Innovation is a subersive act

Innovation often happens in companies despite their best efforts, not because of it.

The inherent problem of innovation is that it requires a low level of respect for orthodoxy, institutions, organizations and customs.  In order to imagine, develop and sell something new, one has to assume that the old way is not necessarily the only or best way to do something. The threat innovation presents to the existing order of things is irrelevance, even extinction. Innovation gets around the rules of the road and quite often creates new rules.  It subverts our understanding of what is possible. Innovation alters, manipulates and even destroys the present in order to create the future.

In 1633, when Galileo discovered that the Earth moved around the Sun - an observation that allowed for an entirely new understanding of the world, the Catholic church did everything they could to squash that innovation, and declared in their statement, "...the proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and...heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture."  Galileo was denounced and imprisoned, while the incredibly successful Catholic Church took more than three centuries to adapt their outlook to a new reality.

The Catholic Church rejected this new idea - not because they wished to avoid progress, but because innovation potentially threatened their position as an organization that understood the true nature of the world.  If they accepted this new view of the heavens, they would have to abandon their own orthodoxy, possibly undermining their own position as the dispenser of truths and possibly encourage their constituents to leave the church.  This innovation was perceived to threaten their survival.  Interestingly, the church's reluctance to accept changes in science, custom and culture, though at times a strength, has also allowed other philosophies and religious institutions to rise and flourish in their stead.

It's logical that a successful organization will likely resist or reject innovation that challenges their success.  IBM resisted PC's as long as they could - and even undermined their own PC division.  Microsoft resisted the Internet, social networking and open source programming as long as they possibly could- for each one of these innovations threatens the success of their existing business.  The auto industry still resists innovations that challenge the internal combustion engine.  Aristocracies have resisted democratic governance for thousands of years. The list of successful organizations that have rejected, squashed or resisted innovation is endless. 

And in almost every case, the reigning orthodoxy states with absolute certainty, "this innovation is impossible."  Man will never fly.  It is impossible to go to the moon.  No one will ever want a personal computer.  Cars will never be inexpensive enough for everyone to own.  It's impossible for France and England to be allies.  An African American can never be elected president of the United States.

So why would a company want to foster innovation?  They don't.  Almost all companies talk about the need for innovation, and spend time, money and resources instituting innovation projects and programs.  They may even boast about their innovations, R&D spending, patents and new products...but underneath their official story, they don't really want to innovate. Even while discussing the importance and ideals of innovation, successful companies are uncounciously incented to keep innovation from happening.

Put in another way - if a company is successful, has a strong market share, is able to provide executives with fat paychecks, workers with reliable salaries, and investors with reliable returns, why on earth would they want to jeopardize success with a completely new way of doing something.  Doesn't it make more sense to gradually improve what they have instead of changing it?

This strategy of avoiding any real innovation seems reasonable.  It seems like a way to avoid unnecessary risk.  It seems like the right thing to do.  If we allowed unfettered innovation, how on earth would companies survive?

And yet, how can a company survive unless they can adapt to change, find new opportunities, and define the future for customers and investors?  Companies must innovate, not because it is easy, inexpensive, comfortable or risk free; but because without it, they will ultimately fail. Without innovation, one has to accept that the world is flat, that the United States of America cannot exist, that slaves are necessary for an economy to thrive, that only priests can read text or interpret reality, that illness cannot be cured, or that children cannot do better than their parents. If orthodoxies and assumptions are never challenged by an organization - another organization that is willing to do so will ultimately take their place.

Central to the task of innovating inside an established organization is to become comfortable with the notion of subverting oneself.  Organizations that can balance the need for continuity, certainty and harmony with the need for disruption, uncertainty and the dissonance of innovation are more likely to last longer, to reinvent themselves and thrive in good times and bad.

Innovation is subversive and dangerous - but it's also essential.  It is important that innovation programs are taken seriously, are given appropriate room to succeed or fail, and are listened to and acted upon even if the results threaten current orthodoxies.