Is your leadership hurting your organization?

In my work, I enjoy looking for opportunities where not only can I make impact, but where I can also learn from others. In pondering such an opportunity, I found a great article in Inc magazine that had me thinking about the views that people have around leadership.

In the article, 4 key signs of leadership failure are discussed. Read the article and feel free to share your opinion and let me know if you agree or disagree.

My quick take, however is to look at it a different way, the way attributed to Raph Nader "The function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers."

It's a simple, but powerful statement if you think about it. If you produce more leaders, you need to do several things:

• Provides examples of good leadership
• Give people the chance to develop leadership skills
• Operate in an environment of respect (if you believe leaders deserve respect)
• Have a definition of success or at least of what successful leader is

This seems self-evident to me, however I realized that others may not see it that way, and it does matter from your frame of reference. If you subscribe to the method of leadership that states that fear drives people and that great leaders should be feared, than we would be at odds.

That said, I would challenge the leadership by fear believers to compare the market growth and market capitaliation of leadership by fear regimes to those based-on developing a culture of leaders. My non-scientific counting on fingers had the fear-based technique as non-scaleable and leading to low to negative growth.

What kind of innovator are you?

In Silicon Valley, I hear the “innovation” term tossed around left and right, almost as if being innovative was the key to success or a cure for common pickup line. In my mind, innovation has a more definitive and structured meaning that has developed from brinigng new products to market, striking business deals, and crafting patents.

For structural purposes, crafting patents has probably been the most helpful in formulating what innovation means to me and how I explain it. When crafting patents, there are a number of ‘tests’ I try to apply when determining if something is patentable:

• Is it new?
• Is it unique?
• Does it solve a problem?

The 4th test - can it be created by someone normally skilled in the art, is less important for this discussion. Also, to avoid the flame wars around the value of patents, this is not a discussion about patents, but my view on how patent development can provide a potential framework for looking at innovation.

Unfortunately, much of the innovation I hear about fills only #1 and #2 above. Too often, someone will claim a product or service is an innovation because it’s new or different. Yes, a product that auto-tunes any speech to a Rick Astley song might be innovative, but does it really matter? Similarly, a toaster that burns images of religious figures on bread could be called an innovation, but really, is it worth bragging about? These are indeed product innovations, but more for fun.

How would the above compare to a system that tracks eye focus and viewable angle of advertisements in online-games to create an awareness and exposure index for advertising value optimization? How about a contract term where non-payment for 30 days automatically triggers a system audit and daily compounding increased licensing fees until partial payment of >50% of past balances is made and cleared by the bank? These service and contract innovations have a distinct business undertone.

The first two wacky ideas above (one of which I know exists) are indeed innovative, but may not provide lasting or long term value. The next two examples are much more narrow and esoteric, but have implications for long-term advertising and/or licensing structures. This subtlety leads to my main point here - innovation as a term is widely used and abused and lacks distinct meaning.

So while I do think that auto-tuning to Rick Astley is a type of fun and cool innovation, I prefer the longer-term economic value of innovation of the advertising awareness and exposure index. Neither is right or wrong, both are innovations, but be mindful of the mindset of the listener when you discuss innovation. If you and your reader have different definitions of innovation, you could be speaking entirely different languages.

Disclaimer: The “advertising awareness and exposure index” comes from a patent I drafted that was abandoned in 2002 when resource was not available to put the invention into practice. Yes, I know, I kick myself with 20/20 hindsight that it might have been valuable.