Harmonizing Opposites

Explorers expect the unknown. Its in the nature of exploration to relish new experiences. But sit down with a seasoned explorer or innovator and they will tell you that the unknown required things of them that they were unprepared for when they set out. One of the most challenging is the need to harmonize opposites in order to find a way through the toughest challenges.

Many times an explorer starts out as a dreamer who is captivated by a big idea. In the process of articulating their vision they can become idealistic and imagine their idea implemented in its purest form. Then the dreamer turns from dreaming to exploration and innovation to see their idea realized. It is at this moment that the idealism of the idea gets challenged as the innovator faces obstacles and challenges that require compromise and creative pivoting.

It is in the negotiating of the obstacles to innovation that an innovator proves their mettle. I have seen countless innovators see the idealistic visions of their idea get smashed against the boulders of reality and return home discouraged. Others hold on to the purest form of their vision; hoping to persevere and be remembered as heroes and early pioneers. Results from these efforts are mixed at best.

There is a role for elevating the idea and holding fast, but innovation demands that an idea submit to the iterative process in a principled way. So ideologues who embrace the innovative process open their minds to these practical pivots and navigate the tensions inherent in a world that is constantly changing. I love this image that Nils Smith shares highlighting how trial, error and learning lead to new these practical solutions.

The key to this delicate balance between the purity of an idea and the reality of its implementation is in managing polarities. Simply put, many innovations require us to manage difference rather than pick sides. We often talk about "either/or" or "both/and" thinking to articulate this discipline.

Balancing Needs in Local Language Education

In my innovation work, I have found that managing polarities is the single most important tool to iterating my way to a successful solution. One example was a recent prototype project I led. I was tasked with looking for ways to fund multilingual education and literacy work among children who speak local languages around the globe. The research shows that 35% of children go to school in a language unfamiliar to them. But from my research with donors, there was hesitancy to give towards education when there were so many immediate needs (such as food, clean water, clothing, etc.). My organization's ( SIL Global ) work also showed that the parents of the children also were sometimes unconvinced of the need for local language education as they wanted their children to learn the languages that would provide access to jobs and opportunity.

At the same time, our subject matter experts in SIL know that multilingual education is crucial for long-term education outcomes. So we knew that having children start their education in their local language before moving to the trade or national language was crucial, but the funders and even the parents put up different obstacles. So to respond to those obstacles, we came up with a different approach: what if we combined social issues important to both donors and parents with education in local languages?

The result was a pilot called "Language Changes Tomorrow" where communities pick a local issue they want their children learning about and donors give towards the issue (our prototype in Kenya focused on environmental conservation and the pilot in Nepal is focused on hygiene). Then SIL works with local partners and educators to develop books and curriculum about the issue. Then the students are able to gain fluency in their language, accomplish educational outcomes and also act on a social issue important to everyone.

This approach required the team to take a big idea, multilingual education, and wrestle with how to engage both donors, communities, educators and parents with it in a way that would drive interest and engagement. The jury is still out on this idea as we wrap up the pilot in Nepal, but our innovation process highlights the point that an idea has to meet reality and pivot to address real or perceived needs.

One More Twist

Just as we have seen the way that innovation projects must harmonize opposites, I was reminded this week how innovation teams must do the same. In John Bremen 's latest Forbes article "Twelve Paradoxes of Innovation" he tackles the polarities we need to manage as we lead innovation within our organizations. His insights are spot on and I have experienced so many of them in my work. Here are his twelve along with my observations.

"Innovative organizations have strong innovation machines but recognize that some of the best ideas come from outside the machine." An innovation team can never carry the load for an organization. They are catalysts and they model good innovation discipline but we need organizations where everyone has an "opportunity mindset."

"Big, disruptive ideas are alluring, but small, incremental ideas often pay the bills." Getting the mix right between the small incremental changes and the "big bets" is crucial and very difficult. If we do too much incremental innovation, the big opportunities will not get addressed and if we do too much disruptive innovation we will miss out on a million small improvements that could make a big difference.

"Small, incremental ideas often pay the bills, but big, disruptive ideas may be necessary to secure an organization’s place in the long-term." Looking for the right long-term innovation goals requires understanding of your field, good research and empathy-gathering and courageous leadership. No amount of small innovations will make up for the right "big bets."

"Siloes can be anathema to innovative thinking, but are often necessary for depth and execution" Knowing when to tear down structures and when to utilize structures to strengthen ideas is more art than science.

"Process creates discipline, but also can suffocate good ideas." Disciplined innovation is key to success. If we don't design our innovation efforts to test the right things and capture our learnings, we are unlikely to make progress. But what is the minimal structure we can put in place to assure this gets done without burdening our innovators?

"Psychological safety breeds better cultivation of ideas, but innovation is measured by results." Bringing accountability and freedom together requires trust. When we trust people to work on new ideas we show them that their ideas matter. The problem is that we tend to stop there. In the end that undermines the trust we are trying to build. This is because if we really trusted them to develop new ideas we would also have an expectation of a result. Now what we mean by "result" may need to be clearly explained. As we give freedom and also expect to hear how it went, the trust connection multiplies.

"Communication around innovation is key internally, but confidentiality is necessary to keep ideas from external competitors." What a challenging issue! The more you communicate, the more you can collaborate. But if you get information about your idea out to people who are not interested in seeing your effort succeed the impacts can be disastrous. This required a level of discernment about who to bring in and who to leave out.

"Failing fast and learning fast reduce wasted time, energy, and money, but artifacts allow for future reconstitution and re-use." It is so hard to both move on and learn. But this is the job of an innovator. We have to both try, fail and move on while at the same time gathering up the bits of learning and good ideas to use for later. It takes an intentionality that is hard when you are moving fast.

"Timing of ideas is essential, but an idea that fails one year can succeed in another under different circumstances or with the right tweaks." Many times innovators get turned onto a new idea or trend way before the market is ready. So timing can be a real problem. This is where understanding your user/customer/audience is so critical. Empathy allows us to link our exploration with real need.

"Cannibalizing existing business represents a threat to orthodoxy, but also prevents competitors from doing so." In my experience we always overestimate the likelihood that new ideas will hurt existing efforts. As innovators we tend to think that most people are like us and want to try new things. But the reality is that most people are slow to change and need to be given a very good reason that is fairly low risk.

"Successful innovation teams include deep content expertise and experience, but also generalists and process experts who look through a different lens and ask new questions." The power of generalists can't be overstated. While I love all the subject matter experts I get to work with, there is something refreshing and essential about a generalist who has many interests and is willing to dive in and explore the areas with the most opportunity . . . even if they are new to them.

"Innovators often feel like imposters, but don’t realize that feeling is part of a growth mindset." You aren't an innovator if you don't feel like you are working on the edge of your competency. Being surrounded by the unknown is a place of great vulnerability and opportunity. It takes people who are confident enough in who they are to be comfortable taking risks, failing and being criticized.

As you wrestle with what it looks like to harmonize all these opposites, consider what explorers have to do. Whether they are on a space ship to Mars, diving into the deep of our oceans or hiking across the Antarctic, they are constantly harmonizing the inputs they encounter and creatively designing new solutions to accomplish the ultimate objective. How can you do the same in your innovation work today?