For hundreds of years of human history, innovation
and discovery have occurred simultaneously, by different parties, all
over the globe. In fact, it is difficult to find a major technological
breakthrough of the last 200 years that didn't have multiple inventors,
perhaps working thousands of miles apart, claiming that a particular
discovery was theirs.
The lightbulb, most often attributed to Thomas Edison, had 20
individuals claiming responsibility for its technology. The development
of the telephone can be attributed to the work of 10 great minds over 50
years, even though it is commonly credited to Alexander Graham Bell. In
the 20th century, one of the most fascinating discoveries in physics,
the theory of quantum electrodynamics, was developed by Richard Feynman,
Sin-Itiro Tomonaga and Julian Schwinger, all independently of one
another and across continents. While all three won the Nobel Prize for
the discovery, a silent competitiveness ensued between Feynman and
Schwinger as they seemed to race to publish their findings.
But to me, these are examples of an innovation Zeitgeist or spirit of
the time that in many ways has been fueled by competition.
The early stages. In most instances a technological
innovation, when first discovered, is not ready for the consumer. Often t
innovator doesn’t fully understand the implications of what he or she
has discovered. That's because at the moment of discovery the technology
exists in a form that's may be very different from what a person needs.
For the widespread commercial success of any innovation, two crucial
discovery moments should be recognized: the discovery of the technology
and the consumer’s discovery of products containing this technology.
At the core of the product-discovery moment for a consumer is
awareness. Usually in order for this awareness to arise, the product has
to be mentioned in a conversation between consumers. More often than
not this dialogue takes place during a debate or as a comparison is made
between two competing products. For the modern consumer, who is often
inundated by product-marketing impressions and an abundance of choice, a
product that can’t be incorporated in a side-by-side comparison with a
competing product may be invisible. That's because competition increases
category awareness, which in turn drives demand for a product category.
With low barriers to entry, and more and more affordable development
resources, competition is a key component of the technology Zeitgeist
we're in today. Competing products help fuel and articulate the value
proposition of each device and force companies to innovate through
differentiation.
The adoption factor. Within the tech community,
people often talk about “adoption” without pausing to take in what the
word really means. We simply speak of early and late adopters as
elements on Everett Rogers’ innovation-adoption curve. What gets missed
is that adoption is about recognizing that something has a place in
one’s life. Competition can then be seen as a positive force that shapes
technology into form factors and feature sets that better and better
meet the needs of people.
Today we are seeing innovation folded into products that become a
part of our daily lives at a much faster rate than in previous
generations. We are witnessing this now with the Internet of Things,
as an increasing number of connected devices become available to the
ordinary consumer and people adopt these devices as permanent fixtures
in their homes.
One of the most exciting things for me as an entrepreneur is helping
bring innovation to people. Watching people develop close interactions
with innovative products is extremely satisfying. This is because, when
it is done right, interaction with a product can be seen as a form of
human expression. When a product is fully adopted, it plays a vital role
in fleshing out who the customer is as a person. And competition brings
products closer to truly fulfilling the needs of people.
At the end of the day, the often unspoken truth is that companies
like Apple need Google, Box needs Dropbox just as Thomas Edison needed
Joseph Swan and Alexander Graham Bell needed Elisha Gray. Competition is
fundamentally necessary to educate consumers and force companies to be
innovative with their product offerings and business model. Microsoft
finds itself in its current position because of having been too many
years without strong competition and pressure to stay nimble with its
business model.
So, as an entrepreneur, when asked how I feel about my
competitors, my answer is very simple: I need them.
by Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries
Although the ghost of the Great Man still haunts leadership
studies, most of us have recognized by now that successful organizations
are the product of distributive, collective, and complementary
leadership. The first step in putting together such a team is to
identify each member of the team’s personality makeup and leadership
style, so that strengths and competences can be matched to particular
roles and challenges. Getting this match wrong can bring misery to all
concerned and cause considerable damage.
I was once asked to facilitate in a group coaching intervention for
the leadership team at the subsidiary of a large chemical company. A
year before Kate (not her real name, the head of the subsidiary) had
been moved from head office to take charge. At head office she had
always been viewed as a person extremely insightful about personnel
decisions. Given her talents in HR, she was seen a good candidate to
sort out the mess in that particular subsidiary. It was a big leap in
terms of promotion but Kate was given a chance.
Unfortunately, I quickly realized that her tenure had been a
disaster. She may have been a good coach but didn’t have what it takes
to create greater strategic focus and execute a turnaround. A great
amount of money had been spent on consultants and on training a
workforce that had no clearer idea at the end of 12 months what they
were doing or why. What had dazzled the people at head office had been
Kate’s coaching and communication skills. She was at sea, however, in a
more operational role.
What can be done to prevent a situation like the one with Kate? There
are a number of serious leadership questionnaires that are worlds away
from the enneagrams and compatibility tests that litter the coaching
circuit. Some of these try to identify certain recurring behavior
patterns considered more or less effective in a leadership context. We
have also tests to discover whether executives are people or task
oriented, autocratic or democratic, transactional or transformational,
and variations on all of these. These sorts of questionnaire may be a
bit simplistic, but they can help point someone in the right direction
on a career or organizational path.
My own approach to leadership assessment is based on observational
studies of real leaders, mostly at the strategic apex of their
organizations. My aim is to help them see and understand that their
attitudes and interactions with people are the result of a complex
confluence of their inner theater (including relationships with
authority figures early in life), significant life experiences, examples
set by other executives, and formal leadership training.
As these influences play out over time, one typically sees a number
of recurring patterns of behavior that influence an individual’s
effectiveness within an organization. I think of these patterns as
leadership “archetypes,” reflecting the various roles executives can
play in organizations and it is a lack of fit between a leader’s
archetype and the context in which he or she operates is a main cause of
team and organizational dysfunctionality and executive failure. The
eight archetypes I have found to be most prominent are:
- The strategist: leadership as a game of chess. These people
are good at dealing with developments in the organization’s environment.
They provide vision, strategic direction and outside-the-box thinking
to create new organizational forms and generate future growth.
- The change-catalyst: leadership as a turnaround activity. These executives love messy situations. They are masters at re-engineering and creating new organizational ‘‘blueprints.’’
- The transactor: leadership as deal making. These executives are great dealmakers. Skilled at identifying and tackling new opportunities, they thrive on negotiations.
- The builder: leadership as an entrepreneurial activity. These executives dream of creating something and have the talent and determination to make their dream come true.
- The innovator: leadership as creative idea generation. These people are focused on the new. They possess a great capacity to solve extremely difficult problems.
- The processor: leadership as an exercise in efficiency. These
executives like organizations to be smoothly running, well-oiled
machines. They are very effective at setting up the structures and
systems needed to support an organization’s objectives.
- The coach: leadership as a form of people development. These executives know how to get the best out of people, thus creating high performance cultures.
- The communicator: leadership as stage management. These executives are great influencers, and have a considerable impact on their surroundings.
Working out which types of leaders you have on your team can work
wonders for your effectiveness as a group. It helps you to recognize
how you and your colleagues can individually make their best
contributions. This will in turn create a culture of mutual support and
trust, reduce team stress and conflict, and make for more creative
problem solving. It also informs your search for new additions to the
team: what kinds of personality and skills are you missing?
Kate’s story had a happy ending. The group coaching session made it
clear that the problem was not so much Kate’s lack of ability but rather
that team lacked specific leadership qualities. If the team
incorporated an executive with a strategic outlook and who had
turnaround skills and experience then Kate’s skills as a communicator
and coach would be more effectively leveraged to resolve the
subsidiary’s crisis. After talking to the head of talent management at
head office we were able to identify exactly such a person, creating a
more rounded team and helping Kate to fulfill her mandate.
