thought a lot about it, and what might help realise the full potential of diversity.

My first step was to develop a tool that would help elicit differences - in understanding, perception, expectation - at the outset: Totem Cards (building on the work of my docural supervisor, Dr Angela Dumas). It is a deck of 84 cards with visuals. Why visuals? For me there are 3 reasons:

More recently I realise that it is not quite enough, we might be aware of our differences - and still not work well together. So what else?

This is when I devided that we need more AART = Awareness (of the differences), Appreciation (of the contributions and the value inherent in the difference) Respect (towards those who are different) and Trust (that each and everyone is trying to do their best).

In my view the problem is that there is diverse teams are thrown together because everyone talks about the value of diversity - and then they are left to their own devices, not aware of the language differences (same words having different meaning), might be full of prejudices, and are under pressure to deliver and get into production mode, fast. unless there are some highly AARTful people around, things are likely to disintegrate quickly, everyone doing their thing, no combination of knowledge and learning takes place, so the end result is 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 rather than 15! Spending time at the outset to elicit the differences, create an awareness and appreciation of their value, do stuff to build trust and respect would be critical if we are really to see the benefits.

So, want to benefit from diversity? Use visuals and AART!

So how are we doing with our dialogue skills - of which there are 6 in total? So far we have discussed holding and voicing; in this blog we will take a closer look at the next two: listening and observing.

You might wonder why listening warrants some exploration. Of course listening is a very important aspect of dialogue, right? Right. What we are concerned with is not really about listening per se, it is how we listen.

Observing might not be quite as obvious as listening though no less critical for dialogue. It is about listening with all our senses; is about how we take in, and make sense of, our environment. And it is next to what we see - what we focus on, to which direction we look, how much time we take to discover both the context and some details - also about how we understand and interpret what we see.

What does that mean?

In order to truly listen and objectively observe we need to be aware of our own lenses and filters trough which we experience the world. What we hear and what we see is influenced by the mental filters each of us has developed; these filters are the result of our experiences, our expectations, our education, our prejudices, and our understanding of what is right or wrong. As French authoress and feminist Anaïs Nin once said, “We do not see things how they are; we see things how we are.” Along similar lines you could also say, “We hear what we expect to hear.” (Bettina has once put this to the test by replying to the sometimes not-so-sincere question of “how are you” “terrible” in a very conversational tone. The person inquiring about her wellbeing commented, “Wonderful” and walked on.)

Another factor closely linked to our personal lenses is the fact that we are all creatures of habit. We all have many things we do more or less on ‘autopilot’, meaning that we do not consciously think about what or how we do them, we just do them. For example, have you left your house or flat suddenly thinking, have I locked the door? More often than not we have, we have just done it so unconsciously that we struggle to remember this particular action. Or when you drive a car, you tend not to think too much about what you need to do: switching gear, accelerating, breaking, indicating, stopping at a red traffic light, many of these things at the same time; it all has become more or less automatic. And that is a good thing. Just imagine life without such routines! Just imagine we had to understand, evaluate, assess and rethink everything every time we did it! It would cost an enormous amount of time and energy.

Thrown into a new situation our brain will search our store of experiences and knowledge for something that looks and feels similar. If something is found, it is like a little programme running in the background, generally without us being consciously aware of it; object identified, assessed, and put into the appropriate box in our mind. If we cannot put it into one of our existing boxes we might explore, experiment, try different things out, try to understand. Once we have found an answer that satisfies us, we created a new box, we developed a new routine, the experimentation and exploration tends to stop.

While filters help us deal with the onslaught of impressions and information, and routines free up energy to do and think about other things, these human tendencies also have a downside. While one side of the coin is to create efficiencies and free up resources, the other is a lack of challenging the status quo, recognizing threats, and recognizing opportunities. In a way you could say that routines put our brain into neutral, killing openness and curiosity.

It is not about stopping this, it is becoming aware of it.

In the context of innovation and sustainability we need to be open, alert, curious, imaginative and aware if we are to identify opportunities, realize possibilities and address challenges. We need to be aware of our beliefs, assumptions and habits to prevent them from making us jump to conclusions or clouding our judgement. Diversity (of mind sets, viewpoints, experiences) is one thing that helps us become aware of our filters and assumptions. It is people who are different from us who can see what we can no longer see; they are the ones who can elicit the assumptions we make. The small fly in the ointment is, working in diversity easily leads to miscommunication and misunderstandings. This, in fact, was a key reason for David Bohm to write his book "On Dialog": when working in a group of different experts who were all trying to make sense of the same phenomena he was confronted with communication challenges. So, we need diversity and collaboration to achieve innovation and sustainability, working in diversity is tricky, hence we need to learn the skills of dialogue. We need to learn to listen and observe to discover, understand and create, rather than listen and observe to seek confirmation of our assumptions, beliefs and ideas.

Hence, we need to listen, rather than just hear. The difference? Hearing refers to the sounds and words we hear. Listening requires more: it requires an open mind and heart. Listening means paying attention not only to the words we hear, but also the use of language, ie choice of words, the tone of voice, and how the other person uses his or her body. And it is about listening for what is NOT being said. In other words, it means being aware of both verbal and non-verbal messages, of explicit and implicit meaning. It means being aware of the whole person, their emotions, their context and concerns. Your ability to truly listen depends on the degree to which you are able to perceive and decode what is being communicated. *

Michael Ende's book Momo is one of Dorothea's favourite books, not least because it is about a little girl who's main quality is the way she can listen; indeed, the entire 2nd chapter talks about listening and here is how Momo's listening skill is characterised: "She listened in a way that made slow-witted people have flashes of inspiration. It wasn't that she actually said anything or asked questions that put such ideas into their heads. She simply sat there and listened with the utmost attention and sympathy, fixing them with her big, dark eyes, and they suddenly became aware of ideas whose existence they had never suspected. Momo could listen in such a way that worried and indecisive people knew their own minds from one moment to the next, or shy people felt suddenly confident and at ease, or downhearted people felt happy and hopeful...."

What Momo does is ‘creating space’ for another person to step into and expand; she is not afraid of silence, just offering her presence, her awareness, her compassion. If we truly listen the focus is not on the self but the other.

And what of observing?

This is probably best explained with a few quotes! We’d like to start with American author, poet, and philosopher Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) who said, “It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see.” continue with another American, poet and critic Ezra Pound (1885-1972): “Genius is the capacity to see ten things where the ordinary man sees one.” and conclude with English novelist, poet and politician Edward George Earle Lytton Bulwer-Lytton (1803-1873): “Every man who observes vigilantly, and resolves steadfastly, grows unconsciously into genius.”

It is about looking at the same things as other yet seeing things they don’t. It is about looking beyond the obvious, seeing behind the curtain, spotting weak signals, noticing small deviations, recognising meaningful disturbances and patterns. How often do we look yet don’t see! If you would like to find out how good you are at observing, and truly seeing, noticing, click here to watch an interesting and revealing video on youtube.

Visual arts offer a great door into the world of observation: according to German philosopher Georg W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) art offers an invitation to learn to look beyond the obvious. Art is thus about discovering the multiple, often contradicting and complex layers of reality in a non-personal. The non-personal aspect of it is rather important: too often is the expression of different viewpoints, possible realities and perspective (mis-)understood as personal criticism and allocation of blame. Yet feeling criticised and blamed is the surest way to prevent ‘true listening’, it shuts us down. So, if you would like to find out more about the art of viewing, have a look at art history and art philosophy!

Before this blog gets any longer let’s offer our seventeenth insight: For true dialogue we need to listen, and observe with an open heart and mind; we need to reconnect to all aspects of our sensing system, integrating our body (sensations) - soul (emotions) - mind (thoughts) when we are listening and observing. Only then will we be able to perceive - and share - a version of reality that is not tinted by the “glasses” that each and every one of us have developed.

* This explanation of the difference between listening and hearing builds on something we found on a website where you can also find 10 principles of good listening.

In our last Blog we talked about the ability to 'holding' an idea, concept, suggestion until the time is right. This was one of the 6 essential dialogue skills. The second dialogue skill, which we will address in this blog, is Voicing.

Voicing is about the ability to share an idea in a way and language that others can understand, and therefore engage with. This is not as trivial as it may sound, particularly not in the context of radical innovation - or sustainability-driven innovation for that matter.

While the next bit might seem a little dry and theoretical we'd like to share some terminology and definitions that are relevant in the context of Voicing.

The first term we'd like to introduce is Semiosis which is derived from the Greek word sēmeiô, which means "to mark". Here what Wikipedia has to say about Semiotics: "Semiotics (also called semiotic studies) is the study of meaning-making, the philosophical theory of signs and symbols. This includes the study of signs and sign processes (semiosis), indication, designation, likeness, analogy,metaphor, symbolism, signification, and communication."

The process of semiosis leads to the creation of Language. Again drawing on Wikipedia, "Natural languages are spoken or signed, but any language can be encoded into secondary media using auditory, visual, or tactile stimuli – for example, in graphic writing, braille, or whistling."

Language in tun is the means by which humans are able to acquire and use complex systems of communication. Three important properties of the human language are productivity, recursivity, and displacement (more on these three in a moment), and from the perspective of this particular blog the most critical aspect are the facts that language relies entirely on social convention and learning and that languages evolve and diversify over time. Or as Wikipedia puts it, "the use of language is deeply entrenched in human culture. Therefore, in addition to its strictly communicative uses, language also has many social and cultural uses, such as signifying group identity, social stratification, as well as social grooming and entertainment." what it means is that language is context dependent, and what a word means in one context might be different from what it means in another! Which, if you are trying to 'sell' something new, and if people understand it to be different things, is a problem.

Let's come back to the three properties of language:

Productivity: language, words, enable us to communicate. However, whether we actually understand each other depends on whether we share social convention and learning - it depends on shared experiences. If we do not have that shared experiences, chances are that we associate different meaning with the same word! 'Power' and 'energy', mean different things to different people, depending on context.

Something else we should be aware of is that the language, the words we use, are only a small part of what we communicate. You may be familiar with Albert Meharbian's 'Mercedes Model'? While often used too simplified, it's essence that only a small percentage of meaning is based on the words we hear holds try in contexts that have emotional connotations - as we would argue innovation has!

So we need to be aware that there is a rational and an emotional aspect to our communication: the rational aspect manifests itself in our choice of words - which is also a reflection of the speaker's level of consciousness concerning the topic or situation. Then there is the emotional aspects which is reflected in the speakers tone of voice, speed and clarity of speaking as well as their body language.

What does all of this mean in our context? It means that it is quite useful to be aware of the above when trying to communicate, getting appreciation and buy-in, for a new idea, concept, product, business model. If it is truly new than a commonly understood, shared language might not (yet) exist. On the other hand, if you introduce new language, or old language with new meaning you probably have difficulties being understood too! (By the way, that is why the use of visuals or art in the context of innovation can be so helpful - 'a picture says more than a thousand words' and all that.)

So, language consciousness in its fullest sense, in addition to the appropriate timing (i.e. Kairos which we talked about in our Blog Part XV), are key prerequisites for successful Voicing.

We herewith offer our sixteenth insight: If you talk about something new (different) in the old (every-day) language you risk loosing its essence; however, if you describe the new with a new language, nobody understands what you want to say! This dilemma is also referred to as the pioneer dilemma, something which you can read more about in a case story Dorothea has written on "Radical Innovation at Philips Lighting"

* Have a look here if you are interested in a more differentiated discussion on the Mehrabian Model.

Thoughts & Insights form this year’s Chief Innovation Officer Summit

29th & 30th April 2014, London, UK

Thoughts from the conference - entirely from my personal perspective and point of appreciation, therefore undoubtedly utterly biased in terms of what I picked up (or ignored), and hence am sharing here.

The essence of my take-aways & common themes:

If you want to create an innovative organisation focus on behaviours, psychology, neuroscience - yeah, finally !!!!!

It was amazing to note how many people emphasised the importance of culture (the famous Peter Drucker quote: “Culture eats strategy for breakfast any time.” What somewhat amuses me is that we have known this for a looooooong time. Should now be the time something is finally been done about it ? !

The art lies in the HOW, how to engage and involve people, internally as well as externally; it is all about relationships, and the appreciation and understanding of individuals; (as I always say, people don’t resist change, they resist being changed…);

If you want to create an (more) innovative organisation there is no other way: it has to be a systemic, holistic approach (by the way, that’s the topic of the next Innovators Anonymous (=ILF Networking Group) meeting 18th September 2014); Create an innovation strategy - it defines where you play, and where not, how innovation is organised - processes, structures, people etc. (Innovators Anonymous ran a session on this topic back in 2006 - if you ask nicely I might make it available :-));

If you want innovation, seek diversity, collaborate across boundaries (internally and externally); the trickier the problem, the wider you should cast your net; the more radical an innovation opportunity you seek, the wider the circle of people to involve; how and where do you currently look for input / skills / competencies that you are likely to need for breakthrough / disruptive innovation?

Using visuals is hugely powerful, improves understanding and creates a shared language - one of the challenges when collaborating in diversity (see cards used by M&S or Promise Communispace referred to in these notes);

There is quite a bit of potential for innovation in Big Data; it can provide (almost) real time insights on emerging trends and developments ie identify and amplify you with ‘weak’ signals’, it can also be used to test and explore with relevant audiences; the tricky bit? Knowing how to ask the right question…

Perhaps one final observation: passionate and engaging presentations beat content any time. Of course, ideally you want an engaging, humorous presentation that is meaningful and relevant …

If you are interested in my complete notes (15 page) - just ping me an email :-).

This question posed itself after an experience in a restaurant in Hong Kong. I love experimenting with food, trying what is local, always was keen to try something new. Expectantly I opened the menu and was immediately overwhelmed. What choices and options! I just could not make up my mind and, after having spent a long time considering this and that, found myself choosing something I knew. Ooops.

That got me thinking… about other situations where there is just so much choice, for example, replacing my phone or computer. I sincerely dislike the prospects of having to investigate a replacement! What should I look out for and why? Which feature should I favour over another? Might there not be something even more exciting around the corner that I should wait for? So I postpone the decision for as long as possible (generally until my computer becomes a severe obstacle to me doing my work…).

Yet we innovate, and innovate, and innovate, to create more choice, to provide more options. In my view this, more often than not, leads to confusion instead of delight! Hang on, is not ‘delighting the customer‘ the key strap-line to much of the innovation activity going on? Ooops

To me a company that got it right for a long time was Appel. I believe that much of their success was due to the simple range of products (that of course were also stylish and beautiful as well as infinitely more user friendly than much of the competition). You read right though, I used the past tense… Just looking at what has happened over the past year or so makes me doubt whether this is still true: we have iPhone 4, 4S, 5, 5S, 5C, different colours (despite the fact that it is just so easy to customise the iPhone with shells, coves, whatnot). I am afraid, I think they have lost it (too).

I know I know, innovation is the topic of my choice, and my passion - AND I am increasingly aware of the dark side that there is to innovation: too much of it, with too little consideration, just because it is possible…

We innovate to create change - and by innovating too much we might just achieve the opposite! I believe that in today’s complex, fast changing and uncertain world a little simplicity goes a long way.

Or is it just me ? !

PS When googling for a nice picture to go with this blog I came across the chart below - so it’s not only me

I found this on google images but could not open the referenced website: http://www.noahrickun.com

It is quite interesting: we started the blog partly because when we were trying to map out our book project we did not really get anywhere. Then we decided to uncover our shared journey by shaping and developing our book in a blog - and this now is Blog number XV! Each time we write a blog, thoughts for new ones pop up; some times one, some times a few. If it is a few we put them in order, starting to plan and plot again - only to find that by the time we get beyond the next things start to change again, and we shuffle things around. We find it quite interesting that, once we decided to take one small step, more started to emerge! Another reminder that if we are operating in complex contexts one step at the time, continuing to move, and moving slowly - yet with a steady end goal in mind - produce amazing results :-).

When we finished our last blog on dialogue it was no different, by going a little deeper into the meaning of dialogue we unearthed the six dialogue skills,* which now give us our next blogs (we are curious to see whether they stay in order - or whether something else wants to be told first!).

The art of Holding. What does it mean to hold an idea, concept, interpretation? Well, who has not had an idea and felt the immediate need to voice and share it! Our enthusiasm and concern for sharing our idea as soon as we have it can make us oblivious to the context. It is like having a pack of seeds and, overly keen to put them into the ground, we forget to check what kind of position the plant would like and needs to grow, whether the ground is actually ready to receive it, and whether we are in a position to support and sustain it once we have put it into the ground.

[We have found this picture online which we thoughts captures the essence of holding so beautifully on the following website: http://www.deviantart.com and hope not to infringe any copyrights with this!!!]

There is actually a lovely word the ancient Greek used for the right or opportune moment (the supreme moment): Kairos. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines Kairos as " a time when conditions are right for the accomplishment of a crucial action". Kairos is about allowing time to lapse, creating a moment of indeterminate time in which everything happens. Kairos stands in contrast with Chronos, which is about chronological or sequential time. While Chronos is quantitative, Kairos has a qualitative, permanent nature.**

So holding is about on the one hand waiting, giving space, allowing emergence, manifestation and maturation of a thought before it is being voiced; it requires us to reflect on our idea and challenge ourselves. So we need to keep an open mind, and have patience - plus, so we feel, a few other things beyond:

A willingness to relinquish control, and ‘go with the flow’ instead,A willingness to let go of a sense of self-importance and desire to show how clever we are (right now) in favour of being able to make a (more) meaningful contribution (later on),A willingness to re-develop the skill of unconditioned, unprejudiced child-like curiosity.

On the other hand we need to listen and observe the context into which we indent to plant out idea so that when we finally voice it, this is done in a way that resonates, and hence enables our idea to fall on receptive ground; it means our idea is meaningful, and can lead to action.

The holding might take a few seconds, a few minutes, or days and months. The point is to provide some space for the thoughts to form and grow, and to sense the 'readiness' of the context before 'letting it go'.

The importance of 'the right moment' (or might 'the most appropriate' be even better?) is something that is reflected in the saying and proverbs of many cultures. For example, in the English speaking context we have,

"Everything has its time." Portuguese proverb"The right word at the right time is like a custom-made piece of jewellery" (from the Bibel, proverb 25:11)

A big question is of course, how much time? How much patience? If we wait too long the moment has passed; the opportunity is missed. How do we know when the time is right?

This is something intuition tells us. Developing an intuition for the right moment, however, cannot be learned through reading a book or going to university. This ability to judge the right moment will grow with experience. And what is behind ‘experience’? A lot of time, discipline, willpower, stamina. Stamina to live through obstacles, grow beyond fear of seeming stupid or failing. Willpower to start at the beginning when things did not work out. Discipline to stick with an idea despite rejection, ridicule, and possibly more pleasurable distractions. Time of devotion where you focus on your intention, on your primary goal, and are willing to postpone the rest to a later moment.

So our fifteenth insight is herewith: If we want to succeed with the introduction of something new we are well advised to understand and embrace Kairos and develop the art of HOLDING.

Just to make sure, we are not promoting that each and every decision should be taken in this way! Everyday routine and related decisions should follow the Chronos logic and are simplified by proper planning and implementation discipline.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* You can find out more about David Bohm's work on dialogue that inspired us on a website dedicated to him.

** By the way, the difference between the time concepts of 'Kairos' and 'Chronos' was topic of one of the contributions to the book 'The Future of Innovation', a collection of over 150 thoughts pieces on the future of innovation, co-edited by Bettina, together with her lovely friend and colleague Anna Trifilova. Online you can read the contribution on Kairos and Chronos as well as by now over 400 other thoughts on The Future of Innovation.

If in order to find the meaningful, life-supporting questions, we need to move from security, standardisation, formalisation and maintenance to curiosity, creativity, diversity and generation ... how can this be done? Which (new) skills and attitudes need to be (re-)considered?

We found the simple, possibly somewhat surprising answer in DIALOGUE.

What is special about dialogue? What makes it different from discussion or debate or conversation?

Let's look at definitions.

A debate is a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. It's goal is to come to a decision.

A discussion is an act or instanceof consideration or examination by argument, commen, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate. It also tends to be about particular positions being taken.

A dialogue is a conversation between two or more persons. A dialogue is about inviting different viewpoints and opinions, it is about exploring alternatives and options. It's all about an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, especially a political, religious or scientific issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement, with the view to reaching shared understanding. Dialogue is about creating a win-win situation rather than creating winners and losers.

Dorothea was quite surprised when she discovered David Bohm's book "On dialogue". David Bohm is a scientist with specialist expertise on quantum mechanics. Why would a physicist find 'dialogue' important enough to write a book about it? It's because if a group of people - even if all of them are scientists, yet with different areas of expertise - explore uncharted territory together, stretch the boundaries of existing knowledge, they somehow need to communicate. How do diverse groups communicate in a constructive way, and where everyone truly understands each other? This is not a trivial question as all of us have developed our own set of lenses through which we see the world. These lenses are a reflection of our experiences which in turn shape our implicit assumptions and deep beliefs. Each and everyone has such lenses and, even though we might not be aware of it, act as filters to all we see and hear, and they will influence on how we use and understand language. This is why ' communication across communities' is often difficult. Who has not been in a conversation where we feel misunderstood, not listens too, in conflict with someone only to discover later that it was a misunderstanding?

By the way did you know that 'communication' comes from the Latin word commūnicāre, meaning "to share", the activity of conveying information through the exchange of ideas, feelings, intentions, attitudes, expectations, perceptions or commands, as by speech, gestures, writings, behaviour and possibly by other means such as electromagnetic, chemical or physical phenomena?

So where are we? We need to be able to ask meaningful and relevant questions. in order to do that we need to challenge / have our assumptions challenged. In order for that to happen we need people who are different from us, who can bring different experiences and perspectives. Bringing different 'communities' together is a challenge as we see and hear things differently. That's where dialogue and communication come in, and where we come back to David Bohm. Evan Root drawing on the work of David Bohm, has identified a skill set that supports and enables effective communication and we have created the figure below to visualise it:

The conscious use of this "DIALOGUE SKILL-SET" involves:

Listening carefully & without assumptions about 'the' reality,Suspending previous experiences and understandings,Observing patiently & conscious our own viewing filters,Releasing inappropriate, unsuitable or outdated mental models and perspectives,Holding our idea / concept / interpretation until the time has come to,Voicing our point of view once we have done all of the above.

More and more people become aware of one of the most fundamental insight of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and relativity theory: the way you pose the question for a good part predicts the answer you receive.

Building on this our fourteenth insight is, dialogue skills are crucial to co-create meaningful questions at the edge of uncertainty.

By the way ... Organisations like the Collective Leadership Institute embrace this insight and offer stakeholder dialogue and leadership development.

Do you feel inspired and empowered by the Butterfly Effect with which we closed our last blog? This concept from complexity theory that offers us choice and freedom, that opens a window of potential, possibility and opportunity: each and every one of us, small we we might be, have the potential to have a profound influence on the world.

To us this is a rather exciting promise!

And the excitement is followed quickly by the question: what are we to do to create reality from this potential and opportunity?

Having played around with this question for a while we have come to realise: questions are the answer! Or in other words, it is all about the art of asking questions. It is the art of identifying questions that are worth answering, questions to which finding an answer will make a real difference.

Think about it, a question is like an invisible thread that leads us to an answer. In our observation today's obsession with speed and results means that we tend to pick up the first thread that crosses our path; without thinking further, without taking a closer look at the quality of the threat we start chasing it down to find an answer... often to a question (or problem or challenge) we are have not properly defined. Will such a thread take as far? Will we find something relevant and meaningful by following it? Or is it a thread that, while allowing us to find an answer quickly yet does not carry any weight?

So what should we do instead? It is also the how and with what intent we ask questions that matters!

Depending on how we ask the question there may be one answer - or many. If I ask closed questions like, what is 5 + 5 (and if this is not a trick question) then there is only one answer: 10. However, if I believe that 10 is a target worth exploring and ask open questions like, what can we put together to reach 10, the possible answers - and with it the possible solutions, opportunities and possibilities - becomes endless.

Let's have a closer look at: what is our intent when we ask a question? Are we interested in exploration, understanding and awareness, or are we keen to prove that we have the right answer and are just seeking confirmation and closure? How comfortable are we to ask questions to which we do not know the answers yet? Especially if we are experts, if we are the boss? How open are we to answers we don't want to hear, be it because the answer may challenge our assumptions, or might require us to take inconvenient decisions followed by unpleasant action?

Already Aristotle declared: "Defining the problem is half the solution." And one of the key insights of quantum mechanics is: "the way you pose the question (set up the experiment), predicts the answer (what you measure)."

What does all this have to do with the global challenges we as humanity face? How can it help every individual to cope with modern everyday struggles in times of overload and time scarcity? We believe that the answers are all out there, often not obvious, yet amazingly accessible thanks to the enormous technological progress of the 20th century.

So here is our thirteenth insight: if we dare to re-develop the art of asking meaningful questions the threads that lead us to the answers will reveal themselves. In order to find the right questions, however, we need to move from security, standardisation, formalisation and maintenance to curiosity, creativity, diversity and generation.

I have been working in ‘male domains’ all of my professional life: first in architecture and town planning (where the look on the faces of the men at community meetings when I got up to give the presentations, rather than serve coffee or take notes, never ceased to amuse me); then doing an MBA at London Busienss School which was proud that 27% of the 180 students were women, and finally starting to work independently, at the boundary of academia and business, in the field of innovation.

One of the exciting aspects of working in the field of innovation in the late 90s early 00s was that, unlike other business conferences, innovation conferences seem to attract a lot of women! It sometimes felt that as much as 50% might be women - not only amongst participants but also amongst speakers.

Today, in 2014 I am sitting at an innovation conference and out of the 28 speakers 2 are women, and out of the 203 participants (on the participants list) only about 1/5 are women.

What has happened?

I believe what has happened is that innovation has become more important in organisations. 10-15 years ago getting involved in innovation was driven by individual curiosity, passion and personal conviction; it was generally not a job people fought over. Involvement in innovation was not a strategic step to move up on the corporate career ladder - rather, it seemed to be associated with a fair degree of personal risk to embrace the unchartered waters innovation was at the time.

This has changed: innovation is much better understood, and involvement in innovation has become important, part of the corporate landscape, a job worth taking if you want to advance your career. Is it the realisation and acknowledgement of the importance of innovation that has made it more attractive to men at the cost of women’s involvement in this domain?

Is it a paradox that we talked about prioritization in our last blog and now advocate that ‘the times of either / or’ are over? The almost funny thing is, it is not an ‘either / or’ either!

Though we knew it was on our agenda - and Bettina had written a number of short articles for the Guardian on “Today’s Leadership Challenges: Embracing Paradoxes”, ie the ‘and’, it has taken a while to get into the topic of this blog. Three thoughts helped to finally get a handle on it:

When washing out a plastic bottle the other morning, watching the flow out of the bottle turn from ordered and linear to turbulent and chaotic, a realisation occurred as to why the ‘and’ has become more important now: as long as the pace of the flow (or change) is slow, things seem to happen in an orderly, linear fashion. Then, when the flow rate is increased - something changes in the equation of quantity (more), space (less) and time (less) - things start to happen simultaneously, becoming first complex, then chaotic.

A second picture came to mind, that of a pendulum. Most organisations go through phases of expansion and growth, followed by consolidation and streamlining - in some way like the waxing and waning of the moon or flooding and ebbing of the seas - ‘either / or’. 

When looking at the two above it also became clear that the ‘either / or’ seems to work at the level of smaller systems: if we look at the sea at the north Norfolk coast, it is either ‘in’ or ‘out’. Looking at the wider system of the North Sea, it will be ‘in’ and ‘out’ at the same time, depending on which parts of the system you are looking at. Or think about organisations. In a small organisation we might be able to say whether it is expanding or consolidating. For a large organisation such a statement will be much more difficult! It might be consolidating in one part of the business, in one geographical or market segment, and expanding in another!

So what does all of this mean for our discussion on ‘either / or’ - or rather ‘and’? Why do we feel the ‘and’ is becoming more relevant and more important?

Whether we like it or not, whether we believe it or not, over the past decade or so the pace of change has been accelerating significantly (we had already mentioned in a previous blog that every day 2.5 quintillion byes of data are being added). One important driver behind the escalation of change is of course digital technology, especially the internet. Through its connectivity and the fact that anything uploaded is available instantaneously around the world the internet has increased the speed and volume of the flow of data and information dramatically. Other technological advances, including increased processing power and miniaturization, have led to convergence - just think about smart phones, washer-dryers, multi-functional tools. And it is not only products where we can observe convergence, it is happening for services too (as well as product and services merging!). All of this leads to an increase in complexity (again a topic that keeps cropping up…) of the 'man-made' world, our living context our current culture. Nature has obviously always been complex, something we humans seem to be uncovering and understanding only slowly.

So the short answer as to why we need a shift from ‘either / or’ to ‘and’ is: the cultural context has changed dramatically and we no longer have the luxury of the ‘either / or’. Instead of living in a linear, two-dimensional world of a pendulum we have created a complex, multi-dimensional world of fractals. It is a world where the sheer number of possibility drives us from order towards chaos, and it is at the edge of chaos that we can observe the Butterfly Effect, first described by Edward Lorenz in 1963. 

There is a short video that explains Lorenz' Butterfly Effect very nicely. The bit we like best is the last sentence and this is what we present as our twelves insight:

“Why has the butterfly effect become so popular? Perhaps because it gives us back our freedom. The legacy of Newton’s cold determinism sometimes leads to a kind of fatalism. The Lorenz Butterfly claims that, small that we are, we can have an influence on the world - good news for us!"