by Robyn Bolton | Jan 10, 2022 | Innovation, Leadership, Strategy
“Why doesn’t anyone bring me ideas?”
“Why doesn’t anyone ask questions during my meetings?”
“How can I get people to challenge my ideas?”
If you have asked any of these questions, you are not alone.
I hear these questions from managers to C-suite executives in every industry imaginable because they know that sharing ideas, asking questions, and challenging others are core behaviors in innovation.
The answers vary by person and the company, but all tend to fall under the umbrella of “Lack of Psychological Safety.”
No one wants to hear that the culture of their team or their organization isn’t “Psychologically Safe.” Does that mean that the culture is “Psychologically Unsafe?” That doesn’t sound good. That sounds like a lawsuit. And even if the culture isn’t “unsafe,” what does “safe” look like?
These are some of the questions that Timothy R. Clark sets out to answer in his book, “The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety: Defining the Path to Inclusion and Innovation.”
What is “Psychological Safety?”
Academics have studied Psychology Safety since the 1960s, but Amy Edmondson’s 1999 paper ushered it into daily use. Today, Psychological Safety is commonly defined as a shared belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.
Clark goes a step further to identify four types, or stages, of Psychological Safety:
- Inclusion Safety: People feel safe and accepted for who they are, including the different and unique aspects of themselves
- Learner Safety: People engage in the learning process by asking questions, giving and receiving feedback, experimenting, and making mistakes
- Contributor Safety: People use their skills and abilities to make a difference in the team and/or organization
- Challenger Safety: People speak up, challenge the status quo, and pursue opportunities for change or improvement
Each type builds on the other, which means that, as a leader, you can’t have a culture in which people challenge your ideas (Challenger Safety) if they don’t feel that they belong (Inclusion) AND comfortable asking questions AND are willing to work to improve or change things.
That’s a tall order as far as culture goes. Add to that the common belief that all four types of Psychological Safety are required for innovation, and it’s no wonder you feel overwhelmed by the task of creating an innovative organization.
How much Psychological Safety is required for innovation?
That depends on what you mean by “innovation.”
(sorry, I know that’s a lame “consultant” answer, but it’s true, so stick with me)
If what you mean by “innovation” is something that improves what you already do and how you do it (core innovation) or changes one element of what you do or how you do it (adjacent innovation), then you don’t need all four stages.
Contributor Safety is Required
Core and Adjacent innovation aren’t sexy. But, for most companies, they are sufficient to inspire and grow the business for at least 5-10 years.
As a leader, of a large existing business, with hundreds or thousands of employees and customers, multiple sites, and complex operations, you can’t possibly know everything that’s happening everywhere. So you rely on your employees to work hard, do their best, and bring all their skills and experiences to bear for the organization. You need them to ask, “How can we do this better?” and develop an answer. You need them to contribute.
To ensure that your employees contribute to operations AND innovations, you need to build and sustain a culture where people feel they belong, are encouraged to learn (even from mistakes), and contribute their thoughts based on their knowledge.
Challenger Safety is a Red Herring
Radical, breakthrough, and disruptive innovation are sexy. But it’s insanely hard because it requires the creation of a new business model AND the destruction of the existing one.
The good news is that most companies don’t need to destroy their existing business and replace it with something new. As a result, they definitely don’t need employees constantly challenging the status quo. Questioning the status quo by asking, “How can we do this better?” is fine. Asserting that everything needs to be changed or else is counterproductive.
As a leader, it’s a good idea to cultivate Challenger Safety with a small circle of trusted advisors. Even one person who has permission to challenge you is sufficient. That is how you get to the best idea and create the most value.
You don’t need an entire organization challenging each other and everything they do. That is how you get frustration, chaos, and destroy value.
It’s And, not Or
Psychological Safety is an innovation requirement AND a red herring.
If you know the type of innovation you want, what results you need, and when you need them, you can focus your efforts on creating and sustaining the right level and scope of psychological safety required to deliver on those goals.
Which makes me wonder….
What type of Psychological Safety does your team need?
What do you do to build Psychological Safety?
How do you encourage people to share ideas and ask questions?
Share your answers in the comments. I promise to respond to each one AND I’m certain your fellow innovators will thank you.
by Robyn Bolton | Jan 4, 2022 | Customer Centricity, Innovation, Tips, Tricks, & Tools
Before we go any further, I need to be clear that I absolutely, totally, and completely believe in Jobs to be Done. In fact, more than once, I have uttered the words, “Jobs to be Done is a hill I will die on.”
Which means that I died a little inside when a client recently said to me,
“Jobs to be Done is amazing. ‘Jobs to be Done’ sucks.”
He’s right (as much as it kills me to admit that).
In an academic setting, the term makes perfect sense.
I understand where the term comes from and applaud the logic and clarity of the analogy at its core. Just as a company hires a person for a task or set of functions (a job), a person “hires” a product or service because they have a problem to solve or progress they need to make. They have a Job to be Done.
Managers and executives who work with me to learn Jobs to be Done and how to apply it quickly grasp the concept. After just one-hour, they can re-tell and explain the Milkshake story, identify functional/emotional/social jobs in role plays, and swear that the approach completely changes how they see and think about their business.
In the real world, the term is profoundly confusing.
Then the managers and executives, believing so strongly in its ability to transform the business, decide to roll it out to the organization. They talk about it, send articles about it, and train everyone to apply it in customer interviews. With great excitement, everyone from employees to senior leaders fan out to talk to customers, take copious notes, discuss insights with their teams, and happily declare that their customers’ Jobs to be Done are to buy the company’s products.
Here’s a quick (and entirely fictional) example:
- Chocolate Chip Cookie Company (CCCC): Hello, Ms. Customer. We want to learn more about your snacking habits. When you snack and why, what you like to snack on and why, stuff like that.
- Customer: Great! I love to snack on chocolate chip cookies, but the store-bought ones are expensive, and they’re filled with preservatives, and I’m trying to be healthier. I’d make my own, but I don’t have time.
CCCC returns to the office and declares that the customer’s Job to be Done is to buy cheap all-natural cookies from a store.
Ummm, no. Not even close.
The customer’s Jobs to be Done are to be healthy, manage her money, save time, and feel good about what she eats. CCCC’s job (literally, the company’s reason for business) is to make cookies that customers want to buy.
What CCCC identified as a customer Job to be Done is the company’s job (business). In other words, it’s a solution.
Why the confusion?
In the real world, people already have precise definitions of “job” in their heads. They have a job (role). They have a job to do (responsibilities, deliverables). Their colleagues have jobs (roles and responsibilities). They have job openings (hiring needs).
By assigning a new meaning to the word “job,” we’re not only asking people to change how they think and talk, but we’re also asking them to adopt an entirely new understanding of and use for a common word.
Imagine being told that “orange” means both a color and a cooking technique. It makes the brain hurt.
What’s the solution?
I don’t know. But here’s what I’ve tried.
- Problem
- Pro: It’s part of the definition of a Job to be Done, and we all know what a problem is
- Con: It focuses customer conversations on existing pain points and sets a negative tone in interviews, making it challenging to discover solutions that delight the customer and, as a result, could inform how the problem is solved.
- Need
- Pro: It’s the OG of consumer research, a term we all know and use
- Con: It anchors customer conversations in functional Jobs to be Done and makes it difficult to surface the emotional and social Jobs that drive decisions and behavior.
- Customer Job to be Done
- Pro: Uses the original term while being VERY clear that the focus is on the customer
- Con: It’s a lot to say and even more to type, and people still fall back into their traditional definitions and use of the term job
What have you tried? What are your suggestions?
by Robyn Bolton | Dec 14, 2021 | Innovation
Have you ever said to someone, “I wish you were more like (fill in the name)?”
How did that go?
Not so good, right?
At least one or both of you probably became frustrated, disappointed, and maybe even heartbroken. You learned that even though people evolve and grow, they don’t change. The only thing you can change is your expectations of them.
Have you ever said about your company, “We will be more like (Apple, Amazon, Netflix, some other innovative company)?”
How did that work out?
Not so good, right?
You probably ended up frustrated, disappointed, and maybe even heartbroken. You learned that even though companies evolve and grow, they don’t change. The only thing you can change about a company is your expectations of it.
So then, why on earth do experts preach that companies must create a “culture of innovation” to be innovative?
93% of companies do not have a culture of innovation
In a fascinating global meta-study of corporate cultures, researchers identified eight cultural archetypes. The two most common were Results (89% of companies), defined by achievement and winning, and Caring (63% of companies), defined by relationships and mutual trust. The only culture explicitly associated with innovation was Learning, a culture defined by exploration, expansiveness, and creativity, and present in only 7% of global companies.
This means that 93% of companies globally are not innovating or that 93% have found ways to innovate and grow without having a culture of innovation.
Spoiler alert, it’s the latter.
This is excellent news (unless you’re one of the experts preaching “culture of innovation”) because it’s proof that even though you can’t change your company’s culture and create a culture of innovation from scratch, you don’t need to in order to innovate!
However, if you want your company to innovate, you can and need to do these three things:
- Leverage the aspects of your company’s culture that support innovation
Enablers of innovation can be found in every one of the seven cultural archetypes that don’t explicitly include innovation. They may be overwhelmed by other aspects of the culture, but the seeds of innovation are there. You need to nurture them.
Here are some examples:
- Results cultures want achievement and winning, so encourage people to ask, “How can we do better constantly?”
- Caring cultures value collaboration and trust, so encourage diversity of perspectives when identifying and solving problems.
- Order cultures are methodical, so use that disciplined approach to surface and solve problems, especially those related to operational efficiency.
- Purpose cultures value idealism and altruism, so use those to motivate people to experiment and take risks en route to achieving a greater good
- Safety cultures reduce risk by planning ahead, so develop strategies and plans to respond to future scenarios.
- Authority cultures are decisive and bold so use that to make decisions and pivot when new information becomes available.
- Enjoyment cultures are fun and playful, so use that child-like spirit to dream and create new things.
2. Evolve the culture to accommodate one additional element of innovation
Just as every culture has the seeds of innovation within it, they could also benefit from at least one new behavior that stretches, but doesn’t break, the cultural comfort zone.
For example:
- In Results cultures, learning could be considered an achievement on par with achieving a specific desired outcome
- In Caring cultures, questioning and challenging others in a constructive way could be a valued part of the collaborative process.
- Order, Safety, and Authority culture could encourage and even deliberately create time and space to question the status quo and consider multiple options.
- Purpose and Enjoyment cultures could embrace decision-making and action as critical elements of exploration and contributing to a greater good
3. Start Small
Change happens slow, then fast. Don’t start by trying to leverage and evolve the culture on a grand corporate scale. While some people will embrace what you’re trying to do, they’re likely to be scattered across the organization, islands of support in a sea of doubt, resistance, or (my favorite) malicious compliance.
Instead, start with a function or even a team. Enroll them in the evolution you’re trying to drive and ask them for their perspective and involvement. Make them your partners in evolution, not just the executors of your vision.
Everyone wants change. No one wants to be changed.
So, stop trying. Stop listening to all the experts and consultants who say you should change. Stop trying to make your company something it’s not.
Instead, embrace your company’s culture for what it is. Leverage the parts of it that can nurture and accelerate innovation. Evolve small parts of it to be better at encouraging innovation. Start with a small team of committed Evolutionaries, prove what’s possible, and watch it spread.
Who knows, maybe executives at some other company will look at yours and say, “We need to change to be more like them.”
by Robyn Bolton | Dec 9, 2021 | Podcasts
by Robyn Bolton | Dec 8, 2021 | Tips, Tricks, & Tools
Over the past 987,460 days of forced WFH, I’ve participated in several virtual ideations.
A few weeks ago, my turn to facilitate arrived. And, after four 4-hour sessions spread over two weeks, I can confidently declare this:
Virtual Ideation sucks.
We knew the experience wouldn’t be the same as an in-person session, so we did everything to adapt. At the end of each session, we asked participants to share their Rose/Bud/Thorn feedback. Between sessions, a smaller group met to review the feedback, reflect on our experiences, and make adjustments for the next session. We fixed 90% of the Thorns between sessions 1 and 2, and we hit our groove by session three.
But virtual Ideation still sucks.
There is simply no substitute for the energetic buzz of a room full of creators freed from the constraints of reality and excitedly imagining what could be. There is no substitute for the side conversations over caffeine and sugar where two or three innovators connect disparate dots and have an A-Ha! Moment. There is absolutely no substitute for the satisfaction that comes from stepping back and staring at a wall of ideas and the confidence that the answer is in there somewhere.
But, with Omicron and more companies realizing the hybrid work is the new reality, not a temporary stopgap, virtual ideation sessions are here to stay.
So how can we make virtual ideation sessions suck less?
Plan sprints, not marathons.
- What we did: We cut the ideation session down from the typical 8-hour day to four hours, and instead of trying to ideate on multiple topics in a single session, we had a single topic for each session. But the sessions were still too long to keep people engaged but too short to allow true reflection and building on ideas.
- What we learned: In a virtual setting,ideation sessions are a task, not an experience. Gathering people together for a day or two made lots of sense for logistical (usually held offsite, make participants less accessible to daily demands, reduce the cost of external facilitators) and experiential (enable focus, shift mindsets, get into the flow) reasons. But a virtual environment eliminates the logistical rationale for daylong sessions. It can’t deliver the experiential benefits because we can’t get away from the constant pinging of email, Slack, and text notifications.
- What we would do differently: Instead ofa four-hour session, I would do four one-hour sessions. Yes, it will take more days, but participants will be more focused on the task and more able to stay in the creative mindset (once you get them there). Plus, it has the added benefits of engaging more participants (looking at you, fellow introverts!) and giving people time to reflect and build on ideas.
Acknowledge that the practice and experience will be different
- What we did: We started the sessions by acknowledging that things would feel different, the experience would be far from seamless, and that we wanted quality over quantity. But we didn’t recognize participants’ feelings and expectations, and, as a result, the gaps between their hopes and their reality didn’t diminish.
- What we learned: Even though people know that the experience of a virtual ideation session is different from an in-person one, they still hope that it will be the same. This creates a challenge that participants will inevitably judge the experience not against their rational expectations but against their hopeful, emotional ones. And it will always come up short.
- What we would do differently: Start the session by clearly stating that the experience will be and feel different. Acknowledge that, for many, it won’t have the buzz or the rush of an in-person session. Admit that things will be more clunky because you’re relying on technology rather than your hands and feet to make things happen. Ask for their patience, support, and help to make the session and their experience of it as successful as possible. Then clearly define what success looks like.
Start with FUN!
- What we did: I hate icebreakers, “mandatory fun,” and forced group silliness. So, we didn’t do any of that in the first ideation session. Instead, we dove right into content, grounding people in the insights developed in the previous phase and introducing them to the resulting stimuli (personas, journey maps, analogies).
- What we learned: We were so task-focused that people didn’t have time to shake off their day-to-day reality, connect with the information, develop empathy for the customer, and allow themselves to be creative.
- What we did do differently: The second session started with FUN! but rather than a random icebreaker or silly exercise, we asked a question that required personal sharing and was relevant to the session’s topic. For example, if the session’s topic was “How might we create a more inspiring experience for members?” we asked participants to share their most inspiring experience.
By asking a personal question, people’s mindsets become more positive and open while they get more comfortable sharing and more curious about their fellow participants. By asking a relevant question, participants build empathy for the customer they are designing for, instantly build a library of experiences and analogies to draw from, and see possibilities beyond their day-to-day realities.
The irony of it all
What’s ironic is that, as I reflect on these lessons, they’re all things that I knew to be important, but I hadn’t yet experienced their importance.
Learn from my experience. Make these changes in your next ideation session.
What are your experiences? What have you learned? What can we learn from you?
