Shortly after senior executives arrive in a new position they often hopefully communicate priorities to their team. Regardless of the industry, odds are the word INNOVATION will be in the mix. This is a questionable choice, however, for bureaucracies and it may even have negative implications. Many of these organizations would be better off emphasizing simple improvements, which are both more attainable and potentially more impactful.
The Latin etymology of the word innovation is rooted in newness (novare). But it is a newness that bureaucracies, both governmental and non-governmental, do not possess. In fact, the business of bureaucracies is generally the opposite of newness. They have established missions, established processes, and established everything. They approach large existing problems, tasks, and markets and serve them at an efficient scale in repeatable and predictable (albeit sometimes slow) ways. This is not a bad thing. We want bureaucracies to be predictable and reliable. Still, innovation as a buzzword and priority creeps into these organizations.
For many years, governments served as the center and driving force for innovation. Lone inventors existed but the nature of risk involved in new things and exploration required investments that only governments could afford. They directly pursued or outsource these endeavors. Britain sponsored the contest that resulted in the first accurate chronometer for measuring longitude. Railroads were often private ventures backed by governments through generous land grants. Many other technologies evolved or reach viable scale as part of military-industrial partnerships. Examples include radios, radar, jet aviation, computers, GPS, and DARPA’s role in the eventual internet. Today, innovation is firmly in the hands of mostly private corporations serving the huge defense industry and nimble technology sector. Most bureaucracies are now mere consumers of innovation.
To the observant staff member of a bureaucracy listening to leadership use it, the word innovation conjures up these technical marvels. It implies a drastic departure from established tools and methods. That the word is uttered, however, in an organization that take 30 days to order pens and still uses paper health records becomes actually discouraging because it so unrealistic. Like saying I'll make you a quintillionaire! And that it occurs in a bureaucracy largely dealing with the same old problems bound by the same constraints makes the observant listener question if innovation is even the right approach. Still, leaders want to sound leader-y and ‘lets do things a little better than last year’ doesn’t have the same ring to it, even if the upside of compounding marginal improvements are potentially huge.
The fact is, most bureaucracies are incongruent with true innovation. Ideas for new solutions evaporate in the face of daunting layers of approvals for funding, buy-in, and implementation. The chorus of “we’ve always done it this way” is loud. Some large companies recognize this and bypass themselves. General Motors started Saturn as a ‘independent’ company when threatened by the Japanese auto industry. Adobe Systems implemented their ‘Kickbox’ idea to circumvent internal processes and spur innovation. Many large companies invest in start-ups, partner with small business, or have in-house incubators to keep their thinking challenged and current. This is a valid way to innovate, but can these bureaucracies claim to be innovative just because they do this? Should leaders emphasize innovation if it is a fraction of their responsibility?
Granted, even long standing problems are solved by new ideas once in a while, but is this an innovation? To frame this, consider the 2x2 grid below which maps new and old ideas versus new and old problems. A bureaucracy using the occasional new idea to solve an existing problem can more accurately be described as an improvement, not an innovation. Even if a bureaucracy encounters a truly new problem (it could happen), the dominant approach will be to adapt an existing solution. This is also not really an innovation, it’s an imitation. Improvements and imitations are both noble pursuits because they ultimately solve problems, but they are rarely a leader’s priority because they are not as catchy as innovation. Innovation, on the other hand, seems to always make a leader’s list, but in doing so it distracts from progress readily available via attainable improvements and imitations. Prioritizing innovation actually stifles and silences ideas for improvements.
The interesting thing about misplaced emphasis on innovation is how it ignores the authentic benefit of bureaucracies. As mentioned, they are tremendous at delivering predictable services at scale. Something often lost in their size is the amount of natural variation that does occurs in the rank and file. Similar to biological evolution or optimal fragmentation theory, variations incubate in parts of large organizations. If successful, and if leaders are paying attention, these variations are implemented broadly to incrementally improve the larger organization. It’s not the classical technical innovation most think of, but imitation, incrementation, iteration, and improvement can generate tremendous value because of the size of the organizations impacted.
Another benefit of these marginal improvements is how they compound. So not only do these small gains expand horizontally across the large organization, they also build exponentially over time. “1% better every day”, as the mantra goes, is especially powerful when applied to a 50,000 person organization. That is, if leaders are open to forsaking the glamor of sounding innovative in order to make harnessing improvements a priority. If they don’t stamp-out organizational variation through six-sigma rigidity and powerpoint templates and think-a-like promotions. If they get that 30 day procurement period down to 29 days and build from there.
There is hope for bureaucratic leaders and observant staff members if they embrace the authentic nature of bureaucracies. Leverage their size and naturally occurring variation to incubate and propagate the most valuable ideas. Forego innovation theater like sticky-note and sharpie-marker filled labs to incrementally improve products and services that serve at huge scales. Use the long time-horizon of bureaucracies to compound these gains for exponential benefit. It will take a few more words for the leaders to communicate to their teams, but the attainable and potentially more impactful results will speak for themselves.
~
Joe McPherson | 2015 (updated 2022)
コメント