Viewing entries in
Enterprise

Comment

Set brazen goals.

Be Bold: Deflection Point Drill


Use when you want to explore the difference you might make—and the change that might require.


Think Right
Optimize the status quo.

Think Wrong
Create a bold path that deflects from the status quo to change things from how they are to how they might be.


Outcomes

  • The way things are and how they might be are framed
  • Identification of useful trends and global forces that might be leveraged
  • People and partners are emotionally and functionally engaged

Instructions


Step 1
Introduce the Deflection Point Drill.

Step 2
Have Wrong Thinkers make a horizontal line on the wall with blue painters tape. Have them write: “Today’s Path” on the line with a Sharpie.

Step 3
Using Post-its, ask Wrong Thinkers to describe “Today’s Path” (e.g., vulnerable food supply, disconnect between food and seed, general apathy, etc.).

Step 4
Using the blue tape, have Wrong Thinkers create a new line coming off the status quo at a 45° angle, and label it “The Bold Path.”

Step 5
Using Post-its, ask Wrong Thinkers to describe “The Bold Path” (e.g., sustainable food supply, a clear connection between food and seed, real interest among the public, etc.).

Tips You might spend time considering big trends you can take advantage of to help shift from Today’s Path to your Bold Path. 

You might also take stock of current assumptions, orthodoxies, and biases that keep you on Today’s paths, and new habits, ways of working, or capabilities that might help you create and stay on your Bold Path.

 

When to use the Drill

Introducing Drill

Running the Drill


Want run more Think Wrong Drills?


Buy the book here.

Sign up for FREE online resources to help run the 18 drills featured in Think Wrong here.

Sign up for our next Think Wrong Master Class here. Enter promo code: FREE BRAINS for an additional 10% discount.


Comment

Comment

Hey Chief Innovation Officer. You’re Fired.


(And Two Simple Ways to Stop That From Happening)


Trying to innovate within your organization is one of the most courageous or foolhardy jobs you can choose to take on, because between you and the needed change are a hundred named and self-appointed Chief Don’t F*&k It Up Officers who’ve made it their mission in life to keep everything running just the way it is.

Get it wrong—you’re fired.

You're charged with delivering Goldilocks Innovation—change that isn't so big that it causes disruption and distraction to the revenue producing machine, but not so small that nobody notices. You need to find the enigmatic innovation sweet spot that's just right.

Get it wrong—you’re fired.

You're expected to demonstrate measurable ROI for the unknown, in an environment where certainty is valued more than great questions. And where not knowing is seen as weakness rather than an exciting opportunity to discover.

Get it wrong—you’re fired.

You gather motivated outlaws who want you to lead them on the bold path of change to the land of “how things could be.” But metrics, policy, personnel, business-as-usual, best practice, embedded culture, and CDFIUO roadblocks stymie you at every turn. Over time your merry band of intrapreneurs gets worn down and depressed. Now all of your effort is spent lifting the moral of some of your organization’s top talent—for fear of otherwise losing them.

Get it wrong—you’re fired.

“Think Wrong holds a mirror up to leaders and demands that they do the hard work with their internal entrepreneurs to overcome the orthodoxies, antibodies, and inertia that kill new ideas or, at best, starve them of oxygen.”
Linda Yates, CEO and Founder at mach49, Henry Crown Fellow with the Aspen Institute

Make sure you and your team don’t get fired.

Use the following Think Wrong Frameworks to identify a bold path from which you can deliver high impact change—and to create meaningful context to defend your efforts from forces that might otherwise destroy them.

The Deflection Point Framework

The well-trodden path of the status quo is known, understood, and predictable. But if we stay on this predictable path nothing changes. So nothing changes. The impact you seek requires that you depart from this predictable path and chart a bold new path—one that delivers a shift from “How Things Are” to “How Things Might Be.”

Start by drawing this simple diagram.

Think_Wrong_Predictable_Path.png

1. Draw a horizontal line. This line represents your Predictable Path. Below it, identify the current projects, policies, practices and structures that represent how and what your organization does today— and will continue to do if nothing changes.


2. Draw a line at 45° from the Predictable Path. This line represents your Bold Path. Above it, identify the initiatives that your organization is engaged in that represent a departure from the status quo. The further up this line and to the right, the greater the departure from the way things are. Also add what you might want to change from “Current State” if you could—be bold about your aspirational “To Be” State.

3. Plot what and who might complicate or resist your departure from the status quo in the space between the lines—conspiring to pull you back onto the Predictable Path.

Engage your colleagues in envisioning the changes that need to be made, what might get in your way, and what still needs to be done and done better—by inviting them to draw this picture with you.

The Uncertain/Unknown Framework

All projects are not the same—that goes without saying. So, not all projects should operate under the same set of practices and rules.

Start by drawing the 3x3 grid above. Then map the projects you plotted on the Deflection Point Framework onto the 3x3. Be honest about where they live. Depending on your organization the distribution will vary.
 


For well-established organizations many projects will be in the top right where both the challenge and solution are certain and known. These projects are often focused on improvements in efficiency, optimization, or technology. The Think Right Practices of ROI, metrics, analytics, and best practices make a real difference here.

For less well-established organizations—and organizations that are trying to shake things up—many projects will focus on disruption and change. Those are likely to fall in the uncertain and unknown territory.

You’ve now identified the projects where Think Right Practices are the go-to tool set, and those where you should Think Wrong. Use the Uncertain/Unknown Framework to set new ground rules—and expectations—about which practices will be applied to which projects.

Overtime, your portfolio of change (read: innovation) projects will move up and to the right as you become more certain of the real problem you are solving, the needs you are meeting, and which solutions truly work best.


To check out some fantastic tools for managing your innovation portfolio reach out to the fine folks at www.valize.co. And follow Valize founder and Think Wrong co-conspirator Rita Gunther McGrath on twitter @rgmcgrath.


To learn more about thinking wrong order a copy of Think Wrong: How to Conquer the Status Quo and Do Work That Matters and check out our website.


Comment

Comment

Culture of Innovation Fail

GasLanterns.png

(Or, Why People Build New Homes with Fake Gas Lanterns by the Front Door)


If, as the leader of a multi-billion dollar corporation, the director of modest non-profit, the president of a university—or whatever your position—you are responsible for building a culture of innovation you’re probably frustrated with the results.

My home state gives you a pretty good hint why.

Maine is a place nostalgic in nature, evoking lighthouses, Andrew Wyeth paintings, sailboats, colonial architecture, and lobster dinners on the beach at sunset. It all fits comfortably and appealingly into our collective consciousness.

“Maine, the way life should be” is our official state slogan.

Most homes in Maine (with the exception of double-wide trailers, worthy of a later blog post) are old or built to look old. I live in a large, old house built in 1863. So, “What’s wrong with that?” you might ask. Nothing. Except that it costs a fortune to heat with oil, the rooms are relatively small, and maintenance is high. In 1863, they were building houses using 1863 technology and aesthetics. Building has come a long way in 153 years.

Or has it?

I was recently in Carrabassett Valley, Maine, home to the Sugarloaf ski area, and noticed a relatively new “ski” house. It wasn’t built in the traditional ski house vernacular. Instead, it was built to resemble a colonial home from the 1800’s. Complete with fake gas lanterns, non-moveable shutters, and ornamental columns by the front door.

So, what’s going on here—and in innovation resistant organizations? Why do people keep putting fake gas lanterns on your front doors?

Well, it’s biological and cultural. A specific idea of “home” gets hard-wired into our brains at an early age. Images of cozy cottages with white picket fences universally represent comfort, safety and stability. Over time, we connect those images to those feelings through synaptic connections that forge enduring neural pathways. A superhighway is built connecting what we experience and feel to what we believe. The result? We build 2016 houses on a 1863 blueprint. Anything that varies from the norm is actively discouraged or outright rejected.

What’s true for our homes is true for our organizations. We think that we’re making rational, well-reasoned decisions when we are following pre-determined pathways in our brains. We're building on old plans. We do this even when making big decisions with big financial ramifications, such as building a new office or plant, inventing and funding a new business, or adopting potentially life altering policies (think how hard it is for us to move at scale from our oil dependency to renewable energy—even when confronted with overwhelming evidence of the impact climate change on our planet).

The gravity of the status quo seems inescapable. Culture change is tough. It means overcoming the way our brains and cultures conspire against innovations that threaten the way things are.

But breaking the grips of our orthodoxies is not impossible. When our friends and collaborators Linda Yates and Paul Holland decided to build a new home in Portola Valley, they didn’t hesitate to let go of conventions about what a house is or is not. They were boldly set out to build the greenest home in America.

“We've always been passionate about environmental causes,” says Holland. “We wanted to take our family out of the oil-based economy, so there are no oil-based products associated with the house: there is no natural gas, no plastic, no PVC. Everything is powered by renewable energy sources, either solar or ground-source heat exchange.”

Take a peek at this    recent Style magazine article    featuring the Yates-Holland home. No fake gas lanterns there.

Take a peek at this recent Style magazine article featuring the Yates-Holland home. No fake gas lanterns there.

If you really want to lead a culture of innovation, give your people the permission, language, frameworks, tools, and training they’ll need to conquer the current orthodoxies, beliefs, and assumptions responsible for the status quo—and to do work that matters.


www.tahmahlah.com

www.tahmahlah.com

In the spirit of Think Wrong’s Move Fast Practice, Yates and Holland are not proprietary about their home. They’ve created this website to share what they have learned and the resources required to build greener more sustainable homes.


Comment

Comment

Precedents don’t offer the potential for thinking wrong

Think Wrong McWrongsey

Here’s an industry secret worth billions. Consultants like to use the term “best practice” to describe what the rest of us would call a precedent—just a method that has worked, before, somewhere else.

This isn't to say best practices are useless. Precedence is great when you understand the challenge you’re facing and want to repeat a solution—say, when you want to select brakes for a train (or brakes for anything, really) or when choosing an open heart surgeon. But if you’re trying to outpace competition, solve a long-term problem that doesn't seem to go away, or tackle a challenge you’ve never seen before...applying precedent is not so helpful. Precedence is not disruption, and is not meant to be.

But too often, consultants dress up plain precedence and offer it as an ingenious driver of organizational change—a glaringly obvious contradiction. Most of the time, there’s nothing better about a “best” practice, and you could say that consultants have found a clever way of selling old rope for new prices.

The truth is, these precedents don’t offer the potential for ingenious ideas. They only replicate the past.  So, if you want to unlock new ideas—stop thinking right, and start thinking wrong.

Comment

Get Out (of Your Zoo)

Get out of your zoo to think wrong

This post is courtesy of Solve Next collaborator, Adam Butler Choose one—would you rather have a defined and secure territory, safety from predators, and scheduled meals; or would you prefer an evolving and uncertain territory, being a part of a dynamic food chain and always needing to be on the hunt for your own food? If you chose the first scenario you identify more with zoo animals, and if you chose the second you identify more with wild animals. And this obviously speaks to where you end up living – in a zoo or in the wild.

After running my own business for ten years after having worked for others for 7 years, I feel like I went from something quite like a zoo to something much more like the wild. In fact my brother Marty and I, the co-founder of The Butler Bros, really connected deeply with this analogy when we uncovered it.

It made me recall this passage from the “Life of Pi” by Yann Martel:

“One might even argue that if an animal could choose with intelligence, it would opt for living in a zoo, since the major difference between a zoo and the wild is the absence of parasites and enemies and the abundance of food in the first, and their respective abundance and scarcity in the second. Think about it yourself. Would you rather be put up at the Ritz with free room service and unlimited access to a doctor or be homeless without a soul to care for you?”

Comfort is in fact what’s at play here. And when you get overly comfortable, you get a bit numb to yourself. When you expect a carcass to come flying over the fence you lose some of your hunting instincts. When you know your territory is 100% secure you sleep a little deeper but somehow fail to dream. Add all of this up and it translates to a dimming of your senses and a suppression of your wild, instinctual, self. Your ingenious self.

This isn’t a referendum on being an employee versus an employer or entrepreneur. It’s more of a meta-observation about what happens when you never leave your zoo. Or never let your people leave the zoo you’ve built for them, whichever the case may be.

It’s also not an indictment of where you choose to ‘live’. Because getting out of the zoo is literally as simple as walking out the door with the intention of being open to what you see outside.

In Solve Next Blitzes getting out is a practice that comes with tools. Chief among them is 10X10X10. You go to ten places, meet ten new people, and bring back ten stories. This is a recipe for comparatively wild animal behavior. The senses will indeed bristle. And then you’ll step through the threshold of your proverbial cage to discover inspiration in places you never knew existed. You will bring it all back and share this fresh sustenance with others. It will feed them too. They will grow stronger from it. And you might howl together. Seriously. Get out of your zoo and go wild.

"Cubicles" © 2013 CC BY-NC-ND Michael Lokner

1 Comment

I Have a Green Watch

green_watch_think_wrong

This post is courtesy of Solve Next co-founder, Mike Burn 

Why fit in when you were born to stand out?―Dr. Seuss

“Your glasses are too funky, your shirts are too loud and your watch is too green. If you want to succeed here you should try ‘mirroring’ the executives, you’ll be a VP in a year."

This sage, enlightening, and simultaneously horrific statement was given to me once as well-meaning career advice. My advisor even got more specific, suggesting I go to Brooks Brothers and spend $300 at the sale rack. The most tragic aspect of this advice? It was absolutely spot on.

Obviously I didn’t go off and do it; it sounded more like part of a sick and twisted sociological experiment than career advice.

But what is so threatening about a green watch?

I am genuinely amazed by the number of people who comment on my watch—it’s started many a conversation. The comments fall into three categories:

• observational - “You have a green watch.” • contemptuous - “You have a green watch?” • aspirational - “You can have a green watch!”

I’m not raising the stereotyping associated with this watchism to a level of hateful prejudice here—but it does seem to be an effective technique for identifying close mindedness. Stereotyping and closed mindedness being symptoms of groupthink, and its associated desire for conformity. The next stage of this cycle is self-censorship, with the peer pressure asserted against deviant watch-wearing behavior bringing about the switch to a more consensus-driven timepiece. A tried-and-true, gold, with a brown leather strap edition perhaps?

Once the pattern of morality, peer pressure and group belief in what is right and appropriate is in place, the status quo and uniformity get continually reinforced. The guards are in place to prevent both outside and internal dissent.

The drift towards homogeneity starts. The watch, the blue shirt, the pleated khakis and the shiny slip-on shoes with brass ended tassels, then the Brooks Brothers sales rack, and the mirroring, and the promotion, the title, the success. And once you’ve made it, don’t rock the boat, don’t speak out, don’t stand up, just go along to get along, we all agree, we’re all on the same page, we know how to do this, everything is just fine as it is—and don’t let the crazy dude with the green watch in.

Of course, this is not just about watches—this is about ideas and thinking wrong. And incidentally...the green watch at the top of this post belongs to another Solve Next collaborator, Marty Butler. Coincidence?

Solve Next is on the lookout for places where green watches are challenging the status quo. Green watch = thinking wrong. Check it out here.

1 Comment

1 Comment

70% of CEOs are Wrong about Innovation

underwear

Innovationmania obsesses over the next new thing—products, services, business models and processes—not people. But people are where ingenious, market creating, top-line growing, bottom-line shrinking, daunting-challenge overcoming solutions come from.

When Yvon Chouinard directed his team at Patagonia to eliminate the plastic their underwear was sold in, he didn’t ask for packaging innovations. He didn’t need to. His seemingly impossible challenge required them to rethink their assumptions about how customers bought underwear, how customers used it, and how they discovered it in stores.

As a result, Patagonia didn’t invent a new packaging material—which would have meant significant research, development, and production costs for the business. Instead, Chouinard’s team came up with a practical answer that eliminated 12 tons of landfill choking materials, drove costs down by hundreds of thousands of dollars—and raised underwear sales at Patagonia by 30%. What was their ingenious solution? The rubber band.

patagonia_rubberband

This solution not only resonated with Patagonia’s deep environmental roots, but also gave customers the chance to handle the underwear and discover its quality.

What does Chouinard get that other CEOs don’t? He believes that with every paycheck, he is renting his people’s ingenuity. So he’s built a company where he not only encourages every employee to come up with ingenious solutions—he expects them to. In return, he benefits from everyone’s ability to solve business and environmental challenges with what’s at hand—in clever, new, and useful ways.

1 Comment