Brain, Variations and Balancing

Leading innovation means to lead self, to lead systems of interdependent and seemingly contradictory behaviours, and to continuously restore balance in unstable systems, in which the counterbalancing forces can easily be thrown out of whack:

• Neuroleadership or brain-savvy leadership to curb biases and suppress the cognitive immune defence against otherness, newness and change as much as possible
• Creating and stimulating variations
• Balancing

Getting the Brains in the Game

To innovate effectively, leaders must engage their brains fully - even though our "caveman brains" are constantly challenged by neuro-overload and our limited cognitive capacity. Innovation demands a heightened level of awareness and mental agility, ideally grounded in an understanding of neuroscience and the biology of leadership. At the very least, leaders need a basic level of self-awareness to avoid falling into traps like decision illusions, denial, complacency, and the thick fog of over 180 cognitive biases.

Building a culture of competence is essential (and more on it below), without brain-savviness - the ability to tinker with the human brain, to understand and manage the brains that evolution gave us - as one of those core competencies, there can be no true innovation or evolution or change. The inability to give the brain a seat at the table is the first evolutionary dead-end for many leaders and leadership models aiming to innovate.

Avoiding the Stifling Shadow of Leadership

Today we have a massively increased non-waterfall leadership toolbox - including approaches such as servant leadership, unboss, and new ways of working including agile working practices, which are minimising the innovation-suppressing shadow of leadership and stimulation the creation of variations.

They are coming with a different role of the leader, and with different leadership objectives (such as enabling others to become their best selves, supporting development of self-awareness, setting a clear vision, removing barriers, holding oneself and others accountable to unleash the power, passion and talent within all people of an organisation) aiming to empower their people and themselves by considering and managing some of the neural processes that precede behaviour.

Evolution teaches us that survival depends on continuous adaptation, and the same principle applies to the leadership models we apply. Companies must innovate constantly and be willing to experiment to create variations, adapt, and evolve - or risk being left behind.

Striking the Balance

Tolerance for failure but no tolerance for incompetence

In innovative cultures, where exploring uncertain and uncharted territory is the norm, tolerance for failure is essential. However, while innovation requires an openness to failure, it does not permit incompetence. Innovative organizations maintain high performance standards and seek out top talent. While experimenting with risky ideas that may fail is acceptable, subpar technical skills, careless thinking, poor work habits, and ineffective management are not. Failures can offer valuable lessons and insights. However, failure can also stem from ill-conceived designs, flawed analysis, lack of transparency, or poor management. A strong tolerance for failure relies on having highly competent people.

Building a culture that values both learning from failure and maintaining high standards of performance is challenging. Leadership has to clearly define the distinction between productive and unproductive failures. Productive failures provide valuable insights relative to their cost. These should be celebrated when they lead to learning.

Building a culture of competence means clearly defining and articulating performance expectations. Without a shared understanding of these standards, personnel decisions can seem arbitrary or, worse, be misinterpreted as punishment for failure. As a leader you have to consistently communicate these expectations across the organization. In some cases, hiring standards may need to be elevated, even if that temporarily slows company growth.

Willingness to experiment but highly disciplined: disciplined oriented cultures

Organizations that embrace experimentation are comfortable navigating uncertainty and ambiguity. They don’t pretend to have all the answers upfront, nor do they rely solely on analysis to gain insights. Instead, they experiment with the primary goal of learning, rather than immediately creating a marketable product or service.

However, without discipline, almost any action can be excused as an "experiment." In disciplined cultures, experiments are carefully selected based on their potential learning value and are rigorously designed to yield the maximum amount of information relative to their costs. Leaders establish clear criteria from the outset to determine whether an idea should be advanced, modified, or terminated. They also confront the results of their experiments head-on, which often involves acknowledging that an initial hypothesis was flawed, or that a once-promising project must be killed or significantly redirected.

Disciplined experimentation is a delicate balancing act. As a leader, it's important to encourage people to entertain "unreasonable ideas" and give them the space to formulate hypotheses. Requiring immediate data to confirm or reject an idea too early can stifle the intellectual exploration that fuels creativity. Of course, even the best-designed and well-executed experiments don’t always produce clear-cut results. In such cases, scientific and business judgments are necessary to decide which ideas to pursue, which to revise, and which to abandon. Senior leaders must model this discipline by, for example, terminating projects they personally supported or demonstrating a willingness to change course when data from an experiment suggests a different path forward.

Psychologically safe but brutally candid:

Psychological safety refers to an organizational climate where individuals feel they can speak openly and truthfully about problems without fear of retaliation. Decades of research show that environments with psychological safety not only help organizations avoid catastrophic errors but also foster learning and innovation. When people are afraid to challenge superiors, debate others’ ideas, or offer alternative perspectives, innovation can be stifled.

However, psychological safety is a two-way street. If I feel safe to criticize your ideas, you must feel equally safe to criticize mine—regardless of our positions in the organization. Honest candor is essential for innovation, as it allows ideas to evolve and improve through constructive feedback.

Confusing politeness with respect is common in organizations that prioritize being "nice" over being candid. Yet, there is no contradiction between being respectful and being frank. Respectful candor ensures that honest critique does not come at the expense of civility.

Building a culture of candid debate is challenging, especially in environments where people avoid confrontation or view open debate as a breach of civility. As a leader, it’s essential to model this behavior. You must be willing to critique others’ ideas constructively, without being abrasive. A practical way to cultivate this culture is by openly inviting criticism of your own ideas and proposals, signaling that candid feedback is both welcome and necessary.

Collaboration but with Individual accountability:

Effective innovation systems rely on the input, information, and coordinated effort of a diverse range of contributors. In a truly collaborative culture, seeking help from colleagues is seen as natural, even when it falls outside formal job roles. This sense of collective responsibility fosters a strong foundation for innovation.

However, collaboration is often mistaken for consensus, and consensus can be detrimental to rapid decision-making and solving the complex challenges associated with transformational innovation. At some point, someone must make a decision and take accountability for the outcome. In an accountability-driven culture, individuals are expected to make decisions and own their consequences.

A culture that emphasizes both collaboration and accountability is not contradictory. Teams and committees may review decisions or provide input, but ultimately, specific individuals are responsible for making critical choices.

Collaboration and accountability can actually reinforce each other. In an organization where you are personally accountable for your decisions, there is no room to hide from responsibility. You fully own the outcomes of your choices, whether they succeed or fail. In such a setting, the last thing you would do is isolate yourself from valuable feedback or refuse to enlist the help and expertise of others, both inside and outside the organization, to ensure the best possible outcome.

Flat but strong leadership:

In culturally flat organizations, people are given wide latitude to take actions, make decisions, and voice their opinions. Deference is granted on the basis of competence, not title. Culturally flat organizations can typically respond more quickly to rapidly changing circumstances because decision making is decentralized and closer to the sources of relevant information. They tend to generate a richer diversity of ideas than hierarchical ones, because they tap the knowledge, expertise, and perspectives of a broader community of contributors.

Lack of hierarchy, though, does not mean lack of leadership. Paradoxically, flat organizations require stronger leadership than hierarchical ones. Flat organizations often devolve into chaos when leadership fails to set clear strategic priorities and directions. They need incredibly strong and visionary leaders with the capacity to articulate compelling visions, strategies and principles about how the organizations should operate while simultaneously being adept and competent with technical and operational issues. Flatness does not mean that leaders distance themselves from operational details or projects. In fact, flatness allows leaders to be closer to the action. For employees, flatness requires them to develop their own strong leadership capacities and be comfortable with taking action and being accountable for their decisions.

Leading Innovation Is the Art of Creating Collective Genius

Why can some organizations innovate time and again, while most cannot? You might think the key to innovation is attracting exceptional creative talent. Or making the right investments. Or breaking down organizational silos. All of these things may help - but there's only one way to ensure sustained innovation: you need to lead it - and with a special kind of leadership which requires brain, variations and balancing.