![\"\"](\"https:\/\/kexino.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Consensus-Kills-Business-Innovation.jpg\")
<\/div>\nAt a geopolitical level, there\u2019s evidence to support the notion that democratically-governed countries produce higher levels of innovation than autocracies. But does that hold true when we\u2019re talking about industries, businesses serving those industries, or departments within those businesses? I\u2019m not so sure.<\/p>\n
You can\u2019t help falling over organizations of every size and persuasion boasting about the flatness of their corporate hierarchy. \u201cWe don\u2019t have departments, we have teams. We encourage debate and discussion at all levels,<\/em>\u201d and so on.<\/p>\n But based on the observations from my \u2018fly-on-the-wall\u2019 vantage point, dealing with businesses of every size and industry, the reality is different. Of course, occasional outliers do exist. But for the most part any notion of working towards a point of majority consensus on a contentious business decision is for the birds.<\/p>\n Invariably the HiPPO<\/a> has the casting vote, which kind of negates the value of having a meeting about the problem in the first place.<\/p>\n The tricky part of innovation<\/a> is that, by definition, the result is something that hasn\u2019t been seen before. The goal is to solve a problem, or series of problems, in a way that currently doesn\u2019t exist<\/a>. As an inevitable consequence, the process is going to involve considering thoughts and ideas that don\u2019t sit well with everyone in the room.<\/p>\n But that\u2019s the entire point. If the answer was obvious, or could be deduced from conventional rational thinking, we would have found it by now. The fact that we haven\u2019t, means we have to change the thought processes that got us here.<\/p>\n I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve been in a thousand meetings like this. It starts off slow, with someone outlining the problem at hand and what they\u2019ve considered as responses. They\u2019ll go through the pros and cons of each option, concluding that none of the choices are a great fit. The floor is then opened up to the meeting participants who all react in the same way: silence.<\/p>\n Silence, that is, until the most senior-ranked person in the room pipes up.<\/p>\n What happens next? Everybody in the room jumps all over everyone else to give their two cents. But the comments are nothing but variations on what others have said. Even worse, they are proffered for no other reason than to inflate the senior-ranked executive\u2019s ego. Either way, it spells disaster.<\/p>\n So what went wrong?<\/p>\n It all went south as soon as the senior-ranked person opened their mouth. In that microsecond, for no other reason than their elevated corporate status, the meeting descended into an exercise of conformity and groupthink. Any inkling of diversity of thought disappeared as fast as the plate of cookies in the center of the table. Anyone who had even the most minuscule semblance of an out-of-the-box thought has buried that idea in the depths of their subconscious. The game\u2019s already over, and we didn\u2019t even finish taking the pieces out of the box.<\/p>\n The result of the meeting is broad consensus for reasons of vanity, politics, subservience, conflict-avoidance, or a combination of all the above. For many reasons people may choose to follow the herd<\/a>, rather than engage in constructive and healthy debate.<\/p>\n But a consensus of opinion isn\u2019t what\u2019s required. When everyone agrees, nobody questions. We can\u2019t solve tomorrow\u2019s problems by using today\u2019s thinking.<\/p>\n Any suitably out-of-left-field thinking runs the risk of being ignored or ridiculed. If the idea is sufficiently big and audacious, some people are going to push back.<\/p>\n But instead of shutting these ideas down, we need to learn to encourage them \u2013 regardless from where they came. It\u2019s only through consideration and experimentation can we challenge our inbuilt assumptions and biases, consider alternatives and \u2013 ultimately \u2013 design better and more innovative solutions<\/a>.<\/p>\n Many businesses today are born from ideas that, at the time, seemed ludicrous. Imagine Howard Schultz telling you he wanted to sell you a cup of coffee for 10 times what it costs to make coffee at home. You would have thought the guy was two beans short of an espresso. Today, Starbucks is worth around $140Bn.<\/p>\n Or consider Richard & Maurice MacDonald<\/a>, the founders of a certain fast food restaurant franchise you may know. To reduce customer waiting times, they cut the menu from 25 items to 9 and implemented an innovative (for the time) kitchen assembly-line process. They succeeded in dramatically reducing operating costs and customers were happier to get their meals faster (even at the expense of reduced choice).<\/p>\n Such innovations don\u2019t stem from everyone falling into line with the group worldview, attained from a meeting where no-one wants to speak their mind.<\/p>\n Most managers conduct meetings with the goal of expediency, not result. In order to avoid wasting time addressing weird thinking or dissenting opinions, they see meetings as a way to quickly reach a particular decision. Now fill the room with sycophants and you\u2019ll reach group consensus faster than you can say \u201cshare options\u201d.<\/p>\n As marketers, we know about the dangers of Confirmation Bias<\/a>. People are predisposed to mimic the behavior of others, rather than use their own judgement. It\u2019s part of evolutionary psychology, rooted in our innate desire to \u2018fit it\u2019 by maintaining the status quo.<\/p>\n Again, there are plenty of business examples that bear this out. In its heyday Yahoo turned down the chance to buy Google<\/a> (twice!). Another example is Kodak\u2019s senior management team actively sitting on the work of employee Steve Sasson<\/a>, when he created the world\u2019s first digital camera. Their reasoning was the company was doing very nicely from profits made from selling film. They weren\u2019t about to kill that revenue stream, thanks all the same. I\u2019m not saying embracing digital image capture back then would have Kodak on a far firmer footing that the company has today. But I think it would have made it far more likely.<\/p>\n Real and lasting innovation comes from strong, singularly-focussed ideas<\/a>. Such ideas are often initially unpopular or divisive. Business executives need to be more open in their consideration of deep-set opposition, as well as actively building strategies to surmount it. Even today, many won\u2019t even consider the validity of an opposing opinion within their organization.<\/p>\n Ignoring contrary opinion may have contributed to such business mistakes as Amazon\u2019s Fire Phone<\/a>, or Apple\u2019s doomed social media network Ping<\/a>.<\/p>\n Almost as bad as dismissing the naysayers (or not speaking up as a naysayer yourself) is seeking concession in order to please the group. Innovation calls for strong leadership to maintain focus and prevent ideas being diluted in order to appease.<\/p>\n Yes, it\u2019s important to acknowledge dissent, to understand its root, and consider its contrary position. But at the end of the day, some innovations cannot be agreed by consensus. Imagine if the first iPhone was designed by committee, or if Starbucks\u2019 business model was put to a vote. The chances of either succeeding would have been slim at best.<\/p>\nWhy Most Businesses Don\u2019t Innovate<\/span><\/h2>\n
Innovative Ideas Come From Unconventional Thinking<\/span><\/h2>\n
Majorities Don\u2019t Just Rule: They Influence<\/span><\/h2>\n
Innovation Mandates Strong Leadership<\/span><\/h2>\n
![\"DotCom](\"https:\/\/kexino.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/DotCom-Magazine-Impact-Company-Of-The-Year-Award-Winner-KEXINO.png\")
<\/a><\/div>\n