I was recently in a discussion that (once again) revealed to me the restrictions that organizations can impose on innovation. I firmly believe they don’t always deliberately impose these restrictions. Most willingly say how much they want to be innovative. However the year over year build-up of processes, policies and procedures can encrust that willingness.
I am an innovator. I like ideas and have no problem admitting that sometimes I lack in the details, implementation and maintenance department. My wiring. Wanted you to know this up front before you continue reading. BUT please don’t take my personal context as a pretext for side-lining the following commentary. I have lived inside a non-profit for 28 years in an international, national and local leadership role. I’ve seen it’s multiple sides. Read on and make your own assessment.
In their initial genesis as an organization, most were formed around a vision that was innovative and relevant at the time. Useful guidelines were created to govern and direct their efforts. But as they grew within those borders, needs & opportunities changed around them. Adjustments were made and good things may have occurred – however the world that now exists is vastly different. The current structures don’t resemble the nimble nature of the initial movement that spawned the organization.
Often organizations will re-emphasize their original vision in updated terms; a well-intentioned attempt to address their innovative character. Sticking with the vision is noble (on the surface). Yet this is often merely a means of resisting the kind of organizational change necessary to be truly innovative. Frankly, change is hard and costly. While there may be a desire to foster new ventures, organizations can be caught by (or the change resistors will cling TO) their constitution, policy & ‘vision’. They become content with ‘tweaking’ at the edges.
Tweaking is not innovation.
How can organizations retain an ability to be nimble, as they once were? Is that possible? Perhaps the ‘nimble organization’ is simply an oxymoron?
I work with a few creative thinkers who in my assessment are caught in organizational structures expressively desirous of innovation but boxed in by their own constitution. I am not saying that organizations can or should even be all things to all people in all circumstances. That would drain away their unique serve. But as an organization (and especially as its leaders) is it good to be content with the status quo?
So, is there a better way? I don’t know – yet. Perhaps though, one solution is for these organizations to deliberately employ and tolerate the ‘shit-disturbers’. Yes, I know, I should find a better moniker. But the imagery is unparalleled. Every organization needs someone to raise a stink and make things uncomfortable. So much so that it that gets everyone’s attention. Organizations best serve themselves by ensuring there is a voice of dissonance among the agreeable. In religious terms this is a ‘prophetic’ voice that calls out the truth of a situation and demands response. These people are not the whiners and complainers. There are enough of those around in every organization. Fire them. Rather, I am talking about the ones who say:
· Is this the best we can do?
· Is there not another way we can do this?
· Are these really our limitations?
· Who says we cannot do this? Is that enough reason to say ‘no’?
I don’t feel a need for you to agree with me. But I am motivated to spark a real debate about change. Status quo isn’t cutting it in many cases.
Here’s a question to ponder if you are an organizational leader or intrapeneur:
What could you be if you were not so content?
