Do you Survive like a Cockroach or Thrive with the Best?

"Survival of the fittest is not the same as survival of the best" was the quote that called to me from a recent article on MyVenturePad. It was such a nice and simple way to rethink the phrase "be a survivor". I've seen many co-workers give that recommendation to team members, telling colleagues to be a survivor and keep their heads low when times get tough. As the article continues "A cockroach is one of the most adaptable creatures on the planet. That's survival of the fittest. Do we want our organizations led by cockroaches?"

Seeing this statement made me think about Charlene Li's latest book, "Open Leadership", where she discusses leaders who, instead of sticking their heads in the sand when times get tough, take risks, innovate, and basically try something new to move their companies forward. While what she discusses makes sense and all employees should advocate for the company good, I'll contrast that attitude with other companies I've worked at.  I've seen senior managers instruct subordinates to "just do your job" and "don't take any risks", when in fact, it was the fear of getting fired and a blind adherence to tradition that insured that the company couldn't keep a leadership position even if it fell into one. One company I know was a leader in small router technology, but the founder had a policy of locking up all source code each night for IP protection. No one stole source code, but no development happened after hours or when the founder wasn't there, and, most importantly, no engineer dared to experiment with new ideas w/o the CEO's express approval. While that company is still in business today with decent technology, it's no longer considered a technology leader and rarely mentioned in discussions in SME router RFPs.


Maybe it's not the individuals at fault who want to survive, maybe it's the culture of the company that ushers employees into that mindset. If the company has a culture of fear stemming from firing anyone who takes risks or suggests products or services that might push the corporate comfort zone, then a culture of risk averse employees will be the ones who are hired and stay at the company - surviving until the a better competitor puts them out of business. On the other hand, if the company is willing to consider risks and learning from potential failings, then employees will feel comfortable pushing envelopes and boundaries where the next great product or service might be found. At one company I worked for, the 3D Avatar with stereo sound technology the company had was held at arms length, with most of the company not acknowledging it or its potential. I had a soft spot for it since it was used by the Klingon Language Institute. Fortunately, my CEO, Larry Samuels, and a customer both saw the value in the technology, which allowed me to manage a business development OEM deal that not only generated $1M+ in revenue, but also led to a $5M+ round of financing.  Some people told me that if we hadn't made that deal, the company would have shut down. I prefer to think of the opportunity, and how taking that risk gave us more opportunities and learning that would never have happened if we had killed the 3D avatar and audio technology.

So you might see some optimism bias in my discussion, and yes I prefer to see the glass half-full. I also prefer to believe that businesses are not built on cockroaches who just survive, but on smart risk takers who find ways to thrive.

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.