Franklin Delano Roosevelt became America’s 32nd President when the Great Depression was at its worst. There were 13 million unemployed and almost every bank was closed. Under his experimental New Deal program, many Americans found work, kept a roof over their heads and the country regained hope. Roosevelt persisted in the face of skeptics and powerful entrenched interests. “When you come to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on,” he’s quoted as saying. More than 50 years later, those who buck conventional wisdom still encounter resistance. Innovators require deep perseverance and perspective, according to leadership expert and author, Meg Wheatley. “So many innovative leaders are struggling to do good, meaningful work in a time of overbearing bureaucracy and failing solutions,” Wheatley says. “Everyone is working harder, and in most cases, in greater isolation. The current pace of work and life, along with increasing fear and anxiety, make it more difficult to have the energy and enthusiasm to keep going.” In 2010 Wheatley published Perseverance for those dedicated to organisational change who seek ways to sustain their effort and peace of mind in the face of adversity. She followed this with the co-authored Walk Out Walk On, a study of innovative leadership and community-building initiatives around the world. In each case, the organisers had walked out of restrictive or confining ways of thinking, and Wheatley argues that anyone can do the same — which might mean changing jobs in some cases, but always means shifting perspective within one’s current situation. Leaders have a clear choice. “They can tap the invisible resource of people who become self-motivated when invited to engage together,” Wheatley says. “This approach has well-documented results in higher productivity, innovation, and motivation, but it requires a shift from a fear-based approach to a belief in the capacity of most people to contribute, to be creative, and to be motivated internally.”
Command-and-control leadership might be passé these days, but for most companies the concept of self-organising teams is one step too far. What – abolish managers? Not necessarily, but in the new, network-centric version of work, it’s less about managing and more about collaboration and knowledge-sharing, which implies a far different skillset. London Business School’s Gary Hamel is highly critical of top-heavy management, which “exacts a hefty tax on any organisation”. He’s among a growing cohort of influential business thinkers who say ‘management as usual’ is dead and leaders had better prepare to manage without managers. Hamel cites the example of Morning Star, the world’s largest tomato processor. Morning Star employees have no bosses, there are no titles and no promotions, workers negotiate with their peers, everyone can spend the company’s money, and compensation decisions are peer-based. It’s also the market leader. “Morning Star is a ‘positive deviant’; indeed, it’s one of the most delightfully unusual companies I’ve come across,” Hamel says. “By digging into the principles and practices that underpin this company’s unique model, we can learn how it might be possible to escape – or at least reduce – the management tax.” Ric Charlesworth knows all about self-organising teams. An outstanding sportsman, coach, politician and medical doctor, he introduced the ‘leaderful team’ concept to Australia’s national women’s hockey side in the 1990s. Under Charlesworth, the Hockeyroos went on to win nearly every top hockey title in the world. “The goal of each individual in a leaderful team is to achieve personal excellence in a co-operative environment,” Charlesworth says. “Co-operation is as highly valued as personal success or individual achievement.” Now coaching Australia’s men’s hockey side for the London Olympics, Charlesworth believes the concept can work in a corporate environment – if the people who lead commit to it. “They have to adopt it in the truest sense, not just because it sounds politically correct,” he says. “Leadership must clearly know where it’s going and what the organisation’s purpose is and how and why this concept fits in.”
In an age dominated by innovation, too much can stand between a good idea and its execution. There’s our ambivalence about creativity, for one thing. Research supports the view that while we say we want and need it, creativity makes us so anxious that we tend to opt for the status quo. Our reaction to uncertainty is partly hard-wired, according to innovation consultancy New and Improved. “An alligator’s reaction to newness in its environment is to eat it, attack it, or run from it,” they say. That reaction is controlled by the brain stem – the “gator brain” – that initiates fight-or-flight. Humans possess a similar set-up, so “reacting to newness or new ideas from the gator brain is a sure way to kill creativity in yourself and others around you”. Then there are the obstacles we manufacture ourselves. Dave Owens teaches at Vanderbilt and has worked as a creativity and innovation consultant for organisations as diverse as NASA and LEGO. In Creative People Must be Stopped, he outlines typical impediments to creativity and innovation – public criticism, bureaucracy, risk aversion, an ambush by threatened competitors or customers, overregulation – and how to get around them. “How can a great idea get killed?” Owens asks. “Let me count the ways. While most organisations give lip service to promoting innovation and creative ideas, they all too often sabotage ‘outside the box’ thinking among the rank and file.” Leaders need to promote the view that innovation is everyone’s job, adds Ron Ashkenas, author of The GE Work-Out and Simply Effective. “Great organisations don’t depend on a small number of exclusive people to come up with innovations,” he says. “Instead they create a culture in which every employee is encouraged and empowered to innovate – whether it’s in processes, products or services.”
”
