Innovation – Post-Modernist Evolutions
Posted by Dr. Earl R. Smith II in Life Coaching, tags: 1776, 1787, adviser, advisor, advisory board, America, American, American Crisis, American Revolution, Ben Franklin, bill of rights, board of directors, CEO, chairman, Civil Disobedience, coaching, Common Sense, consent, constitution, consulting, declaration of independence, democrat, director, federal, federal government, federalism, freedom, governed, habeas corpus, Hegel, independant, James Madison, Leadership, leadership assessment, leadership development, leadership styles, liberty, Life Coaching, Locke, management assessment, Personal Growth, political science, politics, republican, slavery, spirituality, Thomas Paine, Thoreau, United States of America, warDr. Earl R. Smith II
DrSmith@Dr-Smith.com
www.Dr-Smith.com
Back when I was writing my doctoral thesis the idea that the world was moving from a modernist to a post-modernist paradigm was mostly limited to philosophers. The post-modernist thinkers – mostly from counties like Italy and France – and the hyper-modernist theorists in the United States were arguing that the way the world was working was undergoing significant change – that a new way of interacting was emerging that had very substantial implications for how business would be done and how cultures would either survive or decline. With the advance of globalization this idea has gradually moved from the philosophy departments to the boardroom.
No process seems to have been affected more profoundly than that of innovation. Changes in patterns of thinking and the assumptions which underlie those patterns now seem to be driven by an entirely new engine. In their book Six Billion Minds, the authors make the case – “The reality of a connected world is that the next idea that can make or break your company might come from anywhere”.1 This ‘reality; is unavoidable and it speaks to a new paradigm that is changing the face of how innovation occurs.
In his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions2 Thomas Kuhn argued that Science is not the steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge that is portrayed in the textbooks. Rather, it is a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions . . . in each of which one conceptual world view is replaced by another. But Kuhn also argued that as revolutions take place the ‘old guard’ retires and is replaced by those educated in the new paradigm. These times put that assumption to the test and place sever burdens on the so called ‘old guard’. The pace of change has accelerated to such an extent that revolutions are occurring within the productive lifetime of an individual – people are being forced to evolve at that speed or risk being sidelined as irrelevant.
For instance, in the post-modernist world – or as it is sometimes called, the post-Fordist world, nationalism is considered a minor – and often irrelevant – issue. The old tribal perspectives that drove the idea of the nation state are now anachronistic and a real barrier to participation in the process of innovation. Countries and individuals who are constantly looking to how their particular ‘tribe’3 will benefit are seen as throwbacks – individuals or companies which are insisting that the world hasn’t changed and that ‘business as usual’ is the better way to go.
But in the post-modernist world creativity, knowledge, the ability to operate effectively across boundaries such as nationality, ethnic background or religious preferences are requirements for admission to the process. This is one of the reasons that the nation states are being effectively closed out of the process – their very existence is founded on a reinforcement of these barriers. In the post-modernist world there are humans who happen to believe this way or belong to that particular tribe – but individuals who are willing to let those considerations take a back seat to the process of innovation.
Many of the thinkers in this area are insistent – the problems which humanity faces – the crises looming on the horizon – are simply too dire to let such incidental things stand in the way. “We are all in it together – if we don’t collaborate to find solutions, we are all likely to be lost. The cost of letting nationalism block the process of innovation is simply to high,” was how an associate put it.
In their book Revolutionary Wealth,4 Alvin and Heidi Toffler envisioned the world as an automobile race with cars of various speeds competing. The fastest cars on the track were businesses that were operating trans-globally. These hyper-speed vehicles were trans-national and always speeding towards the next generation of innovation. The slowest cars on the track were the governmental agencies – followed by the even slower political parties. The implications for innovation are hard to miss. In the past, governments have been primary drivers of innovation – mostly through government sponsored labs and research centers. But the world has changes to such a degree that these are left with the least productive and most expensive projects – such as weapons research and the management of international conflict.
The new paradigm requires a flexibility and rapid response to change that those governmental organizations – Fordist organizations – simply cannot match. As a result, nation states are increasingly sidelined in the process of innovation and are frequently overrun by market forces. A good example is the interminable discussions which took place over the last several decades about mileage standards for cars. Heavily lobbied by the US automakers – some of the most Fordist companies on the face of the planet – the US Government was unable to set standards that would reduce the amount of fossil fuel burned. But when the price of gas crossed $4.00 per gallon, the government became irrelevant to the process – the process immune to the lobbyists – as consumers began to change their attitudes towards their cars. Even today the federal government is madly trying to catch up and reassert its relevancy – the lobbyists work hard to re-rig the game in their client’s favor – a process which I believe will result in all of them falling even farther behind.
Innovation is now driven by combinations of those six billion minds – combinations which are hard to anticipate and which pay no attention to the traditional, tribal standards of engagement. Bob Dylan probably put it best some five decades ago in his song The Times They Are A-Changin’:
- Come gather ’round people wherever you roam
- And admit that the waters around you have grown
- And accept it that soon you’ll be drenched to the bone.
- If your time to you is worth savin’
- Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone
- For the times they are a-changin’.
But, of course, we would have to make one major modification in Dylan’s lyrics – the times have changed. Innovation began to change when the process of innovation itself was innovated. The new rules are distinctly non-Cartesian – the old model of thesis-antithesis-synthesis no longer operates. Innovation is now raw creation – without any reference or consideration of the old, cold war metrics. It occurs where it does – in unexpected places and ways – and the product of useful innovation is taken up by all who prioritize survival and advancement over those metrics.
© Dr. Earl R. Smith II
~~~~~~~~~~
Related Articles:
-
Finding Meaning Without Manufacturing Meaning
-
Making the Possible Probable
-
Adults in Wonderland
-
Finding a Mirror – Realizing
-
Thoughts on Excuses
-
Assumption is the Mother of All … – Lessons for Young Wannabees
~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Smith is a proven senior executive, successful entrepreneur, published author and public speaker. He serves on boards of directors and advisory boards or as a strategic adviser to CEOs. Dr. Smith specializes in turnaround management, strategic planning, leadership development and executive coaching. He also works as an executive and/or life coach in the areas of personal growth and spirituality. He is the author of Amazing Pace: Turbo-charged Business Development – a book that shows how Advisory Boards can dramatically increase revenue. Dr. Smith is also the author of Dream Walk: Parables for the Living – a book of Raven Tales and exploration.
- Six Billion Minds, Mark Minevich, Frank-Jurgen Richter and Faisal Hogue, BTM Institute, Published by Aspatore Inc, 2006, ISBN: 1-59622-427-4
- The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn, By Thomas S. Kuhn, Published by University of Chicago Press, 1970
- Here read ‘nation’, ‘company’ or ‘ethnic group’
- Revolutionary Wealth, Alvin & Heidi Toffler, Published by Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2006, ISBN: 0-375-40174-1
Entries (RSS)
Ulises Peinado wrote:
Excellent.
Dylan’s touch was right on.
Barry Borden wrote;
Perhaps innovation and embracing change are 2 sides of the same coin… whose value requires both.
inbound-marketing-automation.cainbound-marketing-automation.ca
Eric Goldman wrote;
Earl;
Thanks for the clarification. Are you by any chance a Trekkie? StarTrek’s world, or perhaps that should be Gene Roddenberry’s world, envisaged a place where people didn’t work for a living per se, but instead strived to better humanity. They worked on projects which benefited mankind, not themselves directly. The natural progression of where you think this is headed, is out there somewhere – all we need do is boldly go.
I wrote a post about Digital Trust Factors, called it “The Evolution of our Digital Senses”. It addresses this same issue of how we are evolving into different beings and it touches on the issue of where we will end up by asking if it’s the world Asimov imagined when he wrote, “The Naked Sun”. On the planet in that novel, people didn’t leave their homes anymore, but instead sent holographic avatars of themselves as their representative in public.
If you want to contribute to that discussion, you can find the blog at:
http://www.inbound-marketing-automation.ca/blog/2009/11/24/the-evolution-of-our-digital-senses/
Thanks for two great comments. Irwin, I am making a distinction between how innovation occurs and the background funding and support for it. It seems to me that the people who are driving innovation are farther into the virtual world that those supporting the process. I have seen teams grow up across geo-political boundaries without consideration of any nationalism. It gives the politicians fits but the team members are focused on tapping into the best minds no matter where they come from. I think this is a trend that will eventually overtake nationalism and result in more ‘global think’ across political boundaries. Eric, I see a distinction between innovation and improvement. Following Kuhn, I think that it is useful to define innovation as paradigm shifts. Otherwise, the definition of innovation gets entirely too broad to be useful. I also think that it is important to distinguish between innovation and implementation. The idea factories that Apple or Microsoft builds to identify the new ways forward are the focus of my interest. These tend to be trans-national. I think that is one of the major shifts in the way innovation occurs. From my experience with international organizations focused on innovation, I have found that Americans are a bit behind the curve. They are still pushing a tribal perspective when the rests of the world is increasingly accepting pluralism. (BTW, I see pluralism as one of the United States’ most important gifts to the rest of the world) The rift here is between two perspectives. The first is innovation for the sake of innovation – an indulgence of the natural human curiosity. The second is innovation for the benefit of the tribe – only an elite portion of humanity. It seems to me that the former is in ascendancy while the latter is diminishing. Dr. Smith
Eric Goldman wrote:
Earl;
A well-researched treatise. I enjoyed reading it, but have to admit that I found myself wondering where you were taking this and reached the end without finding out.
If you’re saying that times have changed – who could argue? If you’re saying that these changing times have changed the way we innovate – I think that’s a no-brainer. When the world has changed significantly, the very ways we talk, write, read and even, if you follow the advances in robotics and the way mechanical devices can be manipulated by our minds, even the way we “think” is different.
Small fast-paced organizations should typically be able to innovate more quickly than large ones, although as Steve Jobs and Apple prove, some big players are more apt to be truly innovative than their peers – so size is not a way of measuring innovation reliably.
You don’t define “innovation” and perhaps rightly so as it’s one of those words which we all think we know the meaning of. But in this case, are we really talking about new ideas? Or are we talking about how they spread? If it’s the latter, social media promises to make the spread and discussion of new thoughts and new ways of doing things much quicker and much more direct.
So now I ask you to comment back here and help me to understand the thrust of your article, would you please?
Irwin Greenstein wrote;
You say that nationalism is a minor, irrelevant issue? State-run companies in China are funding the biggest revoluton in solar energy on the planet. DRAPA, the U.S. DoD research arm, has helped commercialize more marketplace breakthroughs than perhaps any organization in the world — period. The list is very extensive of government organizations that have contributed to the convulsive advancements you refer to.
Richard D. Frank wrote;
Good treatment. We (the NVS COOP, anyone in the financial BUSINESS) are all in a war for market share that is raging in the midst of an environmental financial hurricane. The INNOVATION and new methods and techniques available are emerging so fast, (not all are good or adopted, but ALL must be evaluated in order to determine – will you integrate it or not) that an individual participant must expend much resource to simply keep up with the today innovation available that the market might demand tomorrow. You can be working on an innovative project, and look over to see an even newer improved method/technique overtaking you. The worth is assigned by the market as what is adapted by the market(s) you want. But then, it changes again. Hot & Now is Old and Cold next week. Right now, in our arena, there are no established paradigm in terms of how business is conducted, the flow. It is ALL in flux. The best of times, the worst of times. Tremendous opportunity, and peril of getting left. Entry is easy; there are every day many new entrants to the race, some with elaborate systems, many with nothing more than a widget, but perhaps the next ???? So, large and small, the field is full of innovators of various abilities and worth, but all to be reckoned with because to ignore any is perilous – as your article points out, any one of them could make, or break you, either by adopting or failing to do so. There is a way to navigate it all, but that I will keep to myself!
Carmen, thanks for the comment – very thought provoking. I would suggest that a distinction between innovation and improvement would be helpful here. What you call ‘incremental’ may be better referred to as improvement. Otherwise, I suspect that the term innovation becomes overly broad. Kuhn’s focus on paradigm shifts seems a bit more productive. If we call any shift that substantially changes the why or how of a situation innovation then we can limit our discussions to those world changing leaps forward. What do you think? Dr. Smith
Carmen Reis wrote:
The article provides an interesting philosophical spin on innovation, however “process or incremental” innovation still exists and probably represents at leastt 80% of the innvoation in all companies, compared to radical innovation….those once in a lifetime creations…these are far more rare. Yes, things move faster today, yes we cover more geography, and the time space continuum is forever compressing it seems, but at the end of the day, it is incremental innovation by those who know their work, that truly drives our economy.
Right on – another gem. Ironically, the tribe mentality has funded numerous innovations, yet increasingly rarely benefits from them. That PC’s with windows and email largely were a creation of Xerox seems a good example. Kodak and IBM each funded $B+ annually innovative applied research that produced numerous other examples. All of this was done at the direction of tribal elders… who seemed unable to embrace the change they asked for. Which perhaps brings into focus the difference between innovation…. and cultural embracement of change.