The Innovation Showdown - Maslow vs Robbie Williams

Isn’t our own human nature infuriating – most of us have an innate desire and drive to build for ourselves, over the course of our adult lives, a cocoon of security.  This cocoon will be physical, monetary, emotional and psychological and act to protect us – it fulfils the need to “settle down”, “make things comfortable” and create a “safety net” for ourselves, our families and our enterprises – Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in action.  At the same time this very layer of protection can make us inflexible, unwilling to change and vulnerable to unpredicted changes in our circumstances and environment.  It also effectively kills off the felt “necessity” that is the “mother of invention”.  This is not good for innovation.

This observation is, of course, not new - the anthropologists, historians and psychologists have been studying the effects of this cocooning and the subsequent traumatic rebirths on civilisations, institutions and individuals for many hundreds of years (revolutions, paradigm shifts and mid-life crises).   So the idea of regularly embracing change and upheaval in order to survive and thrive in difficult times is well known (think Kaizen) and a proven strategy for success – think Apple and Steve Jobs.

Given that this is the case it never ceases to amaze me how many businesses fail to make the big leadership decisions required to invest in innovation and change when hard times arrive.  Instead most opt to batten down the hatches, put their heads in the sand and pray, effectively assigning themselves to the waste bin of history.   In essence – investing in innovation in a down turn is deeply counter-intuitive and deeply difficult but is nonetheless absolutely essential.   Unless an organisation wants to die slowly like the fabled frog in the saucepan of slowly heating water it must find leaders who are prepared to take the necessary risks, challenge the “perceived wisdom” of the cocoon, eschew the desire to retract and retrench and instead spend their efforts and energy on reaching out for the new.  

The irony is that most initially gung-ho leaders subscribe to the “succeed or die trying” maxim until the possibility of “dying trying” becomes a very possible outcome at which time the wisdom of the cocoon becomes overwhelming, the expansive rhetoric disappears and the hunker-down actions are mandated.  So what are us frail leaders, who hanker after the courage to make the difficult decisions, to do? 

Well the only thing I can see from my experience is to practice the art of deliberately and regularly lifting ourselves out of our comfort zones – make a deliberate act to take stock of our own levels of comfort and to ask ourselves if there isn’t some new challenge we can create in our lives.  This does of course require great effort and energy and flies in the face of the innate desire to build our comfort cocoons.  It does in fact require an almost zen like dedication to personal development and the discomforts of growth.  This is far from easy and at my current age I am deeply conscious of the lure of the cocoon but am keen to avoid jumping into it until I’m actually ready to die – after all a cocoon is just a coffin of our own making and in the words of Robbie Williams "I hope I'm old before I die."

So how do innovators tip the odds in Robbie Williams favour?  From what I have observed those innovators that still "have it" beyond the age of 30 are those that have practiced the art of pushing themselves, continually.  If we can practice this habit when we are not in deeply difficult circumstances we are in with half a chance of being able to successfully perform when our lives, businesses and countries encounter major upheaval.  My advice is to get yourself a provocative mentor or coach – not one who will act as a therapist, but one who will push you and not let you rest in your comfort zone.  You won’t necessarily enjoy the experience but it might keep you out of the cocoon and closer to the edge for a little while longer.

Snakes on a Plane - How to pitch an Innovation

Over the last month I have been working with a tech start up team looking at how best to bring a new product to market.  This has meant getting deeply involved with the team who have sweated blood and tears to build a product that has masses of potential.  Listening to them and getting right under the covers of the product has been a lot of fun and very energising.   However, what has been really interesting has been the debate and discussion we have had about how best to bring the product to market.  

Now as a student of the “art of pitching” I am a huge fan of the idea that the winning concepts are those that can be simply communicated in a way that creates a compelling mental picture in the minds of the audience – think of the eponymous pitch for the movie “Snakes on a Plane” – in 4 words you have a pretty good idea about what the potential film is all about.   It’s a genius pitch – shame about the movie.   So surely the task I should be helping the team work through is the creation of a simple, creative and pithy statement that sums up the product.  Well yes, but...

What has become clear as we have debated our go-to-market plan is, that for the product to be effectively launched, we need to be able to communicate its merits to several key audiences (not just one) – each of whom have very different motivations for engaging with the product.   We need to be able to engage our potential end users, we need to be able to engage our current and future investors and we need to be able to engage the CMOs and CIOs of medium sized corporates.  In effect we need to be able to explain our product simply in three or four different “languages” – languages that resonate with each of the audiences.  The need to be sensitive and adaptive to the diverse motivations of the different audiences is something most innovators only discover through the bitter experience of making an impassioned pitch that is met with bland indifference.  Too often innovators fail to get their product to market because they cannot think beyond the exciting tech they have created.   The reality is that most of the people you want to buy, invest in, or support your product really don’t care about the technology – they care about what it will do for them.

I have seen many pitches that have failed – not because of a poor product, but because of an inability to talk about the product in a way that lights up the audience it is being pitched to.   If you are pitching to potential investors they want to hear about how they will get a return on their investment (the money, the plan, the competition, the team) not how the technology integrates seamlessly with legacy systems.  If you are pitching to end users they want to know how using this product will enhance their lives (making it easier, cheaper, sexier etc) not how the user experience is configured.   If you are pitching to corporate clients they want to know what the product will do for them (their careers, their profits, their sense of control etc) not how much development time went into the coding.

So, in conclusion, when pitching, could all budding innovators and entrepreneurs please take the time to think about the audience they are pitching to and amend their pitch appropriately.  This simple tip cannot guarantee you avoid disappointment but it will massively improve your chances of at least getting your key messages across.