Recently, I was thinking about two different types of change that I’ve observed in the world: progress and innovation. Both forms of change represent advancement, but in very different ways. Progress typically happens in a linear fashion, where the new is often an extension of what already exists. It represents advancement, but advancement that is measured in increments. Progress represents doing something better than the current way, but generally not doing something fundamentally different.
Innovation is disruptive and, thus, non-linear. It is the exception and it’s why those cited as being market disruptors (Airbnb, Uber, Netflix, Apple) stand out. The disruption of innovation is scarcer and, in most cases, not predictable from what has already happened – or already exists – in the current environment. It approaches an existing situation with a totally new approach or sees new opportunities and acts on the possibilities.
Dealing with the ‘Culture of No’
What is the source of friction that makes change, whether it be progress or innovation, difficult if not impossible? I would argue it’s attributable to the ‘Culture of No.’ The incumbents, those who have achieved some degree of decision-making power, don’t want to absorb the risks of changing how things are done. There’s little to no incentive to change and incumbents would rather keep doing what they are doing until it doesn’t work anymore. After all, they benefit from the status quo; with the status quo, they are in charge.
Evidence of this kind of philosophy can be found in statements like:
- “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
- “Keep your head down, after all we (the bosses) know best.”
- And my favorite, from a past boss, “Your goal is to always to do the least and make the most.”
Note that I’m not the first to consider the ‘Culture of No’ and its impact. If you search online, you can find reference to it here.
The Drivers of Innovation
Innovation requires a different motivation, an impetus to change the “what” or the “how” of things in ways that are profound. It comes from an innate motivation to do things differently and more importantly, better. There must be an incentive to make a change and a willingness to try when there is no assurance of success. In most cases, the motivation won’t come from entrenched incumbents. It will come from those who are not predisposed to the current ways of doing things, but rather are open to trying new things. In some cases, they are compelled to try them.
Let’s flip the model on its head, much like Netflix and others have done. If no one is doing anything new in your market, consider that as an opportunity for someone else (a disruptive entity, perhaps like yourself) to try a new way. The result might be incremental progress (doing something better, faster, cheaper, more profitably) or something truly transformative in its innovation, perhaps with a new community developing around it. But neither result will happen unless there is an impetus to try new things and a willingness to accept that they might not work. After all, there is little significant reward without an appetite for risk.
I’d like to provide a brief shout out to Joe Pulizzi and Robert Rose for their interesting book, Killing Marketing. It offers a nice blueprint for how to seize the opportunity for disruptive approaches in the marketing space.
Consider your own situation. Are you entangled in a ‘Culture of No’ or do you represent Those Who Will?