The Challenge of Possibility: Geoffrey and George, Part 2

From research, we know that George's problems didn't stem from bad luck,

or not just bad luck.

Jeffrey's behaviors are simply better suited to succeeding in

innovation in this uncertain world.

His life experience has equipped him with a mindset and

a toolkit that helped him succeed in times of ambiguity.

And in times of conflicting demands.

For Jeffrey, life and success was all about learning,

which is what he'd done every time he stepped away from the familiar.

Every time he took a new job, or raised his hand to explore a new possibility.

Jeffrey accepted that uncertainty that inevitably accompanies any new experience.

And as a result, he actively sought new opportunities and

a diverse set of career experiences.

He had a learning mindset that allowed him to empathize, ideate, and

iterate towards ever better answers.

>> Contrast this with George's outlook.

That he probably acquired as a young child and

then was reinforced by a lifetime of experiences.

That taught him that the world is a test,

in which the object is not to get the answer wrong.

So George lives his life trying to avoid mistakes.

And because moving into uncertainty leads logically to more mistakes,

George avoids that, too.

So he's tended to shun the new experiences that would have given him a broader

perspective.

And helped him to identify new opportunities.

By the time we meet Jeffrey in mid-career, his broad repertoire,

that spanned functions and spanned organizations,

had prepared him to see opportunity.

>> At mid-career, George's repertoire is significantly narrower than Jeffrey's.

Not because he's any less intelligent, or well educated, or committed, or capable.

But just because he's had less exposure to other ways of doing things.

George may have an expert’s repertoire that's very valuable in stable times,

but it's narrow and it's specialized.

It does not set him up for success in innovation.

>> These early differences in mindset and in repertoire,

set the stage for two very different self sustaining cycles.

>> For George, despite the fact that his attitude and

his skills have helped him achieve success in a stable environment.

When the world suddenly become more uncertain, and

innovation becomes the goal.

His behaviors often trap him in a pattern with a high likelihood of failure.

He relies exclusively on hard data, he places just one big bet.

He spends a lot of time trying to prove his idea is a good one in advance.

And then his own anxiety makes him ignore disconfirming data as it comes in.

>> Jeffery invests in gaining new insights about

his stakeholder's needs before he moves to ideation.

Where he's willing to manage multiple approaches.

And he reduces risk by keeping his bets small, and enlisting outside partners.

The consequences of their differences accumulates as each works through

his specific innovation challenge.

Jeffrey has a deep and personal interest in his stakeholders as people,

rather than as data.

They're homo sapiens to Jeff, not homo consumers or

homo economists, that quantitative methods assume.

This deeper knowing, when combined with his broad repertoire of

experiences allows Jeffrey to identify possibilities that others miss.

Rather than statistical significance, Jeff looks for human insights.

>> George, on the other hand, is somewhat detached from his stakeholders.

He knows them through data rather than through first-hand observation or

experience, and his interactions with them are staged.

Then this detached view of important stakeholders is combined with this

narrow repertoire.

Of course it's harder for George to surface new opportunities for

innovation, despite the fact that he, like Jeffrey, truly cares.

And he wants his stakeholders and his organization to succeed,

he just has few clues as to how to accomplish this.

>> Whereas Jeffrey's deep knowledge of his stakeholder's needs helps him focus

on the larger jobs they're trying to accomplish.

And gives him a much clearer, qualitatively data-driven path for

harnessing his organization skills.

Then, even having both discovered an opportunity, Jeffrey and

George choose different responses to move them forward.

While seeing opportunity primarily in the question space,

Jeffrey expects to make mistakes.

So, he doesn't put all his eggs in one basket.

He adopts an experimental approach,

conducting multiple small trials to test the ideas in action.

>> George, on the other hand, continues to search for the one right answer,

and then he doubles down when he thinks he's found it.

His and his organization's expectation is that all projects should be successful.

That he should look only for big wins at the outset and

that he should be able to prove the value of his idea before moving forward.

All of these beliefs are fatally flawed.

>> Jeffrey knows however, that there are no right answers,

there are only experiments.

And he recognizes that he can't rely on predictions of a new future,

when one only has the past to consider.

>> George continues analysis in his search to prove that his big

opportunity is indeed big enough to calm his own anxiety.

In the uncertainty of the ever-changing environment around him.

The outcome is often gridlock.

George ends up spending tons of his time in meetings,

debating and defending the value of his proposed ideas.

Instead of going out into the real world and learning about what actually works.

>> Remember, George views life as a test, try not to look stupid.

And avoiding looking stupid is about studying and preparing for the test.

He holds his cards close to the vest, not consulting outside stakeholders.

Waiting to launch the big idea when the timing is perfect,

and therefore, he can't look stupid.

>> Tragically, though, George's approach actually increases his risk.

In limiting his options to one big idea and avoiding input from

outside stakeholders, his bets gets bigger and bigger.

But they're less informed by the reality of actual stakeholder input.

Which might have helped him discover small and correctable flaws early on.

Worse yet for George, he places his bets slowly,

because he's always searching for proof.

Then he ignores disconfirming data,

because his own anxiety makes it hard for him to hear bad news.

And then his chance to at least cut his losses early evaporates.

George's is a sad story, the same tools and

approaches that worked in a stable world.

Tools which helped him be a success,

now accelerate his failure in uncertain times.

>> The smart innovator, either George or Jeff, doesn't slam ideas at the outset.

Instead, he holds off until the ideas develop before considering any downsides.

A little later, the smart innovator willingly seeks the bad news

from stakeholders and is ready to call the baby ugly.

By allowing a prototyped idea to be batted around by

stakeholders who will use or not whatever that idea is.

Rather than having all his eggs in one basket, Jeffrey, who can sometimes get

too invested in his own great thinking, pursues an alternative course from George.

Jeffrey conducts small,

inexpensive experiments that give him positive results to promote.

And if the results are negative,

to table those projects before upper management starts noticing.

A good George here, as Jean does for me.

Can be just the catalyst to help Jeff see the real world,

not the world of our imagined brilliant future.

We Jeff's can get stupidly paternal about our own

brilliant ideas, and wow, can we be defensive.

>> George, remember, is analytical.

And who better to devise small cheap experiments to test an idea

before the organization opens up the checkbook?

The key is for George to let ideas develop and

then bring us back to reality at the right time and place.

So, what does this tale of two managers mean in a world where everyone designs?

Without support, George is going to find the pressure to innovate painful.

Yet, no organization can succeed with all of their

George's just sitting on the sideline.

The point is not that we need George's, like me,

to become Jeffrey's, like Saul's, the task is much simpler.

We need to reduce George's anxiety in the face of uncertainty.

And to teach him some new tools to help him navigate the innovation process.

>> What Jeffrey does naturally, his learning mindset,

his empathetic understanding of stakeholders.

An experiential approach to solving problems is what design thinking's

methodology and tool kit teaches.

Design thinking helps George comfortably emulate

the innovation oriented behavior that make Jeffrey effective.

While Jeff learns how to utilize George's analytical and testing skills.

>> Design thinking's human centered front end builds George's creative confidence.

And it transforms his ability to see new more innovative possibilities.

>> And it can also help Jeffrey recognize that disciplined

experimentation can minimize his mistakes.

Not limit his freedom to explore.

Design thinking's hypothesis driven approach breaks the debates that too

often lead to gridlock.

>> A great George and Jeffrey team is a marriage of differences,

a marriage where we minimize the agony, hopefully.

>> [LAUGH] >> And maximize the ecstasy.

>> Together, we can explore deeply, empathize continually,

ideate rapidly, prototype simply, and iterate constantly.

Which is the heart of design thinking.

>> Together, we're a dynamic team, opposed, we're no team at all.

Design Thinking for the Greater Good: Innovation in the Social Sector

Destrezas que aprenderás

Revisiones

Impartido por:

Jeanne M. Liedtka

Explora nuestro catálogo

Inscríbete de manera gratuita y obtén recomendaciones personalizadas, actualizaciones y ofertas.