All aboard: how innovation feels, and why this matters for teams doing innovative work

Over the years, I’ve worked in a variety of industries - education, edtech, consulting, international development, insurance, and more - but an overarching trend of the roles I’ve held is that the work I’ve done in each of these industries has been focused on innovation. That innovation has looked different for each role, because innovation to build agricultural businesses in eastern Congo looks different than innovation in the edtech space, but the patterns of the innovation work across each role are remarkably similar. 

Since I’ve managed not just innovation work and projects but also teams focused on innovation work, the team executing the work and its dynamics is always top of mind for me because any innovation work can’t happen without high quality, bought-in teams. One thing that’s often overlooked when it comes to any type of innovation work is not just what it is or what we are doing, but what it feels like to the people on the teams making the work happen.

A good visual example of how innovation work feels to the people doing it is the video below, which demonstrates how the proximity you have to the front changes your perception of how fast things are moving. 



Thinking of this through the lens of a team, I think the leaders of any innovation work are always closest to the front, leading the way and directing the vision. But as we can see, when you’re at the front things seem to be moving slower. I can recall talking to a leader working on a new strategic branch of a company and in a moment of frustration with the pace of progress on the project he said, “I just don’t know why it’s taking so long.” This frustration is normal because leaders in any innovation space know where they want to go and see the vision clearly, but the pace isn’t what they want it to be or what they expected it to feel like. 

The reality, though, is that things aren’t moving slowly at all, they’re actually moving pretty fast, it can just feel like things are moving slowly because as a leader, you’re at the forefront and your view is different, so the pace literally feels different and likely slower than you’d like.

As we can also see in the video, to the team and those not at the very front of the work, things can feel like they’re moving at breakneck pace, confusing, chaotic, or even disorganized. The pace is one thing, but so are the turns - pivots that are actually planned out and part of the path forward can feel like whiplash without the broad view afforded to leaders at the forefront. This is important to point out because since innovation work can’t happen alone but rather depends on the buy-in, energy, and talent of entire teams, if the team is left out of that forefront vision and momentum then the work simply won’t get done at both the pace and quality required to be successful. 

In innovation work of any industry or sector, what can happen is that leaders frustrated by the perceived slowness but who are managing teams frustrated by the perceived fastness will run into all sorts of issues due to the perception misalignment: burnout, lack of buy-in, turnover, all of which actually slow things down. So what are leaders to do?

In any type of fast-moving, innovative work it’s important to remember two things. First, as a leader, things aren’t moving as slowly as they may seem because your view and mindset are different than everyone else’s. Second, without the front-row view, your team may feel that things are moving more quickly or chaotically than they seem, and it’s important to show them what you see so they understand the big picture. Let them in on the vision, let them see the path ahead, align your perceptions, and build a shared understanding of where it’s all going so everyone is truly on board and ready to execute. Providing that clarity is so important for the efficacy of the work, but also the shared consciousness of the team. This is essentially what we mean by change management.

Take the team with you, because it’s the only way to both get things done and create lasting impact.

Beyond Assuming Positive Intent: What Organizations Going Remote Need Most To Thrive

This week, the company I work for announced that we will continue working remotely for the remainder of 2020. As coronavirus cases continue to climb at a disturbing clip, I’ve been thinking about the long-term effects of rapid remote transitions, and how culture is impacted by those changes. 

As we all settle into the reality that things may never fully return to the way they were before, I think it’s valuable to assess what our communication and problem-solving looks like in our respective organizations, particularly as we embrace remote work for the long-term and let go of the idea that this is temporary.

Remote communication is always more challenging. The most challenging remote communication I’ve navigated was when I worked for a nonprofit with offices in Seattle and Eastern Congo. Not only were we overcoming time zone hurdles, we were also constantly bumping up against language barriers (French, Swahili, English) and different cultural articulations of power dynamics, both of which impacted how we communicated and how we solved problems on an international level. It took a lot of effort, energy, and intention.

Why assuming positive intent can be problematic

One office platitude I’ve never been a fan of is assume positive intent. While I understand the gist of what the phrase is trying to accomplish - enter into this work with good faith that everyone is doing what they believe to be good and right - I think in practice, especially in a remote environment, it creates issues for a number of reasons:

  • Being guided primarily by assumptions is never a sustainable way to operate for very long. Assuming positive intent unwittingly encourages us to communicate less, not more.

  • It ignores very real political and power dynamics. For many organizations unwilling to candidly tackle problems, “assume positive intent” is often used as a cheap top-down substitute for real communication and problem solving. “Just assume positive intent, no need to dig deeper into real issues.” More often than not, by implying that real problems needing to be solved aren’t actually there, assuming positive intent favors those who wield power in organizations, not the other way around. When this happens, assuming positive intent is a thinly veiled way to enforce compliance and shut down meaningful debate.

  • An uncomfortable truth about any organization is that some (hopefully not too many) people actually don’t act with positive intent. Some people are more interested in self-preservation and promoting individual agendas than contributing to the greater mission an organization is working to accomplish. We all have professional intuition that informs our awareness in these instances, and to demand the assumption of positive intent can actually cause harm. Ensuring actual alignment of values, mission, expectations, and so on requires more than assuming everyone is on the same page and moving toward the same goal.

How we view problems shapes the environment we create for our teams

It may seem like the opposite of assuming positive intent is to question every intention, but it’s not. I would argue that both assuming positive intent, and its inverse of relentlessly questioning intent, are two sides of the same paradigm that need replaced.

Both assuming positive intent, and its inherent inverse of questioning intent, are rooted in approaching problems as execution problems. When we view everything - communication issues, performance issues, organizational issues - as execution problems, we create environments that lack psychological safety. 

Put simply:

Psychological safety is an environment where teams and employees feel safe to take risks and be vulnerable with each other.

Amy Edmondson pioneered this concept, and wrote a wonderful book laying out how to create psychological safety in our organizations. Google’s research also found that psychological safety is the number one trait of effective teams (they researched over 300 teams to inform their conclusion). Viewing things through the lens of an execution problem makes everything about the individual person’s performance rather than the organizational dynamics at play contributing to that individual’s performance. Because of this, environments that view issues as execution problems, platitudes like “assume positive intent” spread in an attempt to address the issue topically without getting to the root of the issues.

A better way forward

Rather than view issues as execution problems, the better way forward is to view issues through the lens of learning problems. When we approach issues as learning problems, our organizations are able to address the myriad problems requiring our attention and effort in a healthier, more productive way. 

Interpersonal conflicts, missed deadlines, poor production, projects not meeting expectations, name any problem. When we choose to see each of these things as opportunities to learn, grow, and become better, our organizations improve because we remove the threat of personal attribution (and therefore the threat of “being on the chopping block”) and instead take a step back to address circumstances, environments, and dynamics creating those problems.

Viewing things as learning problems rather than execution problems is:

  • The difference between a manager asking an employee why a project wasn’t done right, and a manager apologizing for not making expectations clear before owning miscommunications and creating new expectations together alongside the employee

  • The difference between a company letting an unhappy but valuable employee quit, and a company unwinding the issues leading to that employee’s unhappiness to understand what went wrong and how to make changes where possible to retain them

  • The difference between a leader telling a teammate “you didn’t do what I asked” and a leader asking a teammate about their current work/stress load and how they can assist in helping prioritize their projects to ensure success

It’s all about understanding

When we view the inevitable issues that arise in our work as learning problems instead of execution problems, we not only address problems in a healthier way, we actually solve them better. We are able to ask difficult questions, look at things in new ways to reach novel solutions, and reach a place of understanding. Rather than the bandaid of assuming positive intent that restricts real communication, leaning into learning and solving problems helps us know our work and people on a deeper level. In a fully remote environment, understanding is what we need more than ever. 

To be clear, this is much more difficult work that requires leaders to not rely on their titles and authority structures to get things done, but instead requires relationship, empowerment, and authenticity. Basically, leadership.