AchieveGlobal's blog

Change is the Mother of All Innovation

By Sharon Daniels

This is the first of two posts on AchieveGlobal’s study on the differences between Change and Innovation, “Carving Yin From Yang.” Be sure to read the entire report.

The title of this blog post is only half true. The other half of it is, curiously, that Innovation is also the mother of all Change. It’s a sort of hand-in-glove-in-hand sort of relationship. Note that in the spirit of innovation, I’m steering clear of the whole chicken-and-egg metaphor.

In two recent studies on change and innovation, we took the opportunity to unpack the differences between change and innovation: terms that one often fuses into the very broad idea of transformation.

Some of the quotes that came back to us are nothing short of brilliant, and really deserve a read. One participant, for example, refers to Innovation as being a home run, and goes on to consider what might have happened if Edison had settled for “change” instead of striving for “innovation.” Because on many levels, the two terms are so tightly interwoven in our thinking, it takes a few logical moves to disentangle them.

By the end of our study though, two things became clear:

1. The first is that if an organization wants to change successfully, it takes innovation. Organizational change can become a necessary response to changing external conditions. Navigating that change effectively requires the organization to become innovative in its approach. Hand-in-glove.
   
   
2. The second – innovation, if properly done, will bring change. Organizations can’t just be superficially “innovative.” Sometimes, organizations put on the label of “being innovative” as if it were as straightforward as, well, putting on a glove. (“Okay, now we’re going to be innovative!”) Real innovation means the organization has to go through real and tangible internal changes, altering parts of the very structure of the organization. And only in that way will “being innovative” cause real change.

In a very real sense, when an organization innovates successfully, it is in effect taking up the gauntlet of change.

 

Sharon Daniels is President and CEO of AchieveGlobal in Tampa, Florida

Reflecting on Leadership

By Craig Perrin

This is the fourth of seven posts on AchieveGlobal's international study of leadership today, "Developing the 21st-Century Leader." Be sure to read the complete report.

There's nothing like a long look in the mirror to motivate needed change. Gazing thoughtfully at your reflection can reveal positives to build on and negatives to improve or eradicate.

The same goes for business leaders: Those who often reflect on their own strengths and liabilities are far more likely to transform unproductive behaviors into behaviors that make them stronger and more effective.

Our recent research into how leaders can succeed in the 21^st century uncovered six zones or groups of best practices: Reflection, Society, Diversity, Ingenuity, People, and Business. Of them, Reflection is perhaps the most central.

To leverage strengths and remove the blind spots that lead to poor decisions, reflective leaders habitually assess their own motives, beliefs, attitudes, and actions.

If "the more you look, the more you see," as the adage goes, it should be no surprise that reflective leaders tend to succeed in other zones, as well. Why this spillover effect for the zone of Reflection?

It's quite simple.

The practices grouped under Reflection help leaders assess their performance in other zones. Because reflective leaders see their place in the big picture, they tend to "take responsibility for their own mistakes" (the highest-rated practice in our global survey). In this way, reflection helps them clarify what makes them strong and where they can improve in every zone. 

The Virtues of Business

By Jack McDaniel Sometimes, the deep past offers a powerful lesson for the present. In The Virtues of War, Steven Pressfield’s fantastic novel about Alexander the Great, the Persian emperor Darius III brought a supply caravan 1½ miles in length with him to the decisive Battle of Issus, fought in 333 BC in modern-day Turkey. This retinue wasn’t for Darius’s army of over 100,000 fighting men – it was his own personal household coterie. The baggage train included cooks, perfumers, hairstylists, talking macaws and panthers in cages, astrologers, butlers, and the emperor’s favorite wives – who had attendants of their own. In contrast, Alexander’s band of 50,000 Macedonians and their allies traveled light and fast, knowing that they had little time to achieve their goals before the difficulties of remaining in enemy territory hundreds of miles from home would overwhelm them. So how did this band of Macedonian upstarts defeat the mightiest army in the ancient world? By using what Pressfield calls the Virtues of War: blinding speed, superior tactics, and versatility on the battlefield. In response, the Persian army was heavy, slow… and doomed. Speed, tactics, and versatility. Aren’t these virtues the same for business? In any economy – much less today’s globally challenging one – organizations need to be nimble, able to move quickly to take advantage of changing market conditions. They must have a superior vision that serves as a guidepost in a murky landscape. And the most successful organizations incubate change leaders who aren’t afraid to try new strategies, learn from their setbacks, and set an example for their colleagues. An organization’s most valuable asset is its people. Alexander knew how to maximize his investment in this asset. Although the Battle of Issus took place over 2,300 years ago, we can learn from his example.

Is classroom on life support? YES!

By Jack McDaniel Technology is here to stay, it just keeps improving, and we eagerly embrace that. How many of us are comfortable without access to email or our cell phones? We’re all proud to be part of the “frenzy of fascination” that Todd mentioned. Technology is helpful. We conduct business in new ways, more efficiently. Perhaps more importantly, the upcoming generation of businesspeople are demanding that they communicate, work, and learn leveraging the techniques and technologies that they’ve grown accustomed to. They embrace collaborative environments, virtual classrooms, self-study elearning and knowledge-based systems like EPSS. The Sloan Consortium annual learning benchmarking reports that more than 90% of all post-secondary institutions in the US currently offer some variety of elearning, and that online enrollments are increasing at a rate of more than 18% per year, compared with traditional enrollments at a rate of 4%. Schools that do not currently offer on-line capabilities are considered sub-par. As humans we’re wired to be social, and social communication – including learning – is being shifted to online modes, freeing us from the constraints of formal face-to-face classrooms. Simply put, we’d no more accept a steady diet of classroom learning than we would accept giving up our email, cell phones, Facebook, or LinkedIn accounts. So yes, face-to-face classroom training is on as much life support as Pong or rotary dial telephones. NOTE: Is elearning vs. classroom a debate happening in your organization? If so, watch this video in whichTodd and I battle it out on AchieveGlobal Island in Second Life.