Creativity First

Leadership

Good ideas require creative thinking. Creative thinking requires time, the right mindset and usually a problem. We always have problems, but we do not always have the right mindset or the time.

You would not throw a child into a pool of water if they did not know how to swim, but yet, here we are, throwing our teams into a pool of water knowing they can’t swim. The innovation pool that is. To become an innovative culture requires us to challenge and change our current adaptive culture. How are we preparing our members to switch to an innovative mindset? Most people dislike change. A battle of its own. What about mindset? Thinking out of the box requires a change in mindset. How do we change a culture to include mindset? The idea of innovation poses more questions than our plan describes. Why the emphasis on innovation? Is it to save money, time, resources, and manpower? All great areas to ‘save,’ but are we being intentional enough about it or taking a big shot in the dark hoping to hit somewhere on the target of innovation. We must be deliberate about which areas we need change.

Technology is advancing, as is our heavy reliance on it. We have simultaneously hit an era of business with higher demands for saving time, resources, money and manpower. The consistent problem with leveraging technology to our advantage is that as technology advances the cost increases. Another problem begins, but let’s take a look at the precursor to innovation.

“Innovation in the military, as in other sectors, seems an isolated event only when we intentionally separate the culminating breakthrough from the sequence of preceding events.”

“If we view history with this restricted view, then Edison’s light bulb and the Wright brothers’ aircraft appear as dynamic manifestations of inspiration. Conversely, if we view these innovations as products in their full context, then we begin to see innovation as the consequence of creativity and effort applied over time.” 1

Innovation is a result of creative thinking and implementation. It must be looked at as the product we get from how we solve problems. We solve problems by being creative. The path from problem to solution is creativity. If we want to improve our organizations beyond our current state we have to focus on the driving force of innovation which is creativity.

Creativity is process for generating ideas to solve problems. It is also the catalyst for adapting, changing and making our processes better. Innovation is the level of change from creativity. If you reference Kirton’s Adaptive Innovative theory, adaptive thinkers improve the system while innovators change the system, but both begin with creativity.

“We tend to treat innovation with reverence. We have romanticized it, and we are always chasing after it, as if it is some holy grail.” Although this notion may seem counterintuitive, given all of the rampant advocacy for innovation, Quinn argues that a clear, negative side exists to having too much of a push for change: “Innovators, for example, can be creative, but if they push their inclinations too far, their behavior leads to belligerence, chaos, disastrous experimentation, and unprincipled opportunism.” 2

The negative side effects of forcing change can lead to unnecessary risk. In most instances, we are not ready for risk. Risk is challenging. What are we willing to risk for innovation? Since culture is born through actions and we’re giving everyone the green light to “fail forward,” then at what point, if not successful, do we become a culture of failure, not a culture of innovation? Are we willing to bet our culture on it?

“To capitalize on this opportunity, senior leaders must promote a clear understanding of innovation and work to shape the military’s culture of compliance into one of disciplined creativity.” 3

Above all, creativity breeds opportunity for change. Change is required as we move forward to become a better Air Force. To capitalize on the efforts to innovate let’s focus on solving problems with creative minds. If we’re creative enough we may just innovate. If not, then at least we’ve solved a few problems.

Notes

1, 3 Colonel John F. Price Jr., USAF, Fostering Creativity in a Culture of Compliance, Air University, Air and Space Power Journal September-October 2014, Volume 28, Issue 5

2 Robert E. Quinn et al., Becoming a Master Manager: A Competency Framework, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1996), 62, 61

Advertisements

Performer or Leader?

Leadership

One of the hardest things to do is assess a person’s performance via paper and determine if they are ready to lead.  Having all the right words may seem like the person is fit to lead, but how often is it wrong?

Most organizations require some sort of evaluation report on their employees.  This helps determine how well the employee is progressing and to see what they have accomplished.  What one person sees as high quality another person may see as mediocre depending on the set standards.  It’s subjective.  Perspective plays a big part in how we see people even when we define standards on paper. 

This is why paper(evaluation) isn’t always best for capturing an individual’s performance.  The idea is performance on paper will match the person’s actions.  Simple, right?  If only.  I’d like to think that all organizations want great leaders, but how detailed and accurate does paper capture a person’s ability to lead?  Would you rather have a high performer or a leader?  It’s safe to say great leaders are high performers.  Which ones are organizations really promoting?

The evaluation tells what was done and who it impacted, but doesn’t usually include how well they lead the team.  We automatically see the results as the most important factor.  A person could have lead a project to the end, but during that may have neglected the team.  Sure, the results may have been great, but at the expense of improperly leading the team?  Hard to say from a few words, right?  Would the team choose to work with that person again?  Even though the team may have done an amazing job doesn’t mean the leader led effectively. 

What if a person lead a project and failed to meet the suspense, but brought together a team that seemed unlikely to work together?  How would you capture that person’s ability to bring a team together when the project yielded negative results?  Would the focus be on the inability to complete a project, or the ability to bring together people?

How do we transpose performance quality into leadership capability?  Some people are great workers.  They clock in and clock out and may have great performance, but can they actually lead?  In an ideal world we have an infinite number of effective leaders, but realistically, we have far less. 

Overall, don’t mistake high performance for leadership ability.  Not all high performers have what it takes to lead.  They just have what it takes to get a job done.  Performing a task, or doing your job and leading are two different things.  Performing is task focused, or job focused.  Leading is getting people from point A to point B as effectively and efficiently as possible while ensuring they have proper resources, development, care and guidance.  There are those that want to do their job and go home and there are those that  take care of others along the way.  Either way, the job will get done, but who would be the most valuable player?  The person who cares only about the job or the person who cares about the people doing the job?  One of them is a leader, one of them isn’t.

Which one are you?