Innovation and Rewarding Learning
Over on the Lean Blog Mark Graban wrote a post titled Innovation Is as Innovation Does? Besides channeling Forrest Gump, this makes a great point. Innovation is an outcome, but without a process we won’t get it. And that process includes culture, skill, systems, methods, and so on.
Mark makes a point about what behavior we reward and punish.
Does your organization, regardless of what the top leaders say, reward people for coloring in between the lines?…Too many organizations say they want “experimentation†but then people, because of fear, do everything they can to rationalize or justify the experiment as a success, no matter what.
I often say the same thing, that we have to create a culture that doesn’t punish failure in experimentation. However, the more I coach executives on how to do this, what I realize is that it is very difficult to create a culture of a negative, meaning “don’t do this” and “don’t do that.” It is much easier to create a culture that encourages a certain behavior. Therefore, instead of trying to build a culture that doesn’t punish failure in experimentation, I have found it is more practical to create a culture that rewards learning.
What have you found? Can you create a culture that doesn’t punish failure? What’s worked, and what hasn’t?
Good insight here, Jamie. I know of companies that reward employees for attempts & effort at doing something differently, regardless of whether or not it succeeds. This can be dangerous: people could be motivated to simply try stuff, regardless of cost or likelihood of success. But it does encourage risk-taking.
Good insight here, Jamie. I know of companies that reward employees for attempts & effort at doing something differently, regardless of whether or not it succeeds. This can be dangerous: people could be motivated to simply try stuff, regardless of cost or likelihood of success. But it does encourage risk-taking.
Good insight here, Jamie. I know of companies that reward employees for attempts & effort at doing something differently, regardless of whether or not it succeeds. This can be dangerous: people could be motivated to simply try stuff, regardless of cost or likelihood of success. But it does encourage risk-taking.
It can’t stand along as a behavior. Others have to be included. It depends on what you mean by reward. If I get $20 just for writing stuff down, that’s a problem.
It can’t stand along as a behavior. Others have to be included. It depends on what you mean by reward. If I get $20 just for writing stuff down, that’s a problem.
It can’t stand along as a behavior. Others have to be included. It depends on what you mean by reward. If I get $20 just for writing stuff down, that’s a problem.
There’s stupid risks that weren’t thought out and there’s calculated risks where the was a hypothesis before action. We have to coach people. Of course we shouldn’t encourage action without thought.
From the ideal PDCA cycle, we can’t just have “D” or “DCA” without P.
Of course, many organizations do nothing but “P,” which is bad too.
PDCJ = Plan Do Check Justify wouldn’t be a good cycle either, eh? That’s the cycle I was referring to…
There’s stupid risks that weren’t thought out and there’s calculated risks where the was a hypothesis before action. We have to coach people. Of course we shouldn’t encourage action without thought.
From the ideal PDCA cycle, we can’t just have “D” or “DCA” without P.
Of course, many organizations do nothing but “P,” which is bad too.
PDCJ = Plan Do Check Justify wouldn’t be a good cycle either, eh? That’s the cycle I was referring to…
There’s stupid risks that weren’t thought out and there’s calculated risks where the was a hypothesis before action. We have to coach people. Of course we shouldn’t encourage action without thought.
From the ideal PDCA cycle, we can’t just have “D” or “DCA” without P.
Of course, many organizations do nothing but “P,” which is bad too.
PDCJ = Plan Do Check Justify wouldn’t be a good cycle either, eh? That’s the cycle I was referring to…