Innovation
A client put me onto another Malcolm Gladwell talk, but this time he directed his examples towards Innovation. It’s really interesting in respect to a few things. 3 part series here.
He argues that innovation isn’t a sudden light bulb, just like success not being a sudden exponential curve. Instead he argues innovation follows the predictable 10,000 hours.
“… when you look at the lives of truly innovative people or organizations, you discover that the opposite is true. Innovation is what happens after a long period of intensive hard work.”
But he brings in two concepts which I like, around learning achievement strategies. One is called capitalization strategy and the other is a compensation strategy. Capitalization is where you build on your strengths and try to be innovative from there. The compensation strategy is around making up for your weaknesses, and Gladwell gives examples of people like Richard Branson who is dyslexic. How when we have difficulties we have to learn our way around them, and thus learn skills we would not have otherwise learnt, and consequently be innovative. I like that theory – especially because I didn’t do well at school… actually I barely passed bursary!
“At the end of the day, being hungry is more important to being successful and innovative in a given field than entering the field with all of those advantages [of the capitalization strategy].”
I think it is good he points this out, because it barely touches on it in Outliers, and I think it is a major facet of what we end up doing, or being or evoling into.
“… when people are aware of what their weaknesses are and they try to overcome them, that makes them better, more innovative, more creative than people who capitalize on their strengths.”
“When you are facing difficult times, we have an ability to be creative and innovative that was denied to us when everything came easily.”
He also breaks down innovators into two types: conceptual innovators are people who have big grand ideas, all of sudden and execute them quickly, and experimental innovators who start out slowly and carefully, and go through that slow gradual process of trial and error. Gladwell, of course points out that developing slowly through experimental innovation has advantages, all conducive to the end product being bigger through the 10,000hr rule.
“There are things that cannot be solved overnight; they can’t be solved easily, and can only be solved through a process of trial and error. We must be willing to let ourselves fail if we are ever to solve problems.”
In many ways I despise the show me what you’ve got philosophy that is prevalent in many industries or systems – especially what I’ve seen in NZ sport. And I’ve seen the “we’ll support you, believe in you” model work, yet they are somewhat contradictory to the compensation strategy, and experimental innovation.
Gladwell ends by saying it is essential for a support organization that fosters creativity and innovation, that allows you to fail and experiment. But if you have too much support doesn’t that go against it, and verge on the capitalization strategy? There must be a magic balance of both – support to give space and time, yet not enough to squash growth, learning and innovation?
