Innovation is about new ideas. So at its most basic, in epistemic terms, this does not differentiate between good and bad. One may not yet know if a new idea is a bad, false or ugly idea. That may require implementation in some cases and carries with it risk. Risk is part and parcel of innovation: ideas can fail. Ideas fail all the time. As many have observed: there are many many more ways to be wrong than to be right. So how to manage the inherent risk associated with innovation? One way to mitigate risk is simply to be incremental about innovation. If an idea is tried and true, yet still new to you or your organisation then in that case you may try for great leaps and bounds - revolutions if you will. But this is the rare exception to what will work best. Recall the history of science I mentioned in the previous part: innovation rarely comes with revolution and beyond science the political revolution can be a chaotic and destructive thing. At the level of the individual, innovation - learning the new or creating the original - is best done piece by effortful piece. This allows one to construct knowledge in a coherent way where ideas can meet standards of consistency. One does not learn mathematics best by beginning with advanced tensor calculus. One does not learn modern conversational English as their second language by beginning with Shakespeare - as "innovative" as that may sound. Instead, more simple ideas are needed first and then, by a gradual effort (occurring actively in the mind of the learner) adding to what is known by taking on a new idea and criticizing it in the laboratory of the mind - knowledge is acquired.
At the level of the organisation, sudden and revolutionary changes rarely succeed in the way gradual alterations to routines, procedures and practices do. Much can be said in favor of traditions and “the way we do things ‘round here”. For that cultural knowledge within an organisation is the culture and is not to be dismissed out of hand. In an organisation that works it must contain true ideas about how things run smoothly. Yes - there will be areas of improvement. Everywhere one looks. There will be places to make progress. Things can always get better. And, after all, we must embrace the fact that error is the normal state of affairs and though perfection is a noble standard to strive for, imperfection is the state of human nature. And so this is to say: innovate fast and innovate often in order to improve. But innovate incrementally. Change that happens frequently so that the culture is one of perpetual change - is one that will be embraced by its members. Because people will notice the improvements and welcome them. But the changes must be overwhelmingly in the right direction, or people become resistant and associate attempted "innovation" with a struggle before an eventual admission of failure. But if the innovations are genuinely innovative - which is to say not yet tested against reality - we cannot know if they will lead to progress or to some worse state of affairs. Therefore we must be at all times cautious and willing to admit failure and to turn back. This is easy if the change was a small one that can be corrected. Big changes require that many variables have already been controlled - that, for example - the innovation actually happened elsewhere in a place comparable. For organisations this is a feasible approach. The crucible of other large networks of people, companies, firms and other places can be used as an external testing ground for new ideas. Did it work there? Yes? So how are we different? If the answer is “not very” and the change was successful there: jump right in. But if there is nowhere else the new idea has been tried - go slowly. At the level of nations: go even more slowly. Do not jump right in: that is how accidents happen. Test the waters first. Rarely, except in matters of national security, is urgent action ever required. Incremental fixes, tested against reality that they are in the right direction, allow debate to proceed at all levels in a community. Leaders can find out from those on the ground whether new ideas deserve to replace old...or if there have been unforeseen failures and effects. Because, if it’s the first time something is tried - there will be unforeseen consequences. That is simply a fact about our universe: disorder - the more chaotic - so the trope goes, is the direction in which time gets its arrow. But more precisely: society is made up of unpredictable humans, and so governments (and managers) need to take this simple truth to heart. Directing large groups of people to follow a new policy is far more difficult than herding cats. Give people what you think is one new inch, they may very well see a mile ahead - and take it. People will innovate on your innovation in unpredictable ways. And people are inherently unpredictable much of the time. So new ideas that play with the public purse, or public freedoms need to be extremely careful in allowing for error correction - to pull back a little (and quickly) without too much hurt. The ability to continue to improve even when the inevitable mistakes are made takes a culture of critical thinking - the understanding that "the way we do things 'round here" is to "have a go" and not to always everytime expect success. This does not rule out lots of innovation in a short time. It demands that very large changes in one direction should typically be eschewed in favor of many little steps in the same direction. This is a subtle difference that makes all the difference. The planned destinations may be the same - but leaping one's way there into the unknown, compared to carefully testing the ground and treading carefully are worlds apart.
And so it works with individuals as well: Ideas are creatively generated in the mind of a human - and no where else. A human mind is creative when it can explore new terrain. The more “newness” the better - the faster and more original the innovations will be. And like explorers of the past - new lands were found when the unexpected happened. When the explorer was not directed. Direction - that is to say someone else (a teacher say) providing the “way” - is not a “way” to something new. If someone has metaphorically paved the way - well that paved way is discovered territory. The road most traveled. That will make no difference. So to avoid the well trodden road, the innovator needs to be free to explore. And this only happens when they can pursue their own interests in ways they desire. They may want companions for the road. A trusted, wise friend who can help should stumbles happen or blocks in the road arise. And they will. Two heads can be better than one...sometimes.
But what should not happen is for the wise friend to become a dictatorial instructor who makes choices for the innovator. Now sometimes it is true, the innovator can make demands themselves - and use people as tools. But this is not the best way for new ideas to flourish. Innovation happens in larger groupings of people - organizations and nations - when there is more freedom, not less. Such organisation will have much knowledge instantiated in their culture and traditions about how to facilitate innovation in a stable way. This can be a challenge. Tradition and culture has, historically, been about avoiding changes, not facing up to criticisms - and worse - punishing them. It can be about not looking for ways to improve but rather assuming that the best is already being done.
This would be a negative philosophy. Now negativity of a certain particular kind is only a good thing: the “negativity” of criticism as I have said. But this is a term I wish to avoid - or at least wish to separate from the classical usage. Criticism of the type described here, that allows the sifting of the optimistic, progressive, innovative from the pessimistic, backward-looking, stagnation of the past is positive.
There can be traditions of criticism. There can be customs and practices in an organisation that actively preserve the freedom to explore: they are the very means by which creativity can be fostered. A tradition of allowing everyone to contribute ideas. A tradition of allowing people to criticise those ideas. A tradition of being "transparent" such that ideas are available for as many 'stakeholders' to criticise as possible. A tradition where people feel comfortable about receiving criticism (as well as dishing it out) - and not feeling insulted if their idea is revealed as not quite so good. It is about being positive about criticism. A tradition of valuing people as sacred and deserving of respect (even when their ideas may not be) is a positive philosophy of people. And part of that respect is in tailoring the magnitude of innovation to the people affected. Fast perhaps. Often: yes. Incremental: almost always. These are the hallmarks of innovative environments. Environments imbued with positive philosophy. Few places aspire to such lofty principles, let alone meet them. But as the enlightenment spreads, there will be no choice. We will innovate through knowledge creation and criticism or we will stagnate and decline. This is true of the individual. Of organisations, of nations. And of the world.
Referencing
As with so many of my other articles, the deepest ideas here come from David Deutsch and in this case specifically his book The Beginning of Infinity (available from Amazon here) - I also recommend the audiobook from Audible here. I have applied David's ideas about knowledge creation and traditions of criticism to some specific cases above - but would argue there is no better practical manual for "thinking different" if you are engaged in innovation as a learner, a manager or a minister than his work.
At the level of the organisation, sudden and revolutionary changes rarely succeed in the way gradual alterations to routines, procedures and practices do. Much can be said in favor of traditions and “the way we do things ‘round here”. For that cultural knowledge within an organisation is the culture and is not to be dismissed out of hand. In an organisation that works it must contain true ideas about how things run smoothly. Yes - there will be areas of improvement. Everywhere one looks. There will be places to make progress. Things can always get better. And, after all, we must embrace the fact that error is the normal state of affairs and though perfection is a noble standard to strive for, imperfection is the state of human nature. And so this is to say: innovate fast and innovate often in order to improve. But innovate incrementally. Change that happens frequently so that the culture is one of perpetual change - is one that will be embraced by its members. Because people will notice the improvements and welcome them. But the changes must be overwhelmingly in the right direction, or people become resistant and associate attempted "innovation" with a struggle before an eventual admission of failure. But if the innovations are genuinely innovative - which is to say not yet tested against reality - we cannot know if they will lead to progress or to some worse state of affairs. Therefore we must be at all times cautious and willing to admit failure and to turn back. This is easy if the change was a small one that can be corrected. Big changes require that many variables have already been controlled - that, for example - the innovation actually happened elsewhere in a place comparable. For organisations this is a feasible approach. The crucible of other large networks of people, companies, firms and other places can be used as an external testing ground for new ideas. Did it work there? Yes? So how are we different? If the answer is “not very” and the change was successful there: jump right in. But if there is nowhere else the new idea has been tried - go slowly. At the level of nations: go even more slowly. Do not jump right in: that is how accidents happen. Test the waters first. Rarely, except in matters of national security, is urgent action ever required. Incremental fixes, tested against reality that they are in the right direction, allow debate to proceed at all levels in a community. Leaders can find out from those on the ground whether new ideas deserve to replace old...or if there have been unforeseen failures and effects. Because, if it’s the first time something is tried - there will be unforeseen consequences. That is simply a fact about our universe: disorder - the more chaotic - so the trope goes, is the direction in which time gets its arrow. But more precisely: society is made up of unpredictable humans, and so governments (and managers) need to take this simple truth to heart. Directing large groups of people to follow a new policy is far more difficult than herding cats. Give people what you think is one new inch, they may very well see a mile ahead - and take it. People will innovate on your innovation in unpredictable ways. And people are inherently unpredictable much of the time. So new ideas that play with the public purse, or public freedoms need to be extremely careful in allowing for error correction - to pull back a little (and quickly) without too much hurt. The ability to continue to improve even when the inevitable mistakes are made takes a culture of critical thinking - the understanding that "the way we do things 'round here" is to "have a go" and not to always everytime expect success. This does not rule out lots of innovation in a short time. It demands that very large changes in one direction should typically be eschewed in favor of many little steps in the same direction. This is a subtle difference that makes all the difference. The planned destinations may be the same - but leaping one's way there into the unknown, compared to carefully testing the ground and treading carefully are worlds apart.
And so it works with individuals as well: Ideas are creatively generated in the mind of a human - and no where else. A human mind is creative when it can explore new terrain. The more “newness” the better - the faster and more original the innovations will be. And like explorers of the past - new lands were found when the unexpected happened. When the explorer was not directed. Direction - that is to say someone else (a teacher say) providing the “way” - is not a “way” to something new. If someone has metaphorically paved the way - well that paved way is discovered territory. The road most traveled. That will make no difference. So to avoid the well trodden road, the innovator needs to be free to explore. And this only happens when they can pursue their own interests in ways they desire. They may want companions for the road. A trusted, wise friend who can help should stumbles happen or blocks in the road arise. And they will. Two heads can be better than one...sometimes.
But what should not happen is for the wise friend to become a dictatorial instructor who makes choices for the innovator. Now sometimes it is true, the innovator can make demands themselves - and use people as tools. But this is not the best way for new ideas to flourish. Innovation happens in larger groupings of people - organizations and nations - when there is more freedom, not less. Such organisation will have much knowledge instantiated in their culture and traditions about how to facilitate innovation in a stable way. This can be a challenge. Tradition and culture has, historically, been about avoiding changes, not facing up to criticisms - and worse - punishing them. It can be about not looking for ways to improve but rather assuming that the best is already being done.
This would be a negative philosophy. Now negativity of a certain particular kind is only a good thing: the “negativity” of criticism as I have said. But this is a term I wish to avoid - or at least wish to separate from the classical usage. Criticism of the type described here, that allows the sifting of the optimistic, progressive, innovative from the pessimistic, backward-looking, stagnation of the past is positive.
There can be traditions of criticism. There can be customs and practices in an organisation that actively preserve the freedom to explore: they are the very means by which creativity can be fostered. A tradition of allowing everyone to contribute ideas. A tradition of allowing people to criticise those ideas. A tradition of being "transparent" such that ideas are available for as many 'stakeholders' to criticise as possible. A tradition where people feel comfortable about receiving criticism (as well as dishing it out) - and not feeling insulted if their idea is revealed as not quite so good. It is about being positive about criticism. A tradition of valuing people as sacred and deserving of respect (even when their ideas may not be) is a positive philosophy of people. And part of that respect is in tailoring the magnitude of innovation to the people affected. Fast perhaps. Often: yes. Incremental: almost always. These are the hallmarks of innovative environments. Environments imbued with positive philosophy. Few places aspire to such lofty principles, let alone meet them. But as the enlightenment spreads, there will be no choice. We will innovate through knowledge creation and criticism or we will stagnate and decline. This is true of the individual. Of organisations, of nations. And of the world.
Referencing
As with so many of my other articles, the deepest ideas here come from David Deutsch and in this case specifically his book The Beginning of Infinity (available from Amazon here) - I also recommend the audiobook from Audible here. I have applied David's ideas about knowledge creation and traditions of criticism to some specific cases above - but would argue there is no better practical manual for "thinking different" if you are engaged in innovation as a learner, a manager or a minister than his work.