From the monthly archives: February 2012

Cognitive dissonance and ethics

Creativity can be defined as the ability to produce ideas that are original and unexpected but at the same time useful.

The personal characteristics of each one of us, the attraction to complexity or ambiguity tolerance are factors considered vital to the creative process, but the context factors also influence creativity.

“High levels of divergent thinking and cognitive flexibility are likely to be associated with dishonest behavior when individuals are motivated to think creatively, either because of their own personalities or because of cues in the surrounding environment. – Francesca Gino and Dan Ariely

Using divergent thinking we can create new options and we are therefore able to multiply them to understand and apply the consumer behavior in the creation of new products or new experiences.

Divergent thinking is also a form that we have at our disposal to develop unique ways to break the rules.

But “To break the rules, you must first master them – 40 years ago, Audemars Piguet broke all rules of fine watchmaking when in 1972 it introduced the ground-breaking design of the Royal Oak, the first luxury sports watch in Haute Horlogerie.

Break the rules or ignore the rules, especially moral rules, can be a negative side of our creative activity.

If we use our creative ability for not being firm in the pursuit of our ethical standards and moral values and with the help of our cognitive flexibility we reread information to justify our immoral actions, we’re creating the dark side of creativity.

Creativity has neither time nor place nor is an ability of a particular discipline. Creativity arises both in painting as in technology, both in cooking as in accounting, but sometimes the ethical issues are more urgent.

“By definition, creativity is morally neutral. The myth that it’s good is a dangerous misconception. Societies must constantly strive to ensure that novel ideas in government, business, education, and every other realm are wedded to strong ethical values.” – Teresa Amabile

So what happens when we fall back on our abilities to justify our ethical attitudes and build beautiful stories that sponsor our decisions?

The way, how we deal with two thoughts that contradict themselves, can be by reducing this dissonance by altering the existing conditions with the introduction of new conditions that create more consistency.

People often interpret the same information radically different ways to support their own views of the world. To give our opinion on a controversial point, we conveniently forget what goes against our own theory and remember everything that fits.

People quickly adjust its values to adjust their behavior, even when it is clearly immoral.

“The ability of most people to behave dishonestly might be bounded by their ability to cheat and at the same time feel that they are behaving as moral individuals. To the extent that creativity allows people to more easily behave dishonestly and rationalize this behavior, creativity might be a more general driver of this type of dishonesty and play a useful role in understanding unethical behavior.”- Mazar

The duel between the evil and the good or between the comfort of elaborate justifications but biased and the discomfort of acceptance of failure tends to be won by cheating.

Do you want to comment?

A common way of thinking

On a regular basis to the Thursday I participate in a chat on innovation (#innochat) which gives me great pleasure because of the high quality of information that there is always shared.

For this last #innochat (you can see here a recapitulation) @DrewCM wrote a good article that served as a frame to the discussion- Nature. Nurture. Nightmare. What does it take to build an innovative enterprise?

Among the issues proposed for discussion were:

–      What do you think it takes to build an innovative enterprise?

–      How do the ends justifies the means?

We exchanged many ideas but still it seems useful to leave here a reflection on this theme.

I think that innovative companies are companies that people admire and in which eventually they would like to work. But are they companies where ethics has an important role in its activities?

Looking for images of innovative companies there seems to be a strong correlation between innovative companies and business ethics.

Companies that promote respect and trust between employees and where these are protected, encouraged and rewarded are flexible and able to take risks, but not at any cost.

They are companies where leaders regularly send signals that are absorbed as integral parts of a culture of ethics and of innovation.

They are companies that facilitate the expression of new ideas and opinions and where workers are considered collaborators so everyone can feel that they are an important part in the development of the organization.

Respect and trust are values that arise by exercising responsibility whatsoever of managers or employees, and which is also an important motivational factor.

The respect and trust that grows when managers don’t have always the correct answer and hear alternative voices in an open communication way.

“We don’t act a certain way because we have a virtue, but rather it is the other way around. We have that virtue because we behave that way repeatedly, over time.” – Aristotle

But it’s not always like that! Often we are questioned to what extend the means justify the ends when we see that, for example, there is a lack of ethics in how some subcontracts between organizations are performed.

Humans “have a tendency to exaggeration” and often overestimate how ethical is their behavior.

So until the leaders see their ethical conduct as essential for achieving the business goals, a lot of water from the river passes under the bridge.

Ethics should be always one of the banks of this river when leaders need to make decisions and not a boat adrift in those waters.

How do businesses balance the need to obey the laws of market speed and integrity in decision making?

How can we have a “play to win” and demonstrate an impeccable ethical behavior?

How can we crush the competition without anyone quit injured with lack of ethics?

How can we maintain an atmosphere of trust with employees if the leaders tended to handle customers?

“With so much ignorance about ethics, it is worth asking whether it is even possible to change the way that companies behave? Is it possible ethical companies are born, not made? Manzoni believes that it is possible to make companies more ethical; however, it is a long and hard process that revolves around organisational culture. To Manzoni, organisational culture is not simply about the mindset and values of the company, but about actions and practices. He quotes Goffee and Jones:

Culture comes down to a common way of thinking, which drives a common way of acting.”Grace Segran

It seems that while the organizational culture takes a good and given time to build up, the benefits inherent to it can disappear quickly if they are not fed.

What do you think of this?



Innovative skills

The use of visual stimuli helps us to produce more and better results when we want to create something. Our ability to observe can be translated into inspiration and the best results as referred are often attributed to intuition.

We know intuitively or we believe that there is a significant connection between intuition and innovation.

To be creative and make our intuition works, we need however to feel some ignorance.

But is it true that to create we need to have initially a certain degree of knowledge, but not much, because the abundance of knowledge can inhibit the creative process?

Creativity is almost never seen without being accompanied by intuition.

Like the two dancers in a pas de deux, intuition and creativity seem almost as one.

They are totally connected to the final show, so to speak. They embolden our discoveries and questions, whether in art, music, literature, the sciences, or everyday life. Intuition is connected to creativity, for intuition is the seed, so to speak, of the creative act. Qualitative researchers spend a great deal of time and energy inquiring into social settings and the meanings of the actors’ lives in those settings. If we take the time to carve out some space to understand the place of intuition and creativity in our work, like the dancers of the pas de deux, we present a more complete, holistic, and authentic study of our own role as storytellers and artist-scientists. For qualitative researchers, the story is paramount. And nothing is so important to the story as the words we use, both intuitively and creatively.”

If it is true that to be creative and make our intuition works we need to feel some ignorance, what kind of learning environment we need to innovate?

Which skills are put to the test in tough and full of constraints environments to be innovative?

Hogarth identifies the following skills or practices demonstrated by the

intuitively gifted:

•  The capacity for visualization

•  The ability to acknowledge emotions and learn from them

•  The willingness to speculate and consider alternatives

• The habit of testing perceptions, emotions and speculations”

To be intuitively people we need to be aware that the development of intuition is an individual or personnel process since learning barriers that block the natural development of intuition are specific to each one of us.

Building or strengthening the intuition of each one of us involves mainly the removal of obstacles so that this power arises and for that it is necessary to abandon certain acquired beliefs, mental habits or emotional constraints that arise in our path.

To abandon all this means that it is extremely important to unlearn

Strengthening intuition also entails a gathering or a turn more to our interior. This allows us to be less verbal and more subtle as if we were experiencing our feelings.

It is important to know to distinguish strong feelings and real emotional reactions.

Strengthening intuition means still gain confidence in our thoughts and not being afraid to learn new things.

Accepting that intuition and creativity seem to be one in which of these options you fit as a creative person?

Csikszentmihalyi found three ways to see creativity:

1. The first way to approach creativity is the way we normally do in ordinary conversation. Here, we refer to people who express unusual thoughts, who are interesting and stimulating, and who are bright; people with quick minds often called brilliant.

2. A second view is used to refer to people who experience the world in novel and original ways. They make important discoveries, but only they know of the discoveries. This can be called personal creativity.

3. The third view of creativity refers to individuals who have changed our culture in some critical way. For example, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Martha Graham, Pablo Picasso, Charles Dickens, and Sylvia Plath would fall into this category. Viewing creativity in this way, the individual must publicize in some form the idea that makes a shift or change in culture.

Creativity adds texture, complexity and richness to our understanding of everyday life.

Do you want to comment?



The work on innovation teams

When I read “Viewpoint: Gartner on the changing nature of work” by Tom Austin, I awoke to a mark that I have placed myself on the future of teamwork.

In a previous article I discussed the question of mobility and collaboration where I say that to be able to travel without having to dispense each virtual community, affects people’s movement patterns and has an extraordinary impact on our transport habits or the organization of jobs or even human concentration places.

Tom Austin says that in the next decade organizations must plan for a set of mega trends including one that he called swarms, i.e. “Swarming is a new and different form of teamwork, characterised by a flurry of collective activity from everyone available and able to add value.”

I think, in organizations, there is increasingly an appreciation of teamwork where the fundamental value that people add is in the works that flee from routine and are typically human as analysis work or creativity and discovery, or the construction of teams where the leadership abandon control and embrace the influence.

Leveraging the inspiration left by Tom Austin with the new form of work in swarm, I leave you here a small challenge:

In the following text, replace the queen with a business idea and scout bees by partners in this business and assume the discovery of your whitespace. Please, stay tuned to the behavior of bees, so copies on his teachings and remove the best image to save.

“When a honey bee swarm emerges from a hive they do not fly far at first. They may gather in a tree or on a branch only a few meters from the hive. There, they cluster about the queen and send 20 – 50 scout bees out to find a suitable new nest locations. The scout bees are the most experienced foragers in the cluster. An individual scout returning to the cluster promotes a location she found. She uses a dance similar to the waggle dance to indicate direction and distance to others in the cluster. The more excited she is about her findings the more excitedly she dances. If she can convince other scouts to check out the location she found, they may take off, check out the proposed site and promote the site further upon their return. Several different sites may be promoted by different scouts at first. After several hours and sometimes days, slowly a favorite location emerges from this decision making process. When all scouts agree on a final location the whole cluster takes off and flies to it. A swarm may fly a kilometer or more to the scouted location. This collective decision making process is remarkably successful in identifying the most suitable new nest site and keeping the swarm intact. A good nest site has to be large enough to accommodate the swarm (about 15 liters in volume), has to be well protected from the elements, receive a certain amount of warmth from the sun and be not infested with ants”

Today there is an increasing intersection between lines which delimit the work and those which delimit the not work.

The work is becoming more proactive and more virtual workplace where time zones confuse working hours and leisure time and where the complexity will appeal to teamwork.

The swarms of people tend to move around and choose the best place to build the new nest, situation which may give rise to a new wave of previously populated areas of occupation and now abandoned.

People perform the waggle dance to celebrate small victories!

Do you want to comment?

The dance of four thoughts

According to Tim Brown “Design Thinking” is to participate in a dance of four types of thought. They are:

Divergent thinking is to be regarded as a path to innovation rather than an obstacle, the convergent thinking that arises at the time to eliminate options and make choices, the analytical thinking that enables us to understand complex problems and synthetic thinking or the act of extract meaningful patterns, from all of the collected information.

And it’s a dance, with these four states, because they are not in a logical and predetermined sequence, but arise when we give preference to the intuition.

When we dance this dance design thinking can help solve many problems, but according to Alan Van Pelt we must  be aware that we are predisposed to cognitive biases and to be driven by emotions that can contribute to bad decisions. In other words, if I am not minimizing these cognitive biases, the dance is like an escape in the crowd.

It is precisely when we are inclined to the pitfalls of decision-making and when the uncertainty is larger than the design thinking is more useful.

David McRaney says that “our views are the result of years to pay attention to information that confirms what we believe, ignoring the information that challenge our preconceived notions.”

We are, some more than others, fruit of an education and learning based on choices between the Yes and No and therefore we bowed to some traps in decision when there is risk and reward. Our brain deceives us with what saves because it feels attracted to long distances when they mean big rewards.

We by nature have learned to repeat behaviors that maximize the reward, but also learn to be rewarded by little things, when we want to confirm what we think.

These signs that we can identify as confirmation bias and an exaggerated optimism have serious consequences on the path of innovation and lead us to wrong decisions sometimes synonymous of painful losses.

Do exaggerated estimates and confirm the information we want without seeking options that conflict it, is almost always a major misstep.

These disastrous steps when executed by innovation teams make easily foreseeable consequences. To avoid a result of failure or even fiasco is best to opt for the third, rather than A or B, says Alan Van Pelt quoting the example of Starbucks.

When a group of innovation is initially formed, might be tempted to create a disruptive innovation that transforms the company (radically).

When planning major initiatives, business leaders and innovation teams exaggerate in benefits and lower cost, giving rise to a lack of reality and preparing it for the failure.

Some results of questionnaires made with students on the eve of integration into the labor market show that 70% of respondents feel more able than others to lead innovation teams, this is clearly an excess of optimism.

Innovation leaders or those who lead teams or processes of innovation may be subject to these deviations and must rely on the risks and obstacles that will experience when they lead a project.

So, many of them, it they  resolve to accept the challenge in a rational way, they do not leave the starting point, or their self-confidence causes action and in case of failure they say that the plan failed due to the weather or to external factors.

But a plan is only one of the possible scenarios and plan, includes thinking in everything, where, when and how, that is, show the maximum possible cases, and are these possible cases the great source of analogies.

Analogies, that although they can be extremely effective in resolving many problems also represent potential dangers, such as the fixation on superficial similarities or the fact of pattern recognition could undermine the reasoning.

Analogies are not a shortcut! They are a way to carry out the understanding.

Our tendency to overvalue superficial similarities is due to this being an anchor after adjusted by us to what interests us giving rise to demand for information that justifies our attitude.

Gavetti and Rivkin suggest avoiding superficial analogies using these four steps:

1) Recognize the analogy and identify its purpose. Is an analogy being used? How?

2) Understand the source. Why did the strategy work before? Lay out a chain of cause and effect that explains why the original strategy or solution worked.

3) Assess similarity. Is the similarity more than superficial? Does the causal logic identified for the source hold up for the target?

4) Translate, decide, and adapt. How does the strategy need to adapt to the new setting? What makes you believe it will work.

When we balance between divergent and convergent thinking and between the analysis and synthesis we’ll find a way to avoid many of the pitfalls that arise in our way to innovate.

Design Thinking is a mindset!

Do you want to comment?



Innovation also passes through work spaces

Technology is constantly changing and one of the main consequences of this change is mobility. Therefore, associating new technologies and mobility is thinking about the balance between the worlds of work and our life beyond work.

Be able to travel without having to dispense each virtual community, affects people’s movement patterns and has an extraordinary impact on our transport habits or the organization of jobs or even human concentration places.

Given a choice, people will demand freedom to work, live, and innovate in ways that meet their individual lifestyles, unfettered by place. Meanwhile, pressures to reduce costs and seek new approaches to innovation are causing many private and public organizations to rethink how work gets done.”

The ease with which we are moving from place to place without leaving to be connected with our community is not the only strong consequence of new technologies and applications associated with them.

The amount of information that is made available to each of us, along with a largest temporal availability is also an extraordinary change generator factor.

Today, and tomorrow even more so, many of us are willing to suffer the pressures of an extraordinary amount of diverse information, a situation which could create constraints in different work environments, but certainly bring added value.

For instances, workplaces with open spaces can promote interaction and sharing of knowledge but it can also be inhibitors of specific situations as the need for focused activities. The solution is to reconcile these two needs: interaction and confidentiality and/or introversion.

The mobility we have now allows people to choose how and where they work better leading to proposals for a hybrid workplace that can take advantage of technology to combine the “face to face” and virtual collaboration, i.e. within the office and remotely.

Intel has quietly been trying to inject a little more fun into its offices and make them places where employees can be more collaborative…

At its campus here outside of Portland, where it designs computer chips, gray walls have been repainted yellow, purple and white, cubicle walls are lower so employees can be seen, and lounges have been outfitted with flat-screen TVs, armchairs and sleek kitchens that would not look out of place in a design magazine.”

It seems that, facing the constant development of technology and the greater flow of information, the way how the workspaces are organized or redrawn, and the way people interact and collaborate is undergoing a major change that will affect organizations previously entered in the market but it is fundamentally driven by new entrepreneurs.

So, I think that the near future will bring something like this:

-A constant shift in how collaboration will emerge from inside and outside of organizations.

-A suitability of labor norms to new cultural values resulting from virtual interaction and mobility.

-Most shared workspaces and fewer representatives of status or information silos.

-A growing need to create adequate information filters to new work environments.

-More open workspaces, devoted to the acceleration of ideas through new kind of partnerships.

-More participation from promoters of projects in communities and communities in projects through the involvement of Governments and municipalities as a means of ensuring sustainable mobility.

I think that, the major forces that will lead our development at work in the future are collaboration, mobility and the ability to filter information.


Do you want to comment?



Tagged with:

A walk for wellness

For us, in this age of information overload and abundance of supply of products and services, who will get ahead in this journey for wellness, are going to be people who find out first what to leave out, so they can focus on what is important to them.

It seems to be correct to say that if we have good filters we do not have information overload.

And for that when we talk about innovation and new information, what is showed and what is really just depends on us!

A few things that we already know:

We know that our dedication for something means that we can leave stuff behind or without the necessary care.

We know that often the creativity and innovation are not done with best intentions, intentions or meanings, because the focus is put on the maximum profitability of product or service.

We know that things are interesting not only for the good experiences that have already provided, but also by the desire, created in us, by what we can still try.

We know that there are people who like to treat their garden to enjoy it at length and at anytime or that there are people who buy a painting or sculpture to be able to admire when they want.

We know that there are people who do not resist the novelties and lost hours of sleep to be the first to purchase them.

What it seems we don’t know yet, is that it is good to stop every once in a while and begin to release the excesses (fruit of certain acquisitions just determined by desires) until we find a simplicity that guarantees the sustainability of our well-being.

Carving a block of stone or a piece of wood means remove what is not useful to make it stand out what is important. Carve our warehouse of information, products and services available for use, it also means that what we will be able to build an extension to our imagination and welfare.

With few things at our disposal our perception of the value of these things increases.

Unfortunately most of what is being proposed to us is solutions that resemble a stone block without valuable or difficult to carve. The content that is in fact what we need is wrapped in unnecessary applications or information that almost always hides the beauty of sculpture (function), i.e. the relevant usability.

We can filter information according to our interests or specific tasks or even in our preferences but the amount of information to withdraw a mark remains.

When we filter information we can embark on one of the paths:

-A cognitive filter, i.e. the assessment of content according to a statistical approach based on the occurrence of a set of keywords to identify or recognize relevant information and a symbolic approach that attempts to make a review of the relationship between the documents contents (objects to filter) and the user’s interest.

-A more economical filtration linked to the consumption of resources (time, size, etc.).

-A collaborative filtering (or social), held on the basis of the opinions of others and which social networks so generously produce through their thematic curators.

These are filters that help us to develop new skills in order to effectively treat within organizations the vast amounts of unstructured data.

Those are only small steps when compared to the offerings of the future, as is the case of “Big Data: Making Complex Things Simpler” promoted po MITSloan Executive Education:

“This new executive program prepares you to understand and lead this revolution in your organizations by:

  • collecting many different forms of information gathered from inside and outside your organization
  • developing new knowledge from that information, for example, discovering patterns of customer behavior
  • using this information in a collaborative way to improve both productivity and strategic decision making in real time.”

There is indeed a need to develop new skills to produce meaning when dealing with the mountain of data that is available today, and above all there is a need to produce true meaning.

Big Data has its perils, to be sure. With huge data sets and fine-grained measurement, statisticians and computer scientists note, there is increased risk of “false discoveries.” The trouble with seeking a meaningful needle in massive haystacks of data, says Trevor Hastie, a statistics professor at Stanford, is that “many bits of straw look like needles.”

I would remind one of the most famous sonnets of Michelangelo (1538-44), begins with the following lines:

“Not even the best of artists have any design which does not contain a single block of marble inside his excess, and that is only achieved by the hand that obeys the intellect”.


What do you think of this?



Strategy and co creation

For most of us, achieving good results in solving problems or satisfaction of needs, means that we have to increase the number of positive interactions both at home and at work and reduce our negative interactions.

An interaction is a kind of action that occurs when two or more objects or things produce an effect, one over the other.

If we think of a situation traditionally considered as being cause/effect, we easily arrived at the concept of interaction through the idea of a two-way effect.

Often the problems are hidden on an infinite network of cause/effect.

Who deals with the interactions of interactions in systems, i.e., many combinations of simple interactions, know that these can lead to surprising emergent phenomena.

Although the interaction has different meanings in different disciplines, all point to systems that are related and interdependent, that is, every action has a consequence.

To promote these actions we will need to create personal and team rituals that help us to interact more positively. If we transform them as part of our organization process and individual habits, it is more likely, that the interactions are positive.

We need to create an action plan to achieve that particular goal.

According to Gary Hamel, 90% of strategies fail due to a weak execution but Roger Martin says that to create a strategy we have to interact.

“That’s actually a lot easier that it sounds. My preferred approach is to treat strategy- making as developing a set of answers to five interlinked questions. The questions — which cascade logically from the first to the last — are as follows:

  1. What are our broad aspirations for our organization & the concrete goals against which we can measure our progress?
  1. Across the potential field available to us, where will we choose to play and not play?
  1. In our chosen place to play, how will we choose to win against the competitors there?
  1. What capabilities are necessary to build and maintain to win in our chosen manner?
  1. What management systems are necessary to operate to build and maintain the key capabilities?”

As in any situation of question answer is needed to find our strategy. But this just is not enough!

It is not a simple relationship of cause effect but of interactions where the coherence of response is central to the mutual reinforcement of each one.

The place where we play can shape the way we played to win and it’s good thinking and re-thinking about what our goals are and how we play. We cannot think of the field without considering what our aspirations are and neither one can only wonder how we play to get there.

We went back and refined some passes and how we have mastered the moves.

Visualizing interactions facilitates the approach to strategy and allows refining each one of cascade level. There are consequences everywhere, but there is not a single way of option.

“The traditional system of company-centric value creation (that has served us so well over the past 100 years) is becoming obsolete. Leaders now need a new frame of reference for value creation. In the emergent economy, competition will center on personalized co-creation experiences, resulting in value that is truly unique to each individual. The authors see a new frontier in value creation emerging, replete with fresh opportunities. In this new frontier the role of the consumer has changed from isolated to connected, from unaware to informed, from passive to active. As a result, companies can no longer act autonomously, designing products, developing production processes, crafting marketing messages, and controlling sales channels with little or no interference from consumers.

Armed with new tools and dissatisfied with available choices, consumers want to interact with firms and thereby co-create value. The use of interaction as a basis for co-creation is at the crux of our emerging reality. The co-creation experience of the consumer becomes the very basis of value.” – C.K. Prahalad, Venkat Ramaswamy

Is it true that the problem solving is fundamentally achieved by deep understanding of the interactions found in the problem?


Do you want to comment?


The success story

The amount of knowledge we have gained in general decreases in value as time goes on, in a globalized world constantly changing, making this knowledge museum pieces worthy of consideration but not usable in our daily lives.

This globalization which presupposes evolution increases the need to generate new knowledge, but not exclusively explicit knowledge, maybe even more tacit knowledge.

Tacit knowledge is the knowledge more difficult to express, either because it is so new and unknown or because it is so deeply rooted in our practices that we are not even aware of it.

But knowledge retained in our precious silo, has no purpose if it is not transferred and disseminated and is healthy to think this assertion as valid both for the individual and the organization.

Although some argue that knowledge retained in silos, whatever its nature, is a safeguard for company’s security in the face of competition, do not share, carries major risks for survival.

There are however companies who know the risks of isolation and outline strategies for knowledge management including its share.

One of the most fun and effective ways, to transfer tacit knowledge, is storytelling. The emotional charge contained in the stories causes the message to be integrated faster and deeper.

The stories stimulate our senses in all directions and a trust relationship is established between the counter and the receptor.

Storytelling is a natural thing, which does not present major difficulties and is fun transmitting energy to the whole audience. In a natural way too, complexity is perceived as well when we count and hear stories.

The pure analysis of facts does not convey the same level of confidence.

Building trust in the transfer or sharing of knowledge is fundamental to the development of individuals and organizations.

It may appear not to be very relevant the transmission of tacit knowledge but I think this need begins to be emphasized now that some rainfall paths of information begin to mix and confuse making explicit knowledge a “Big Data” as meaningless.

Tacit knowledge has a fundamental influence on the success of the innovation processes in companies and plays a vital role as a resource and success factor.

But it is important to remember that storytelling doesn’t always work well. Storytelling may not exceed the quality of the underlying idea that we want to convey. If we seek in a solid idea exceed the expectations that you are enrolled storytelling can be a disappointment.

Storytelling doesn’t replace the analytical thinking, but complements it because it is often easier to understand the data in the light of a story well told.

Innovation does not arise in companies like a recipe well described and ready to implement. The explicit knowledge is not enough to innovate. It takes creativity combined with tacit knowledge that is essentially personnel by nature and therefore difficult to extract of individuals in an organization.

Innovation requires an environment or context and a story well told.

A key element for the success of businesses when they intend to innovate is its ability to create a compelling story. Tell the story of their purposes and significance of their activity to engage their employees and build confidence.

“Trying to teach some things out of context means that only half of the information is observable (the mechanics and not the interpersonal subtleties).  This leads me back to the value of storytelling. The mistake we probably made in our class and the mistake I sometimes fear I’m making with clients is giving advice for which there isn’t a ready context…

I think the trick is having the right stories and knowing when to use them to illuminate or contextualize advice.  Stories that are quick and illustriative without sounding preachy.  The trick is also having the right forum to tell the stories in, because part of the value of the stories is the fact that they really are personal. –  Donna Fritzgerald

Storytelling can nurture trust among the various interlocutors of the processes of change, but once created this confidence, we must not disappoint the audience won.

Do you want to comment?


An urgent and important case

Creativity at work at given heights seems like an unreasonable thing!

When an organization seeks to seize the opportunities that arise to introduce new processes internally and new products on the market, be a practical and applied collaborator is undoubtedly a good thing.

Unfortunately what happens is that it’s not enough to look at things differently, and think that we are all creative and receptive to change.

When an organization has to deal with a short time to produce changes and gain its market quota, the employes of a company should be the first to celebrate the opportunity and later success, especially in times when what is at stake is the survival of the organization.

But many times and unfortunately it doesn’t. Contrary, some, often a large number, collaborators (or rather, employees) create resistance and do not accept a greater willingness to find solutions that lead to a safe haven.

The commitment to the legitimate will of the organization is not desirable when this entails leaving the comfort zone.

To find solutions often means creating willingness to work in a unannounced project and reformulate the agendas and priorities. This necessarily implies a lot of creativity inside and outside the workplace.

-“I’m not creative”, say a lot of people.

In this way, those seek not participate in the acceleration that is required at any given time, despite being large creative to keep a balanced family budget or keep their children in playful activities without great expense.

And it is precisely in these children that we must seek the inspiration for our work.

To find a white space in our system and look for in good time to innovate, satisfying a need for many, but only now identified requires a collective attitude of collaboration and creativity.

Childhood is essentially a prospective state, full of curiosity who will serve to underpin the adulthood and children, especially our children, are curious, creative and extremely headstrong, transforming the constraints into opportunities and the “practically nothing” into something very useful.

Those ideas that did not exist before, that result from our imagination, that in moments of inspiration sprout as spring water, are what we call creativity. There are these ideas that give a solution to a problem, that solve embarrassing situations, be they small cases or the Organization’s strategy.

But in organizations, this environment is not so easy to find. It is often an isolated behavior that leads a group or entire organization by way of collaboration, as with the children when they start any game together.

There is place to the principle of a crisis:

-Contagious Behavior.

-Small changes have large effects.

-The changes happen suddenly.

People are by nature highly social and therefore easily react to the presence of other people copying often what they observe.

Competitive society, of which we are part, is fertile in judgments and can easily take us to evaluate others and their ideas, transmitting security or insecurity.

We ran towards others with psychological security when we accept the person, when we use empathy and try to understand them instead of the judge immediately. We also have the psychological freedom of thinking, feeling, and contribute fully.

In essence, we are ourselves that gave rise to most locks specifically our subconscious, when we are not alert to the pitfalls of conventional thinking, drawing us the freedom to create.

In an organization that requires collaboration, and always need, it is important that the contagious behavior will be beneficial for the whole team or organization to follow the path of success.

As it happens with children there are good models (or heroes) to analyze!


Do you want to comment?