Wikipedia defines a buzzword as “a word that has begun to be used in the wider society outside of its original context by nonspecialists who use the term vaguely or imprecisely. Labelling a term a “buzzword” often pejoratively implies that it is now used pretentiously and inappropriately by individuals with little understanding of its actual meaning who are most interested in impressing others by making their discourse sound more esoteric, obscure, and technical than it otherwise would be.”

The latest and greatest buzzword is Innovation, (henceforth to be known only as the “i” word in this forum.) It seems that everyone is now talking-up the “i” word which is not a bad thing I guess, however it all stops at the talking. A while back, the phrase the “bureaucratisation of Innovation” (darn, I said it) popped into my head. Now I don’t know where it came from, whether I unconsciously plagiarised it or I dreamed it up myself it matters not, it’s appearance was timely.

It comes at a time when the use of the “i” word in business and government is at its peak. I’ve known few words during my previous life in the public sector that have invoked such consternation, misunderstanding and outright fear. When we speak of the “i” word, we speak in glowing terms of the potential it offers but we forget the other side of the implementation equation involving the change it engenders, and as a result we go no further than talking about it.

We’ve all heard bureaucrats in government spruik the “i” word and tell us that we need to think differently and that we need to be challenged, however when the challenges come, very little changes in the modus operandi of dealing with them. We default to the linear and structured approaches of the past. New and creative approaches are shunned and when this occurs, the “i” word is little more than a buzzword.

The use of the “i” word in many cases amounts to little more than a form of ‘bureaucratic chicanery’ in which words and talking about action, substitute for action itself. The Federal Govt’s not so recent 2020 summit proved a nice example of the bureaucratisation of the “i” word. I just don’t know that many of the thousands of ideas generated there have been appropriately harvested or moved to impactful action, but wow, was the event talked up!

When you can look under desks in organisations and see rolls of butcher paper containing post-it-notes of ideas gathering dust, you know that the “i” word is a buzzword.

If we can put the “i word” into enough speeches, documents, ppt presentations, glossy brochures and action plans though, we must then be doing the “i” word. Right?

In environments where everything is first viewed through a lens of risk it is extremely difficult to gain the permission required to undertake the thinking, experimenting, probing and prototyping needed for the “i” word to happen. In large organisations too, those more likely to challenge the status quo and attempt to do things differently are the ones most likely to be sidelined and disempowered, and again where this happens the “i” word is just a buzzword.

So, while Rome continues to burn and our intractable problems remain intractable, our bureaucrats continue to talk innovation.

(Darn, I said it again.)

Permalink| Comments(2) | ->

It has always been frustrating how these two words have been ill-defined and interchanged in the workplace. The confusion over their definitions has added to the cynicism with which they are greeted and acts as an impediment to their beneficial application.

While differing contexts and needs determine variations in definition, complicated definitions are ultimately unhelpful and only serve to confuse people. Simple definitions with clarity and are most likely to elicit action.

Accordingly, I’d like to distill multiple definitions into simple, broad terms and add a few simple rules of thumb.

“Creativity is somehow bringing something new into being.”

“Innovation is applying that creative something to add value.”

It is only through application and value adding can creative output become an innovation.

Not all creative output will add value, so creativity is not a guarantee of innovation. Organisations needs “idea-creativity” because the development of new ideas and concepts that are developed for “a purpose” have objective value.

Depending on our industry it is important to differentiate between “artistic” creativity and the harder-edged “idea” creativity. I can do some wonderful finger-painting and sit around a team-building campfire singing kumbaya, but is it going to add any form of business value? Artistic creativity may have a subjective place in organisations but when seeking to add value to service delivery and the bottom-line, a far greater focus and objectivity is required.

To spend time arguing about definitions beyond this is often little more than a mental form of punishing that proverbial primate. Argument about strict definitions is counterproductive for two reasons:

1) It wastes time and stops people from moving to action in the form of the experimenting, proto-typing and probing required to uncover new value, and 2) the very nature of creation indicates whatever is produced is new, so how therefore can it be appropriately categorised with any foresight?

Many people argue endlessly about the definitions of creativity and innovation and when this happens more mental energy goes into this, than into the generation of value adding ideas. Debate on the exact definition is unhelpful and acts as a fallback position that simply provides an excuse for a lack of action.

Organisations should take the hint, “Create” and “Innovate” are both verbs and if you’re still talking about them, you’re not doing them.

Permalink|Comments(0) | ->

I have just read “Bouncing back with Changes” by psychologist and former Treasury & Finance – Director of People & Culture, Tony Vickers-Wilis. Given an ongoing interest in positive psychology and a disappointment with the often overly theoretical training offerings we get in this space, I was compelled to see what Tony had to say.

Born out of an intense curiosity about what it is that makes some people bounce back from severe adversity and others capitulate with seemingly lesser challenges, Tony has set out to not only describe the science behind being resilient but also too provide real life narrative against which the principals can be demonstrated.

The book is one in two parts. The first dealing with the extraordinary life of Jim Vickers-Willis. I won’t go into details here for fear of spoiling the narrative for future readers, but it is a home-grown and truly inspiring story. The tremendous obstacles that fortune had placed in Jim’s way and the means via which he overcame them provides real meaning to the word “resilience.”

The second part provides a simple and practical set of seven principals to enable individuals to bounce back when adversity strikes, as it almost invariably will for each of us at some stage. The principals account for the CHANGES in the title of the book, and form a simple but powerful recipe for addressing anxiety, depression, stress and providing an appropriate perspective on surviving and thriving.

A third component of the book is the range of practical exercises provided to the reader for self-reflection as the science behind thriving is explained. These provide the reader the time and space to pause and reflect upon how the science might apply directly to their own lives and associated problems. Through simply undertaking these reflective practices in the book, I’ve made a couple of decisions that will not change the course of history, but will certainly benefit me going forward.

I think what I like the most about the principals, is that they are not simply a means of addressing psychological problems, they are a ready made practical recipe for building a happier and more resilient life, even in the absence of major issues.

“Bouncing Back..” is a book about individual resilience and I hear through the network that Tony is currently working on a new book looking at organisational resilience. One which is sure to be in great demand.

“Bouncing back with Changes.” purchase a copy

Permalink|Comments(0) | ->