Innovation Lies in Misunderstanding

"You cannot have innovation unless you are able to move through the unknown and go from curiosity to wonder.", claims Dawna Markova in a recent New York Times article.

One of the best tools that creates this "movement through the unknown" is an open and honest dialogue. This takes place when people from different frames of reference, backgrounds, specialities, locations and objectives meet to discuss a common problem.

While this seems so simple and obvious, in the business context this is an enormous task that is fraught with wicked issues.

Do the participants agree that there is a problem? Very often, just getting agreement on the problem itself is a challenge. This is because of the diversity in the group. A natural response is to remove the diversity, which is not helpful.

It is far better to find a way of facilitating the debate, ironing out differences of opinion to get to some consensus on the problem. Even if this consensus was not reached participants should be able to get to the point of "I understand why this grouping of people believe this to be a problem and I have a view on subject, so I will contribute to the discussion."

I have often found in these processes that diverse people have developed 'dialects', local languages and ways of expressing the subject matter, that cause confusion. To operate in a trusting environment and to process these 'locally' induced misunderstanding is the route to innovative problem solving. There is a psychological reason for this. It lies in the functioning of the brain. On hearing and thinking about subjects our brain retrieves our stored patterns of related material for review. In order for innovation to take place, we need 'just enough' overlap. Too much is like having a meeting with yourself and too little means there is no understanding. In between these two extremes is the 'sweet spot' of good innovative dialogue.

In this 'sweet spot', ideas spark off each other and the new pathways that are formed are the basis of the innovation or idea that ultimately will need implementation.

The next, and perhaps most wicked issue, is the level of trust around the table. People who are involved in some sort of posturing or power struggle which they bring into the debate, have clouded their ability to retrieve the useful information and patterns. The patterns being sent back are those needed to interpret the dynamics and power fields around the room.

Then there is the question of time and capacity to hold these discussions. If you are embroiled in a survival struggle, or you have major operational concerns, or you are simply too busy with the mundane grind of doing your daily activities, you do not have the capacity for this process.

For these reasons, I believe that firms need to practice constantly these dynamic skills in order to build up their innovative capabilities. This means having a constant supply of initiatives and experiments that require diverse thinking against a backdrop of known problems. Not only will your known problems get solved in ways you never imagined, but you are building capabilities that will let you stand head and shoulders above your competitors.