In organizational innovation and research, the members of teams with highly self- determined innovation ideas often land into contradictory situations where the pursuit of "their" solutions can lead to their own dilution. I want to examine this acute sense of phenomenon that almost 99% of humanity pursues- which is what makes such efforts futile and finding the individual who is rare to reject these prescriptions hard.
In a real world scenario, teams aim to harness diverse insights for superior solutions, but this collective approach can dilute rather than enrich the initial ideas of particular individuals who are stationed in the team. Why does group decision-making sometimes yield less effective outcomes in the eyes of an individual?
Within teams, ideas are often selected for alignment with established beliefs rather than their merit, leading to a suppression of dissent where 'groupthink' prevails. Furthermore, there has to be an influence of conformity to the sake of the execution to happen in focus and in a lean fashion.
Now in the case the landscape is political- then the structure of the belief would go further to prove that the market reality check would fail for a certain solution. No matter a solution is sound or not- it must face the unyielding realities of the market where human perception and market dynamics often misalign. The market, as an impartial arbiter, can check an idea's true viability or even an organizations best bet. That is the reason why one success cannot be replicated in the same way again. Because success needs alignment to reality.
Now, while leaning towards true great solution we often have to move towards simplicity. Often it is the first place where we have to dumb the requirements to reach a solution for an innovative problem. So, looking at it clearly- if a solution is beautiful and shows less complexity, plus is cut down enough to feel like it has no counter- that is the one place the individual who has come up with the innovative idea of the solution would fail the reality check. This approach confines innovation within comfort zones and thus stunts the system. It's an easy approach to take when ego, influence etc. are motivators instead of asking the questions as to where the destination is (which is always the free market). The real solution would be dumb enough where the team can iterate on ideas that essentially add value to the solution, not make it become a more complex solution for the sake of it. The easiest way to recognize where a team member is using influence over substance is when they tailor a solution to identify and confirm to group-think. Another easy way is if the person is the smartest person in the room- and they have tailored a solution which they think fits the vision- the team needs to question it and dumb it down- or even further- remove the processes from that solution and see if making it simple would allow to arrive at the same place. Addition to the idea should only happen if it is a true need- instead of "we know the market would want it" or "we find it easier than doing Y".
Now, testing these innovative ideas to the market and to understand the reason why great ideas fail is also an important one to attempt to uncover. If an idea is truly groundbreaking, why isn't it adopted? This always leads to understanding the gap between conception and execution:
- Timing: Ideas might be ahead or behind in terms of market readiness.
- Execution: Poor implementation can undermine even the best of ideas.
- Resource Allocation: Misallocation due to internal politics or misjudged priorities can hinder progress.
- Internal vs. Market Reality: While companies may possess great talent and capabilities, solutions built without market checks often fail to leverage this, focusing instead on personal visions or internal needs, missing broader market demands.
Truth is a pathless land, and seeking it through influence is merely a tactical maneuver in the short game. The long game requires sincerity and an internal state of experimentation to truly grasp the market landscape, allowing for solutions that resonate in the grander scheme. Piecemeal solutions can only advance so far before they falter; true progress is rather a painful journey with many alignment obstacles that give insight into the political and strategical landscape of an organizations communication of its vision and it's first principles thinking. The clearer that is to the individual in the team the more the individual will sway towards tearing down their idea and arriving to a better one with the first principles approach.
