Post-Modernist Innovation
Posted by Dr. Earl R. Smith II in Questions, tags: advisor, advisory board, board of directors, CEO, chairman, coaching, consulting, director, Leadership, leadership assessment, leadership development, leadership styles, Life Coaching, management assessment, Personal Growth, spiritualityI’ve just gone through my contact list in Linked In and marveled at the diversity in it. The review was driven by a piece that I am working on - the changing nature of global innovation. My thesis is that innovation in this post-modernist, globalized world has moved beyond nationalism and is now centered on creativity, knowledge and a willingness to collaborate. I am interested in your thoughts. Do you think that innovation moved into a new paradigm?
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 advisor to CEOs. Dr. Smith specializes in leadership development and advising management on leadership styles which make them more effective leaders. He also works as an executive and/or life coach in the areas of personal growth and spirituality.
Entries (RSS)
Joe Blank wrote:
Hi Earl,
According to the late and great Peter Drucker, innovation is the means by which entrepreneurs exploit changes and opportunities to create new products or services.
Innovation has always been based on creativity and knowledge. In modern times, innovation occurs at a much more rapid pace because the needs of people, businesses and societies are changing, and creating opportunities, at a more rapid pace, and new theories, research, science, and technologies occur more rapidly which spawn new thinking.
Our ability to collaborate has also become much more enabled thanks to the greater speed at which communications and information sharing/acquisition can occur, primarily through the Internet.
Traditionally, investment and innovation are primarily targeted to building businesses that satisfy the needs of businesses and consumers within target markets.
I think that the rapid growth of green-tech, clean-tech, and energy conservation, to address problems that are clearly global in scope, is creating a shift from traditional innovative and entrepreneurial thinking,.and fueling a dramatic amount of innovation, and collaboration that is happening on a global scale. This in turn is attracting large amounts of “responsible” investment capital, which stokes the innovative flames.
Perhaps the paradigm shift is that there is a large and growing body of investors and innovators whose target markets are the planet and its natural resources, sustenance for future generations, and the survival of mankind.
Joe
Bill James wrote:
Dear Earl,
I think you may be confusing the enabling feature of communication technology with the advent of a new paradigm. Thomas Jefferson wrote many years ago, “Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand upon does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gain”.
The spot they stand upon now is virtual. It’s no new paradigm. Not in the Sense that Thomas Kuhn intended the term anyway.
In my opinion, the internet and social (commercial) networking sites like Linked in merely facilitate an “attachment” between merchants which has made State borders irrelevant since the beginning of time. “The medium IS the message”.Marshall Mcluhan.
Regards.
Phil Lauro wrote:
Not really, innovation has always been a cornerstone of human development. We’re just getting to see more of it because of the Internet. Nationalism is still very much alive, I think.
Doug Hering wrote:
new paradigm? I’m not sure I’d call it a new paradigm. I do think that things are set to accelerate due to the speed of network building. I’ve got a current relationship with a person from a foreign country that I’ve already been connecting to others around me for potential deals.
J. Abildgaard wrote:
Dear Dr. Smith II,
First of all, - thanks for you email about your new job! I can almost ‘hear’ your smile in the email!! It’s so lovely when people find something the truly appreciate….I am sure Metro will benefit largely by having you as the chairman of their advisory board o)
And now to your question….which I find a bit difficult to answer…..
I do think innovatgion moved into a new paradigm in some ways and I think many countries have moved beyond nationalism, but….
I currently reside in Ireland and resently I have felt a reluctance of all the new….in a very negative way….and I actually feel a bit that Nationalism is becoming more visible here, as if the Irish are afraid of changes..of the new era…they are in many ways fighting against the changes…want things to be ‘as they allways were’…
When I resently visited the country I was born in (Denmark) I saw a little bit of the same, and this makes me think if there is a difference between small an large countries! Is it easier for a large country to be willing to changes than it is for small countries? The small countries I know seems to be very reluctant to move on …in some ways…but at the same time they want to take part of all the new things, the globalization..in short, all the ‘good’ things…but they are very reluctant to ‘give’…maybe because it is easier to receive than it is to give….
I don’t know if this makes any sence to you at all..!? Don’t really know what else to say…except it makes me feel sad, to see that ‘my’ 2 countries in many ways are ‘fighting’ against the changes in the world and not being willing to collaborate at all in some ways….
The world is moving so fast, and unfortunately I think we ‘forget’ some of the human beings in our rush to get on faster and faster…
Take care
Jette
Arun arun wrote:
Yes it did…and for the better.
Its all about globalisation and glocalistation now a days as pointed out in the best seller The world is flat.
Innovation is person centric.
Persons form groups and nations and it accordingly centers around those.
But ultimately it remains person centric.
People are separated and cannot interact due to constraints and when science and technology morph with time and reduce these impossibilities the reach and the spread of innovators also enlarges ans so does the speed.
this has happened of late thanks to convergence of technology and communication means.
So nationalism per force and per say takes a back seat.
You find it more convenient to connect to corroborate and you also discover that it is indeed reliable too.
You are invigorated as a result and your innovative juices begin to ooze more fluently as hindrances as cast, creed, nationality and culture begin to play an insignificant role if any.
Knowledge spans out on the wings of swiftness made good by technological advances.
Borders melt away.
Rules get realigned as commerce takes a new form.
Economic conditions get to improve quicker and more effectively as the state need not shoulder the responsibility as it used to earlier completely.
Happiness prevails by and large as a result more quickly…
Arun
Luigi Morelli wrote:
I’m afraid that the engine that drives creativity knowledge is not exclusively innovation, it’s also economy and finance (and here we come to globalization).
The human heritage owned by different ethnic groups offered very different approaches to the same group of problems, and this is fine. Sadly enough, companies that should at this time invest in learning these new concepts, decide otherwise, and start de-localization to earn more paying less.
I had a chat with friends some minutes ago on this same subject, and we agreed upon the fact that we all should change our minds about power and ROE to completely take advantage of real innovation.
Michelle Denise Norton wrote:
At the tail end of the 20th century (that’s fun to be able to say), I was involved in the Friends of Lulu, a national non-profit promoting comics for women and girls as well as women working in comics. We had on-line meetings and I now have connections to people I’ve never met in places I hope to travel to…from them I have gotten inspiration, leads, introductions, opportunities and advice. You are certainly on the track of something when you see innovation as moving beyond proximity and being based on other values. Post a link on Twitter and people will take a chance on you — it’s amazing.
Kelley Johnston wrote:
One evolved innovation that particularly appeals to me is the effect of quality evolution in online content represented by Wikis, especially Wikis set up for the use of particular interest groups. The firm I work for is a rather large global SI and we have recently built a knowledge management system using a globally-available Wiki.
This Wiki has generated enormous support in the form of shared content, but the most interesting part is how the “anyone can contribute” meme has transformed into an “everything is peer-reviewed” paradigm. It’s turning out to be the grassroots continuous improvement cycle that management has wanted for ages, but hasn’t achieved critical mass until now. It’s definitely happening now.
David Willson wrote:
I publish and redesign magazines. I recall in the middle-90s that people were predicting the demise of newspapers and magazines because new Web browser technology had opened up the Internet to everyone.
Instead, the opposite was true. There was an explosion of special interest and niche publications in a matter of just a few years. In fact, a whole new genre of magazines emerged with a Web component (think WIRED, Fast Company). In other words through the Web, publishers found new and larger groups of enthusiasts. And enthusiasts found new means of participating in commercial media.
Only a few years ago, information flowed ONE-WAY through only a few narrow channels. Our present day explosion of innovation is exponential not only due to millions of new channels being opened, but also a new symbiotic ideation process that potentially includes everyone … certainly millions of participants. This is what is revolutionary.
One really interesting book on this subject is “Convergence Culture, Where Old and New Media Collide” by Henry Jenkins, Director of the Comparative Media Studies Program at MIT.
I did an interview with Professor Jenkins in association with an article I wrote for ValueRich magazine in the Fall 06 issue. I have added a link to where you can download that article (zip, opens to pdf). Also, a link to his blog, which is about fan culture and new media.
Links:
* http://homepage.mac.com/dwillson/.cv/dwillson/Sites/.Public/Business-Tech/F...
* http://henryjenkins.org/
Caryl Alfaro, PMP wrote:
Yes. Real innovation will occur outside of our current business models. Creatives and others will seek alternative routes like the Internet to fuel new ideas. Current businesses play like they are innovative but most kill real innovation or attempts. The real R&D days of technocratic society are too costly for most governments and unfortunately funded because of or on behalf of war.
True collaboration crosses geopolitical boundaries because the true artists, scientists and others who want to create new ideas respect each other and what they are building. Normally, their passions and motivations are not with money but with the creation. So, other ideas are like inspirations to move forward or stay with the art.
My humble opinion…..good luck with your piece. I would love to read it.
Wilton Alston wrote:
Stephen Stanton and Tim Johnson have wonderfully summed up my point of view. I particularly agree with Johnson’s description of “false sense of the gravity of our thoughts.” My high school physics teacher often said, “that’s true, but it’s not new” when we found ourselves overwhelmed with the gravity of our own thoughts. I tend to agree, and therefore take exception to the use of post-modern as a modifier for innovation. At best, we continue to innovate. We’ve not “discovered” the Rosetta stone to it.
Tim Johnson wrote:
NO. We have democratized innovation so that more people are allowed or expected to do it, and we have changed some of the ways we collaborate. We have, of course, also created many tools that enhance the speed and efficiency of innovation. And many of the do-dads we can now create are exciting beyond anything that has come before.
But innovation is innovation. It comes from desire for a new solution, analysis of existing data and development and vetting of ideas. It happens inside the heads of individuals alone, and in teams. There has been no change in this basic fact since the dawn of time (see The Renaissance, Classical Greece, Ancient Egypt, the American revolution, The Industrial Revolution, etc.).
Postmodernism has merely led those among us who are ignorant of history into a self-focused consciousness that ignores what has gone before and invents truth to serve its own purpose.
Many of our “postmodern” innovation tools have limited our ability to know truth as much as they have improved it.
We live in a comfortable, affluent culture and, as individuals, rarely face real threats to our survival. We have evolved (socially) to a place where we apply skills originally designed to ensure survival to the gratification of our egos and to our quests for self-actualization. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it can sometimes give us a false sense of the gravity of our thoughts, many of which have been “pre-thunk” by folks a lot smarter than us.
There may be a new paradigm in terms of our innovation resources; in fact, it is obvious we are in the middle of an enormous renaissance. But I would caution against a “millennium-centric” notion of the importance of our innovation work. It is easy to forget that we stand on the shoulders of giants.
Zachary Alexander wrote:
Dr. Smith,
The age of mass market economics ended in the summer of 2006. Soon after, the P2P Economy which is an economic age based on distributed ownership emerged. IMHO: Innovation is important but not as important as increasing an organization’s capacity for taking advantage of more bright ideas.
Zachary Alexander
The IT Investment Architect®
Links:
* http://www.p2peconomy.com/
Karan Jain wrote:
Yes I certainly think that this is the Innovation Age. The biggest secret to ones success apart from Hard work is Innovation.People are looking for Cost -cutting techniques which has made them Innovate. New Products enter the market .More the Creative the firm is larger its consumers and larger its profits.The most important factor being as mentioned by you that Innovation is not limited to the Manufacturing line but the Services Industry fare much better.The concept of ” The whole World as a single Market” has made people to innovate to such an extent that they will produces services/goods suitable for the World Market. People are becoming more aware now due to various information acts and the Social Consumer is fighting with technology(Innovation) to create a better living place.
Regards
Karan Jain
Kevin Allen wrote:
Innovation as a whole is always changing. The very definition suggests it. It isn’t until years have past that we can reflect back on whether the change was successful or not and to what affect it had on the overall process. The internet and sites such as LinkedIn are certainly changing the way we look at things and how we discuss it. The creation of a forum where people of many diverse backgrounds choose to turn to is interesting in itself. Why have we chosen LinkedIn? What benefits do we gain from its use? Is it only a source of new contacts, or is it changing the way in which we can get feed back on new or old ideas? Is this feedback truly helpful? Who determines what is right and wrong? Opinions are great but from where and from whom do they come. If a persons writes enough opinions on a subject, does that make the same person an expert or does it simply show that he is opinionated and likes to surf the web? Some people speak so that they can be heard regardless of whether or not they have something important or positive to contribute. What are their objectives / motives?
I think that it can be extremely helpful to seek collaboration, but it is also vitally important to know who is offering to help. I would agree that we have moved into a new paradigm and now we have the responsibility to determine the best way to make use of it. What works and what doesn’t? How do we use this new source of info or communication to achieve the next level without it getting in the way or working against us?
Kevin
Stephen Stanton wrote:
I might agree that consumers are demanding more and more creative products and services in a more and more globalized economy.
This is beneficial for producers and industrialists as they can now market their ideas globally much easier than before. There are lots of support services available to localize international products and services and get it ready for market penetration in certain economic zones.
Consumers are also more educated and the internationalization of the media also plays an important supporting role for foreign product in a country.
Industries now needs to work together and there should be an upsurge in international joint venture activity as more competition demands more diversity and higher sales volumes. A good example of this is how international oil exploration has required supporting partnerships among local and global companies in the form of joint ventures.
To summarize: Global competition forces innovation to maintain prices and higher market penetration strategies to maintain profit levels for larger companies..
Fran Paikoff wrote:
In thinking about this, we do know that innovation is liquid and probably at one point in time global. I do get a sense, however, that the U.S. in particular has lost its sense of nationalism but is still less likely to collaborate. More from the point of view of selfishness and the Me generation.
Fran