1- Leadership and Innovation: Relating to Circumstances and Change

Innovation is one of those words that we all use, agree is a positive thing and for the most part want more of.  However, the term “innovation” like “leadership” seems to defy a commonly accepted definition. There is no shared interpretation of what we mean or what we are observing when we use the terms. Moreover, we lack practices for deliberately and consistently producing “leadership” and “innovation”.  This is evident in the fact that in spite of thousands of books on these subjects, reading and understanding the books doesn’t enable us to be leaders or innovators.

Innovation and leadership are closely related.  Leadership always has some focus on bringing about a better future.  In this sense, leaders are necessarily innovators. We would not normally consider a spectator of the status quo to be a leader.  The term innovation also suggests some break with the ‘norm’ or the status quo.  I will show in this text that an ‘innovator’ and a ‘leader’ are cut from the same cloth, that these terms are distinguishing different but intersecting dimensions of the same phenomenon.

This paper is the first of a series of essays that are intended to open possibilities for developing leadership. It provides pathways for action for those who are dissatisfied with the status quo and are attempting to either improve on existing processes or perhaps accomplish breakthrough results.

To begin, I will make a number of distinctions.  There are obvious distinctions between the innovator (who), an innovation (what) and the process of innovating (how).  This paper’s intent is to illuminate and inquire into the phenomenon of innovation (and leadership) before history judges an accomplishment as innovative or declares a person to be a leader.  The focus will be on the innovator and the context or ‘way of being’ of the innovator. My thesis is that a competency for innovation is a natural by-product of certain ways of relating to the world; the context in which we relate to circumstances and change. I will also distinguish between innovation and art, two terms often used interchangeably. Finally, I distinguish simple change that is a variation of what already exists from profound change that alters the scope of what is possible.

Distinguishing Innovation

To many, innovation is equated with change.  But, this view tells only one part of the story.   Change is happening all the time whether we’re aware of it or not. A random event, insight or an accident may be novel but I do not consider it to be an innovation. What one can observe and do in the context of a novel occurrence or insight might very well lead to innovation.  For example, all of us have had ‘big ideas’ from time to time and done nothing about them only to learn later that someone has succeeded in bringing about

exactly what we had imagined.  This is what might distinguish a leader/innovator from a dreamer.

A more powerful way to think of innovation is that it means:  intentionally ‘bringing into existence’ something new that can be sustained and repeated and which has some value or utility.   That is, innovation is always related to some practical ‘in-the-world’ value. It is about making new tools, products or processes, bringing forth something ‘new’ which allows human beings to accomplish something they were not able to accomplish previously.

Art is creative and may have value to its consumers, but requires no utility to be art.  Art might be seen as the artist’s self-expression or experience of their world. Innovation on the other hand must allow for something else, some possibility or accomplishment or value beyond the innovation itself.   If someone comes up with a new hammer that does what our existing hammers do, then that is a design change and design is an ‘art’. When someone creates a new kind of hammer, however, such as a ‘nail gun’ or a new method for hammering, then we can distinguish that as innovation.  In this sense, we can also see that we can innovate within an art form, such as painting with acrylic at one point allowed artists to create effects that were not possible with traditional oils.

When we create a new tool we are innovating. When we are not innovating we are the tool or the ‘tool’ is an extension of us. For example, the typewriter was an innovation in writing.  At some moment, the typewriter becomes transparent (to both the typist and those concerned with what is being typed) and we simply have a typist typing. The tool appears again only when there is a breakdown or it no longer serves its purpose.  I am claiming that our relationship to the circumstances, especially when there are breakdowns, is the primary factor in determining whether we respond as leaders and innovate, or simply resist or cope with what is happening.

Whether we are speaking about leadership or innovation, our concern is about accomplishing some sustainable change whether large or small, continuous or breakthrough.  While leaders and innovators participate in both kinds of change, I distinguish leadership as always occurring in a context of some intention to create the latter: Breakthrough, to break with the status quo. Both leaders and innovators change the context, paradigm or frame of reference of the innovator/leader and those who have a stake in the innovation. However, another distinction between leaders and innovators comes from the observation that leaders’ actions exist within a context of ongoing relationships with other human beings.

If change is happening all the time and innovation and leadership both imply deliberate acting, then are there (deliberate) ways of being in the world that define our relationships with change? And, is there an “order” underlying such possible ways of being?

  by Jim Selman

Maneuver Warfare: Can Modern Military Strategy Lead You to Victory?

Business has gone through a dramatic transformation in recent years. So has warfare.

Every executive knows firsthand the daunting challenges of the twenty-first-century business environment: rapid and disruptive change, fleeting opportunities, incomplete information, an overall sense of uncertainty and disorder. While military commanders have long faced such challenges on the battlefield, meeting them has be come even more difficult in today’s world of electronic weaponry, blurred battle lines, and amorphous enemies.

Military strategy, like business strategy, has had to evolve in response to the changing environment. This has led to the growing focus on an approach to armed conflict called maneuver warfare. Recognized as a viable combat philosophy for the past 65 years, maneuver warfare risen to prominence in the past decade because it is so well suited to today’s combat environment. Although designed for the battlefield, the approach offers a novel and useful way to think about business strategy, allowing executives to capitalize on—rather than succumb to—the formidable challenges they now face.

Maneuver warfare represents—in the words of the United States Marine Corps doctrinal manual, Warfighting—“a state of mind bent on shattering the enemy morally and physically by paralyzing and confounding him, by avoiding his strength, by quickly and aggressively ploiting his vulnerabilities, and by striking him in a way that will hurt him most.” Its ultimate aim is not to destroy the adversary’s forces but to render them unable to fight as an effective, coordinated whole. For example, instead of attacking enemy defense positions, maneuver warfare practitioners bypass those positions, capture the enemy’s command-and-control center in the rear, and cut off supply lines. Moreover, maneuver warfare doesn’t aim to avoid or resist the uncertainty and disorder that inevitably shape armed conflict; it embraces them as keys to vanquishing the foe.

Despite the oft-cited analogy between warfare and business, military principles clearly can’t be applied wholesale in a business environment. The marketplace is not, after all, a battlefield, if only because lives aren’t at stake. That said, companies do compete aggressively even viciously—for strategic advantage in a chaotic arena that is increasingly similar to the modern theater of war.

Consequently, while the battle metaphor in some settings may seem facile or ill considered, we believe concept of maneuver warfare is directly relevant to business strategy, precisely because it has been developed address conditions that in many ways mirror those faced by modern executives. Furthermore, the approach—with its focus not on overpowering a rival but on outflanking him, targeting his weaknesses, and rendering him unable to analyze the situation—can help a company to achieve a decisive advantage with a minimal deployment of resources. This is of particular interest in today’s business environment, when many companies are hesitant to over-commit their resources.

The Nature of War

Warfare, in general, takes place on multiple levels. On the physical level, it is a test of firepower, weapons technology, troop strength, and logistics. At the psychological level, it involves intangibles such as morale, leadership, and courage. At the analytical level, it challenges the ability of commanders to assess complex battlefield situations, make effective decisions, and formulate tactically superior plans to carry out those decisions.

If these dimensions seem familiar to most business executives, so too will the four human and environmental factors that, according to Warfighting, shape military conflict. Friction is the phenomenon that, in the words of the manual, “makes the simple difficult and the difficult seemingly impossible.” The most obvious source of friction is the enemy, but it can also result from natural forces such as the terrain or the weather, internal forces such a lack of planning or coordination, or even mere chance.

 by Eric K. Clemons and Jason A. Santamaria