I was given some advice on being innovative when I was asked to take a cognitive style assessment. The indicator helps people understand their style of being innovative. I completed 50 questions about my preferences and how I prefer to work. I was labeled a “risk taker”. I was an extreme risk taker. The assessment used these descriptors for people like me: Prefers to “rock the boat, and Irreverent to norms and rules — will take risks — often doesn’t see them
This column questions this understanding of risk-taking and who judges this behaviour as risk-taking. I think both descriptors are questionable. I have rocked the boat when it was needed. I do not rock the boat for some sadistic pleasure. I may look at a situation and find a different way to solve the problem. My ideas may create better results than the old approach. I found a way to raise this issue.
On this point: “Irreverent to norms and rules – will take risks – often doesn’t see them.” Most people would see this as a negative attribute, something akin to gambling or taking chances.
It is not my issue if other people see me as a risk taker, if I see myself as a problem solver who came up with options they could not see.
I often test norms and rules to understand why they are norms and rules. During my MBA, I learned that what we believe are management norms and rules should be challenged, as we may discover how superficial they are. For example, is it true that there are seven rules for highly effective managers or did Stephen Covey convince us that such rules exist?
I recently read an interesting article by Rosebeth Moss Kanter, former editor of the Harvard Business Review. She commented on risk.
“Everyone applauds innovation. At least, they love it in retrospect, after it has worked. Before that, it's just somebody's wild idea that competes with every other wild idea for resources and support. What sounds great in the abstract seems risky when translated to a specific, unproven idea.”
She added, “I'm often amazed at the lack of courage exhibited by so-called leaders who profess to value innovation.” She talked about the need for courage to innovate. I agree. If we approach innovation in terms of having the courage to innovate rather than of taking risks to innovate, we could shape more effective strategies for innovation.
Some define innovation as implementing ideas that create value. Other talk of commercializing IP. I think a better way to view innovation is.... building capacity to change. All innovations created value-adding change. Creating change takes foresight to see where opportunity exists, ideas to fuel the change, and the conviction to manage people to turn these ideas into results. This change can in the products we sell to customers, how we create value in a business, and how we manage people to deliver this value. Referring to change as "risk taking" simply seems naïve. Change is not an option. The cost of maintaining the status quo has killed many businesses.
Kanter also talked about something I see too often with teams,
“I see a conservative bias toward external innovators, even when more creativity might lie within, in the minds of junior employees or occupants of routine jobs that are treated disdainfully. Better a maverick from halfway around the world than a nerd in one's own organization. People already in the organization are often the most under-utilized asset.”
I ran many idea factories as an outside facilitator that opened with a challenge to be fixed or created. Once people understood the problem and were confident that their ideas were welcome, I was often amazed by the quality of solutions people created. Yet why did these organizations need an outsider to create opportunities to solve a problem and ask thought-provoking questions?
Why do we fail to use this underutilized asset of people in our organizations? I believe the fault is found in the essence of how we have chosen to understand “risk taking”.
Is this article new? No. I wrote this in 2010 for Unlimited Management in New Zealand for my monthly column. Reading many posts on this platform suggests that our understanding of risk has not evolved.
