med-badr-chemmaoui-ZSPBhokqDMc-unsplash.jpg

You’re Not Failing if You’re Learning

How “learn-fast” thinking can improve innovation and combat fear of failure

“We’re a large organization. We can’t fail fast and break things!”

It’s that type of statement I frequently encounter, so it was no surprise to hear it at a conference in Seattle where I spoke recently: “What if we changed the wording slightly and said, ‘Learn fast and iterate’?” I asked. “Could you do that?” Their answer was a definitive, “Yes”. You might be thinking, “But how is that different?” Let me explain.

 

A cringeworthy beginning

A number of years ago, I was facilitating a workshop where we developed an approach to organic innovation for a global, multi-billion-dollar technology company. Throughout the workshop the phrase “Fail Fast” had been used a number of times by participants. I noticed that the CTO, who has had an undeniably successful career as an innovator, would cringe whenever someone said those words. Eventually, he asked if we could start using the phrase “Learn Fast” instead. His point was that a counter-intuitive result from an experiment was not a failure, not if you learned something from it. I agree with this point. In fact, in my experience, it is often unexpected results that lead to the most interesting and exciting discoveries.

 

Learning fast

Our “Learn Fast” culture continued to evolve. We encouraged responsible experiments with clear objectives based upon falsifiable hypotheses. We celebrated learning, regardless of outcome, whenever a person or team:

  • Had a clear objective
  • Articulated a falsifiable hypothesis
  • Executed their experiment well
  • Learned something from the results
  • Adjusted their plan, strategy, tactics, approach, and/or business model as a result

We even, lightheartedly, referred to “failure” as “the F-word” whenever someone used it.

This approach helped us to rapidly explore ideas for both incremental and breakthrough innovation. It also sent a strong signal to everyone in the company that innovation was not only “OK”, but that it was encouraged. Though, it did not stop there.

 

Relief valve

We found that approaching new ideas for anything – program management, research, even building our incubator/accelerator itself – as an experiment led to tremendous benefits and outcomes. “Let’s run an experiment” became a mantra, and it was a simple way of signaling to others when someone wanted to take an acceptable, responsible risk. It was understood that if we agreed that it was a good idea for a person or team to run the experiment then we were also accepting that the result may not be what we predicted it would be. If that were the case, there would be no retribution for anyone on the team as long as they executed the experiment well, as characterized above. It was amazing how our velocity and results improved, and it did not stop there.

The team’s morale and energy also improved immensely as the Sword of Damocles, which is seemingly ever-present in mature organizations, was forever stored in its sheath. I can tell you that my personal productivity and creativity soared in its absence. Many colleagues made similar, unsolicited remarks to me.

There is one key element in this approach that must be clearly understood in order for it to succeed. It is failure if you’re not learning.

 

Let’s run an experiment!

Learning to approach life in general as a series of experiments has improved my own well-being enormously. It removes self-induced pressure, it has made me more curious, and I learn more as a result. Additionally, I believe, I have been much more effective at work, at home, and in my community as a result. So, why don’t you run an experiment and see whether you get as much from this approach as I do.

 


 

About the Author

George Watt

A transformative leader, George has spearheaded initiatives that have enabled businesses and global enterprises to address complex technology problems, deliver new business benefits, and drive millions of dollars in savings and productivity gains.

He has delivered innovations of his own such as a knowledge base for a neural network-based predictive performance management solution, one of the earliest private clouds (2005), and a lightweight event management agent.

Photo Credit: Crystal Kwok at Unsplash

Photo by Med Badr Chemmaoui on Unsplash

read more
George WattYou’re Not Failing if You’re Learning
young-business-team-in-a-brainstorming-meeting-resized.jpg

Why Innovation Competitions Backfire

Understanding the evolution of breakthrough ideas can be the key to a successful innovation program.

 

Why do innovation competitions — aimed at delivering breakthrough ideas and improving morale and engagement — so often have the opposite impact; sometimes even causing the most innovative employees to leave? Often the reasons are clear. Favoritism, poorly defined guidelines, and lack of universal access are common culprits, though it’s not always that obvious. I have seen innovation programs and competitions fail for a much more insidious reason.

Many, perhaps most, innovation competitions I have seen offer a one-time prize in the form of some sort of finite funding (e.g.: several thousand dollars in “one-time” budget) or time (e.g.: one month to work on the winning idea).

 

Here’s a dirty little secret about innovation: Successful, new ideas cost more as they evolve.

Work early in an idea’s life might simply involve talking to potential customers to determine they actually have the problem the idea solves, and whether they would pay for a solution to the problem. That work may only require one or two people for several weeks, or a few months. If the idea resonates, it will be time to build the product. That may, for example, mean bringing on a development team of five to ten people. That is a steep cost increase. Perhaps as much as 500% or more, plus any new equipment or resources that may be required. This type of increase will continue well into the life of the idea.

 

Sponsors of innovation initiatives often fail to ask this most important question:

What happens if they succeed?

As a result, the winner often has just enough time to prove the idea resonates with potential customers before they run out of funding and have to stop working on the project. That can be way more demoralizing than not having the contest. The innovator now has proof they have a good idea; and they have to abandon it. They get frustrated, some may leave, sometimes to pursue their idea elsewhere. Worse, some stay and begin to do just enough to keep their job, because that’s what is rewarded. There have even been cases where the innovator was laid off because they “weren’t contributing” to the mature organization’s objectives.

 

The impact can be very broad

Friends of the innovator, and others who learn of it, can also become frustrated and demoralized. Not only do they feel bad for their colleague, they have also just received a message that the organization does not value innovation. In some cases, the message is that innovators will be punished.

 

It’s not all bad news

Innovation competitions can be very energizing and can lead to amazing discoveries. There are a few, simple things that can be done to increase the probability your program will have the positive impact you want it to.

 

  1. Be clear about the objective of your competition. (Are you looking for a new product, new business model, specific technology domain, etc.?)
  1. Be clear and specific about the award.
    (A pitch to leadership? Funding? How much? How long? What happens when it’s gone?)
  2. Ask yourself, what happens if the winning idea gets traction with customers?
  3. Plan for increased investment in successful ideas.
  4. Be transparent and set expectations properly.

 

There are many others, though item five is the most critical. If your team’s expectations are set properly, your program is much more likely to have the positive impact you want it to. If you do not have second order funding, make that clear at the outset and ensure participants understand what that means. If you are concerned there may be no viable ideas in your area of interest, clearly state the evaluation team has the right to declare no winner.

If you are transparent and set expectations properly, your team is much less likely to interpret your contest as innovation pageantry. Or better still, plan for success – and if you don’t find it – fund another competition.


About the Author

George Watt

A transformative leader, George has spearheaded initiatives that have enabled businesses and global enterprises to address complex technology problems, deliver new business benefits, and drive millions of dollars in savings and productivity gains.

He has delivered innovations of his own such as a knowledge base for a neural network-based predictive performance management solution, one of the earliest private clouds (2005), and a lightweight event management agent.

As VP of Strategy for a multi-billion-dollar technology company he was responsible for global scientific research, worldwide innovation initiatives, and the design and operation of an innovative accelerator program.

George is co-author of “The Innovative CIO” and “Lean Entrepreneurship”, and tweets as @GeorgeDWatt.

read more
George WattWhy Innovation Competitions Backfire