Innovation is chaotic, sticky and unruly. This is not in accordance with the law and is suitable for the beginning. One thing is definitely not perfect and systematic.
This is why it tends to die from business entities. Efficiency Hitler wants to get the perfect results and get immediate returns. Their employees are often afraid of them and want to show "perfect". behavior. This is the secret of the death of innovation.
Thoughts do not thrive in fear-driven, risk-averse environments. It turns out that the freedom of struggle is crucial to innovation.
In the Talent Code, Daniel Coyle cited a study of two groups of students. The first group received the test and got very clever feedback from them. The second group conducted the same test and was told that they were obviously very hard and did their best.
Then, the two teams can choose the other two tests that can be performed. The first test was very simple and the second test was much more difficult. Those who were praised as smart overwhelmingly chose to conduct simple tests. why? Because they now feel that they must uphold and defend the clever concept. The second group overwhelmingly chose harder tests because they wanted to show off how much they were willing to try.
When cultivating innovators, our focus should be on how they are prepared to fight and whether they are willing to work hard. We should beautify the struggle, not the perfect result.
First tell everyone
Don't force your innovators to be amazed by the efficiency of Hitler. And don't force your efficiency Hitler will be surprised by your innovators. Tell the two groups what happened and what compromises need to be made.
Usually efficiency Hitler needs to free up resources to help innovators, and usually they don't like this kind of notification. Therefore, popularize their efficiency and optimize the value of the work and the need for ideas, but installment payments. They need to optimize what is happening now. Then they should be ready to change everything, and at this point they will need to optimize new things. They don't allow new things to keep the old things perfect - making perfect canoes without sacrificing the benefits of inventing speedboats.
Reward behavior, not result
The oldest tragedy in corporate storybooks is the one who is punished for trying. As a leader of innovators, you must treat innovators differently than other employees. You cannot let them be responsible for the profit results. Leaders often face emotional vacuums and ask themselves, "If I can't make people responsible for the results, does this mean they are not responsible at all?" #39;
No, this is not the case. They must absolutely take responsibility. Let them be responsible for their experimental excellence.
Like any scientist conducting an experiment, they should make assumptions, test them in real-world scenarios, analyze the results, and draw conclusions. They must learn from these conclusions and then quickly conduct the next test and use systematic training.
Monitor how they actively test their ideas. How much new information did they collect from the experiment? Through experiments, they found out what opportunities and possibilities customers like and dislike? These are the criteria for measuring their performance.
Sitting on a bean bag all day is not an innovative act. Develop ideas and test them in real-world scenarios to learn and move forward. Let people be responsible for the quality of their experiments and the amount of new information they find. The faster they are, the more important they are, the more useful they are, the more profitable you are.
Let your employees know why they might fail - what parameters they might take. If they need a reasonably extended border, give them a border and listen to their opinions. Praise them when they try. Always affirm this fight.
Wrong way of thinking: Innovation will stand out in my company.
The right way to think about it: I must clearly communicate to everyone different but complementary goals, because it will create space for innovation.
Orignal From: How to manage free failure ' in innovation
No comments:
Post a Comment