Give away your ideas to give them real power!

Often I find myself reluctant to "let ideas go" for fear that they are ill-formed and may reflect badly on me, or even be shot down (often for legitimate reasons).  But Albrecht Durer, a German painter, printmaker, engraver, mathematician, and theorist from Nuremberg in the 1400-1500s reminds us of the value others can add if we let go.

"But I shall let the little I know or have learnt go forth into the day in order that someone better than I may guess the truth, and in his work may prove and rebuke my error. At this I shall rejoice that I was yet the means whereby this truth has come to light." 

How often do we let an idea languish when we have run out of energy and inspiration to develop it fully, or become paralysed by analysis?  How often do we miss a rich discussion drawing on other perspectives and experiences?  What's wrong with my idea coming back in a better, more effective form?

The dynamics of discovery: use-inspired research and the non-linearity of innovation

From Archimedes to Edison, attempts to improve quality of life have dictated a need for advances in science and technology. These advances are now widely understood as the key enablers of increasingly prosperous societies.

Despite this long history, the process of managing the expanding frontiers of new knowledge in a way that will benefit society is a work in progress. This is largely due to the unpredictable nature of scientific discovery most famously illustrated by Archimedes, when, upon stepping into the bath, he suddenly realised that the volume of water displaced was equal to the volume of the submerged portion of his body.

His discovery provided the solution to the previously intractable problem of measuring the volume of irregular objects and led to further advances in assessing the density and purity of precious metals among other things. In the modern world little has changed in how new knowledge is acquired. 

However, in an attempt to get the best value for their limited investments, governments have devised processes to manage its discovery.

Interestingly there has been a propensity to divide scientific research into a one-dimensional continuum starting with pure (sometimes known as blue-skies) research progressing through to applied research and on to technology transfer; the defining characteristic of pure research being that it seeks new knowledge with no view as to its application, while applied research seeks solutions to industrial problems.

Such a continuum has been the basis of R&D funding prioritisation in advanced economies around the world since it was promulgated by Vannevar Bush following World War II. In the past few years this mindset has been challenged as it does not accurately reflect the process of science and technology development.

The dynamic nature of the discovery of new knowledge and its commercial application can be observed in the remarkable career of French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur, whose breakthroughs ranged from the first rabies and anthrax vaccines to paving the way for germ theory and pasteurisation. Pasteur was not driven by a quest for new knowledge for its own sake but was motivated by a desire to better understand and solve the problems of industry.

In his early career, he concentrated largely on uncovering new knowledge, but as he did so, came across other, previously unforeseen questions. While working as a chemist at the age of 22 he sought a theoretical understanding of why tartaric acid crystals derived from bio-mass rotated the plane of polarised light while the chemically synthesised form did not.

His experiments revealed that the naturally occurring compound is chiral, meaning its molecules exist in one of two possible crystal structures, each the mirror image of the other. In the process of uncovering this new knowledge, he laid the building blocks for the modern experimental science of crystallography, which is today used in one form or another in everything from gemstone cutting to DNA analysis.

Pasteur’s remarkable career uncovered whole new branches of science – such as microbiology – and, as he developed as a scientist, he began to seek to satisfy both theoretical and practical goals.

Of particular note is the fact that as the problems Pasteur chose to solve became increasingly applied in nature, the nature of his research became more fundamental. Pasteur’s research agenda was use-inspired. Understanding and exploiting the dichotomy between applied and theoretical goals is perhaps the reason behind the breadth of his contribution.

This philosophy is instructive for modern policymakers seeking to get the most from limited investment funds and move away from the outmoded, linear model. The effective management of applied research operations is much more complicated than simplistic models suggest.

A good example of the dynamic nature of new knowledge acquisition and the interaction between applied and fundamental goals is the former IRL’s (now Callaghan Innovation)  high-temperature superconductivity (HTS) research programme, which has its roots in fundamental research but has developed into an emerging New Zealand industry.

IRL’s world-leading capabilities in both fundamental and applied HTS research have positioned New Zealand as a key international player in an industry predicted to be worth billions of dollars globally in the coming decades and transform the way the world generates, uses and distributes electricity.

Ambitious Dunedin-based firm Scott Technology, which purchased a controlling stake in IRL spin-out HTS-110 , clearly understands the value of investing in technology. Its approach is already paying dividends, judging by its inclusion in the fast-mover list of the Technology Investment Network’s top 100 technology firms by revenue.

Putting science to work: increase, don't cut R&D investment when times are tough

The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) in Australia has proposed cuts to a range of different Australian Government departments and programs, including completely cutting government funding for agricultural research and development.  Here is the paper by IPA .

The Australia Farm Institute  has been quick to respond and contends that  the recommendation are based on a quick and dirty attempt to generate Australian Government budget savings rather than on any proper analysis.  

Of course, the question of how to utilise science for the benefit of industry and business is not new and increased funding is not the whole answer. The “right” answers have morphed continually across countries and for decades.

What gets obscured in the discussion at times, and yet has remained relatively constant, is the fundamental value of science. Furthermore, using science as a driver of economic growth without regard to its underlying core is dangerous. So what are the core components that remain at the heart of science’s value proposition?

First, science is a body of knowledge, a vast one that has accumulated and built upon itself over hundreds of years. Trying to define its origins highlights the extent of human endeavour that it encapsulates. For example, Hippocrates’ work some 2300 years ago is still visible in the practice of medicine today. 

Secondly, science offers a consistent and structured approach to observation and problem solving. Again this isn’t a modern construct, rather something Isaac Newton is credited with formalising.

Thirdly, science’s role as a generator of new ideas and opportunities, whether through design or serendipity, has been well traversed. From the discovery of penicillin to the invention of the microwave oven and Teflon, there is a seemingly endless list of stories of how science has delivered significant advances from the unexpected.

While by its very nature science changes, these core components have remained constant. As discussions on R&D, innovation, and knowledge economies (or however the contemporary analysis is described) evolve, it is important to keep in mind these foundations, which have seen science assume such significance in the drive for wealth and wellbeing.

Another important aspect that should also be kept front of mind is that at its heart, science succeeds through talented, creative, and motivated people. Creating and maintaining a diverse environment where people can flourish is a necessity. 

It is important to recognise  therefore, that an increased support in the Budget for R&D will have the greatest long-term impact in the drive for productivity and prosperity increases.

Deconstructing Innovation: a complex concept made simple

One of the myths of business is that only new companies innovate.  Another myth is that only established companies do research and development. 

In reality, new firms need to invest in R&D to gain market share. And, established firms need to invest in innovation to lead the market or to protect their slice of the pie.

But what type of R&D? How do we classify what will work and what won’t? There is no straight answer to the innovation mystery.

Innovation is a complex process that has become a confused concept in recent times. The challenge with complex concepts is converting them into the simple.

In a recent issue of Research.Technology.Management, Jim Euchner, the vice president of global innovation at Goodyear, proposes a set of innovation types:

• Innovation that feeds the existing profit engine
  • Process innovation
  • Faster, better, cheaper product innovation
  • New feature (incremental) innovation
• Innovation that creates a
  • New profit engine
  • New product innovation
  • New business innovation
  • Disruptive innovation

Experience shows that organisations seem to find it harder to become successful as they move down the list. Success in the latter categories, although harder to achieve, leads to greater profits.

Euchner also suggests that we pay more attention to the context or the circumstances – generally business circumstances – in which the innovation is situated, effectively matching the type of innovation needed to best suit the situation.

The key is to recognise that innovation is not a standard process. As the context changes, so does the approach to innovation. And as approaches change, so does the need for different types of innovations.

A couple of examples from NZ  highlight how different companies achieve success through quite different innovation strategies.

Glidepath is an excellent example of innovation that changed according to the situation. When Glidepath started out as a ’new kid on the block’, its product offering could be classified as a ‘process innovation’. The business has since matured and the ongoing innovation now falls into the ‘faster, better, cheaper’ category.

AQUI-S New Zealand showcases how a new firm is breaking into the market with a unique product innovation – humane fish tranquilisers. They are exporting to South America, Asia and may soon add the European market to their list. They had a simple, good idea that needed a lot of R&D to commercialise, and of course, gain regulatory approval.

So it is important to understand that there is no one-size-fits-all philosophy in terms of successful innovation. The one constant is that you have to be open to change and new points of view. Innovation is continuous.

Successful innovators and entrepreneurs all embrace change and the risks that they pose. In fact, innovation is the poster child of the mantra that there are no rules. Only by trying out new things, by failing, by discovering what works and what doesn’t, do you gain answers to the innovation question.

Management as a Wicked Problem | the problem space evolves as you progress into the solution space.

I have mulled over this post by Thierry de Baillon and Ralph Ohr for some time - see :  Business Model Innovation as Wicked Problem | Sonnez en cas d'absence

It highlights for me the importance need for managers to understand emergence and complexity.The article (and accompanying material) is well worth a thorough read!!

The post states:

An ever increasing pace of change leads to a decrease in life time of operating business models. Companies are therefore forced to reinvent themselves more frequently by creating new business models. Entering new businesses through open business model innovation exhibits a wicked problem structure. In order to properly address those problems, companies have to follow emergent strategies and need to put decentralized, self-organizing structures in place. Social business brings an answer to the urgent necessity to successfully tackle corporate reinvention and to enhance strategic adaptability by connecting individual human stakeholders.


A critical issues, as pointed out by Thierry de Baillon is that the problem space evolves as you progress into the solution space.

It is no longer appropriate to put a business model in place and follow it slavishly: rather it needs to be dynamic and adaptive to emerging trends/activities/reactions.

What fears are holding you back? Luck is when preparation and opportunity collide

Sometimes I am bemused by coincidences.  Having announced two days ago that I will be steeping down from my present job early next year, I was attracted to a brief mention of a blog post I would ordinarily have missed.  But, a post by The Savvy Intern by YouTern jumped out at me - a reminder that we should not fear rule your life or career.

Was it a coincidence?  I doubt it.  More likely the post had passed my sight, but I remained unconscious to it until this time when I was "prepared" for it.  

Some people are often described as lucky, because they "get the breaks" before others, or "they always seem to be in the right place at the right time".  That's not the way it happens - more often than not they will have been reflecting on what is happening around them, they will have thought deeply about what they want to do, and to achieve, they are looking for the breaks - so they see the opportunities more clearly and quicker than others.  That's the essence of luck...been prepared so you can see the opportunities.  Are you ready?

And the blog itself.....  here is a snippet.

What fears are holding you back from going after the job or life, that you want? Being more concerned with what other people think about our choices or our actions, is strange – why would someone else’s internal thoughts be more important than honoring our own desires? It sounds odd when laid out like that, huh?

Read the full post here, it is good: Don't Let Fear Rule your Life and Career   

I understand that Melissa Anzman (@mellymelanz) is the author of the post.  She has a great website on redefining your career.  Go and have a look at Loosen Your White Collar. Fall in Love with your Job (Again)  

There are no magic bullets when it comes to feeding a projected world of 9 billion by 2050

When I was studying agricultural science in the University of Melbourne in the early 1970s we all held the belief that we were well on the way to achieving a food secure world.  What became commonly known as the Green Revolution was happening around us, international agricultural R&D aid was expanding to support developing countries and a strong “post-agricultural” mind-set was emerging as the mantra for economic decision-making in developed countries.  On this latter point, there was strong support emerging for the contention that agriculture was a “sunset” industry. Food security all but disappeared from the public eye.

But the need to continue to achieve food security didn’t really go away – it merely fell off the radar. Undoubtedly, it is back now as a pressing global issue – the radar screen is full of reports, academic papers, publications, and social media and press activities.  There is a lot of “noise” in a cluttered space making it difficult for most people to comprehend, and leaving the topic ripe for over-simplifications.  Thus, much of the comment getting into the public domain has an element of “this is THE solution”.  And it would be nice to have a magic bullet to solve world hunger, malnutrition and feed a future population of 9 billion.

Food security, however, is a complex problem and “there are no magic bullets”(i).

In his recent book, One Billion Hungry, Gordon Conway provides a compelling and accessible analysis of the acute and chronic crises at the heart of the food security problem.  He presents an optimistic, but cautious, view that the world can feed 9 billion people.  It is a book deserving of a wide readership and an even wider public discussion.   

In the final chapter, Conway lists 24 qualifications to his contention that, yes, we can feed the world.  I list these below...and urge you to read the book to gain a fuller understanding of the complex challenge we face across the world.

We can feed the world if:

1. We recognise food security affects us all and the time to act is now
2. We acknowledge the challenges we face are unprecedented and require concerted action
3. The world’s leading donors of aid implement their commitments to food security
4. The Doha Round is completed with satisfactory outcomes for developing countries
5. There is explicit attention to the creation of enabling environments
6. The appropriate governance for food security and agricultural development is in place
7. Fair, efficient output and input markets are created on a countrywide basis
8. Greater attention is paid to gaining increased value for farmers through producer associations and widespread availability of micro-insurance and microcredit
9. We acknowledge the key role of agriculture in development
10. We recognize the need for a new doubly  green revolution
11. There is explicit recognition of the critical role of smallholder agriculture
12. More attention is paid to agroecological research and development
13. There is a major focus on getting poor rural people out of poverty
14. Technologies for agricultural development are developed and applied, providing they are locally appropriate, whatever the source
15. We accept that biotechnology is an essential tool in attaining food security
16. There is more funding for improving mixed livestock systems
17. We recognise the role of farmers as innovators
18. There is increased support for integrated pest management systems
19. There is widespread adoption, in appropriate environment, of systems of conservation farming.
20. We focus our investments on small-scale water harvesting and community water
21. There is significant investment in agricultural adaption to climate change
22. There is urgent attention to financing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture
23. We invest in scaling up as a route to rapid success
24. We recognize that public-private-community partnerships are crucial to successful scale-up.

There are no magic bullets…. (p 347)

i.      Gordon Conway with Katy Wilson (2012) One Billion Hungry : Can we feed the world?  Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press; Itacha and London.  ISBN 978-0-8014-7082-4 (pbk)

Success is harder to handle than failure.

Holding organisations together when all is going well is not an easy task.  When all is going well you can inadvertently wander away from core business. Success bring a certain amount of freedom to explore, and can lead to complacency and slowness to respond to circumstances. Success is not often something for which we prepare. 

It is in that context that we can ask:

Why have so many seemingly successful companies failed in recent years?  Why is there widespread anxiety over company/organisational leadership?  Why are so many countries questioning the quality and effectiveness of their political leadership?

Is it a lack of preparedness?  Is it an inability to cope with success?  Have we even thought about what success is?

The following examines some issues relating to responsibility, ethics and power in leadership.  I have drawn on some older material to help my reflection, and suggest that we seldom consider how we should prepare for success as a precursor to good performance.  None of this is new, but has it been forgotten?

Leadership has been described as a serious meddling in the lives of others (De Pree, 1991:7).  This implies that leadership embodies a responsibility of leaders for, or toward, those who are led. 

Yet a common scenario in modern business (since the late 1980s) is:

... good, respected and successful leaders, men and women of intelligence, talent, and vision who suddenly self-destruct as they reach the apex of their careers.  (Ludwig and Longenecker, 1993:266).

An Australian newspaper article from that time (Barker, 1995:14) reported that a concern for ethics in business is:

... a response to what is now called “ the excesses of the eighties” - the economic damage done to the nation and individuals by greedy, irresponsible and often corrupt business people who were feted as national heroes.

Ethics in management is a significant theme in the recent.  But why is it that leaders get caught up in a downward spiral of unethical decisions?

Ludwig and Longenecker (1993:266-267) seek to:

... debunk the notion that ethical failure of our leaders is largely due to lack of principle and/or the tough competitive climate of the 80s and 90s. (Equally, we could say the same for the more recent past)  Rather, we would like to suggest that many of the violations we have witnessed in recent years are the result of success and lack of preparedness in dealing with personal and organisational success.

Other evidence (Barker, 1995; LaBier ,1986) supports this contention that little attention is placed on preparing people to deal with the trials and dilemmas associated with success in modern society.  As success is the goal of every leader (Ludwig and Longenecker, 1993:270) it is surprising that it does not rate more significance in management and leadership literature.

The biblical story of David and Bathsheba is used to outline four potential by-products of success:

·      lose of strategic focus;

·      privileged access;

·      control of resources;

·      inflated belief in personal ability to control outcomes.

Ludwig and Longenecker (1993:267-269) write that “... the good and successful King David of Israel, believing he could cover up his impropriety, took Bathsheba to his bed while her husband was off in battle.” 

David is not where he is supposed to be (loss of strategic focus), he “delegated, then ignored what was happening”.  David had time on his hands, and a viewing position atop the palace roof to view Bathsheba at bath (privileged access).  David then manipulates the situations (controls resources, and tries to control outcomes) sleeps with Bathsheba who falls pregnant, brings her husband in from battle in the hope he will sleep with his wife and cover-up David’s impropriety, and eventually causes the husband to be killed.  The manipulation is exposed.  “David, in short, chose to do something he knew was clearly wrong in the firm belief that through his personal power, and control over power, he could cover up”.

When kept within reason, privileged access and control of resources are positive and justified requisites for success.  Privileged access is “essential for comprehensive strategic vision” and control of resources is “necessary for the execution of strategy” (Ludwig and Longenecker, 1993:269).  Loss of strategic focus and inflated belief in personal ability are essentially negative (see Table 3)

Table 3:  Possible outcome experienced by successful leaders

	Positive/Benefit	Negative/Disadvantage
Personal Level	Privileged Access Position Influence Status Rewards/Perks Recognition Latitude Associations Access	Inflated Belief in Personal Ability Emotionally Expansive Unbalanced Personal Life Inflated Ego Isolation Stress Transference Emptiness Fear of Failure
Organisational Level	Control of Resources No Direct Supervision Ability to Influence Ability to set Agenda Control over Decision Making	Loss of Strategic Focus Organisation on Autopilot Delegation without Supervision Strategic Complacency Neglect of Strategy

                                                                                (Source: Ludwig and Longenecker, 1993: 270)

The benefits of success to the leader and the organisation are obvious.  Less readily apparent is the personal “dark side” of success which revolves largely around three psychological issues outlined by Ludwig and Longenecker (1993:270-271).  These are:

·      Climbing the success ladder exposes leaders to negative attitudes and behaviours.  There may not be apparent, but nonetheless come with the territory of successful leadership.  Negatives that could be reinforced include unbalanced personal lives, a loss of touch with reality and an inflated sense of personal ability.

·      Leaders may become emotionally expansive - “their appetite for success, thrills, gratification, and control becomes insatiable”.  They can lose the ability to be satisfied.  They can become personally isolated and lack intimacy with family and friends, losing a valuable source of personal balance.  They “literally lose touch with reality”.

·      Other factors include stress, fear of failure and the “emptiness syndrome” (“Is this all there is to success?”)  An inflated sense of ego can lead to abrasiveness, close-mindedness and disrespect.

Success does not necessarily lead to undesired behaviour as Ludwig and Longenecker (1991:271) are careful to record:

We are not suggesting that all successful leaders fall prey to these negatives that are frequently associated with success, but rather want to make the case that success can bring with it some very negative emotional baggage.

However, it is useful to recognise the seven lessons from David’s experience (Ludwig and Longenecker, 1991:271) provide a useful framework for reflection:

•  Leaders are in their positions to focus on doing what is right for their organisation’s short-term and long-term success.  This can't happen if they aren't where they are supposed to be, doing what they are supposed to be doing.

• There will always be temptations that come in a variety of shapes and forms that will tempt leaders to make decisions they know they shouldn't make.  With success will come additional ethical trials.  

• Perpetrating an unethical act is a personal, conscious choice on the part of the leader that frequently places a greater emphasis on personal gratification rather than on the organisation’s needs.

• It is difficult if not impossible to partake in unethical behaviour without implicating and/or involving others in the organisation

• Attempts to cover-up unethical practices can have dire organisational consequences including innocent people getting hurt, power being abused, trust being violated, other individuals being corrupted, and the diversion of needed resources.

• Not getting caught initially can produce self-delusion and increase the likelihood of future unethical behaviour.

• Getting caught can destroy the leader, the organisation, innocent people, and everything the leader has spent his/her life working for.”

The important lessons for Ludwig and Longenecker (1992:272) is for leaders to recognise it could happen to them, and to be aware that:

Ethical leadership is simply part of good leadership and requires focus, the appropriate use of resources, trust, effective decision making, and provision of model behaviour that is worth following.  Once it is lost it is difficult if not impossible to regain.

Further Reading

Barker G (1995)  The glove that tempers the iron fist.  The Australian Financial Review Magazine. July. pp.14-21

Burdett  J O (1991)  What is empowerment anyway?  Journal of European Industrial Training. 15(6):23-30

De Pree M O (1989)  Leadership is an Art.   Melbourne: Australian Business Library, Information Australia.

De Pree M O (1991)  Leadership Jazz.  Melbourne: Australian Business Library, Information Australia.

Eisler R (1995)  From domination to partnership: The hidden subtext for organisation change.  Training & Development 49(2):32-39

LaBier D (1986)  Modern Madness: The Emotional Fallout of Success.  Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Ludwig D C and Longenecker C O (1993)  The Bathsheba syndrome: the ethical failure of successful leaders. Journal of Business Ethics 12(4):265-273

Peace W H (1991)  The hard work of being a soft manager.  Harvard Business Review. 69(6):40-42,46-47