Your Brain’s Wiring Can Invisibly Stimulate or Kill Innovation

Why some organizations are dynamic and others are stagnant

Nov 06, 2023

Many years ago, a Yoga teacher told me that, “you can never see where you are.” The way it was explained to me at the time was that by the time my brain recognized where I am, time has moved on from where I was, and I am now somewhere else in space and time. What I perceive as reality is actually a delayed feed, so to speak. The physical scientist in me accepted this explanation and I never thought otherwise about it.

As I learned about topics such as communication filters and the need for consistency, I started to believe that the statement is also true due to the influences of our brain’s wiring. When our listening filters and need for consistency are working together to reinforce what we already believe to be true, it is very difficult for us to see how our situation actually appears to an objective observer. When leaders do not see that the marketplace reality forming around them does not match their ingrained beliefs, they will make choices out of step with reality and can become footnotes in business history. Think Kodak, Xerox, Kmart, Sears, Borders, etc.

man and woman smiling while laying on lawn field — Photo by Sam McNamara on Unsplash

It is now a fairly accepted belief that teams with diverse viewpoints tend to make better choices.1 Experienced executives will often hire consultants to offer a fresh perspective on their organization’s problems. Therapists who are excellent at treating others have a difficult time analyzing their own emotional situation and struggles, so they see a therapist themselves.

They seem to understand what my Yoga teacher was talking about and look for an outsider’s perspective when making important decisions, although sometimes their personal beliefs are so strongly entrenched, that they may pay the consultants, listen to their analysis and recommendations, and then shelf the report to collect dust. After all, “The decisions we have made so far got us here, right? Why would we distrust ourselves and change now?” Yep. Seen it happen more than once.

The need for consistency (to appear as a trustworthy member of the tribe or culture) is an important part of our brain’s basic wiring. The implications of this need are that it might be a little precarious to act or appear to think in ways that stretch the boundaries of acceptability past what is historically within the tribe’s change boundaries. I have sat in on many planning meetings and seen the need for consistency at play. Thoughts and recommendations will flow around the meeting with few making a major leap beyond an acceptable range.

If an idea is “way out there” it is likely to be met with a silence followed by a comment such as “that is interesting and let’s take it up later on.” It has become clear to me over the years that companies talk about wanting their folks to be “innovative”, but they really mean not “too innovative.” If you consistently push the envelope in an organization, your actions may be met with resistance and over time with rejection of the ideas and perhaps of the person. This depends on the culture, by the way. More on that next week.

In one of my Silicon Valley positions, I was asked to develop an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) strategy for our product line.2 After much reading, research, marketplace investigation, and discussion with others, I formulated a plan whereby we would license our company’s underlying technology, providing a common interface to our network upon which other companies could develop their own desktop station products. We would be paid a technology licensing fee in addition to the purchase price of the background equipment upon which the second vendor’s products would function. I really believed in the approach and enthusiastically presented it to my executive management. It was met with one of those deafening silences. After a few moments, one of the executives said it was “the most ridiculous idea he had seen” and that I “clearly did not understand the industry at all.” They then asked me to leave the meeting.

Dejected, I went back to my desk wondering why they had not seen the opportunity the same way I did. I wondered what would have happened if they had at least considered my idea. Well, I found out a few years later when the founder of another Silicon Valley startup presented to our Executive MBA Group at the University of Texas at Austin. As he described his company’s offering, which had been explosively successful, I realized that his business idea was basically the OEM plan that my prior company leadership had rejected. After the presentation, I introduced myself to him, explained who I was, and told him the story of what had happened with my OEM plan. He listened intently to the story, after which he smiled and said, “I’m glad they didn’t listen!”

We both knew that if the leaders had adopted my OEM plan, my prior company would likely have had the explosive success that his company had seen, and his company probably would never have been started. I felt a little vindicated, I suppose, but mostly I was disappointed that my prior startup management had not at least seriously considered the idea. If they had, we may have realized the full potential of our product in the marketplace, along with the success that would have come to the founders, employees, customers, and other stakeholders.

woman in black long sleeve shirt using macbook — Photo by Magnet.me on Unsplash

When I think back on my OEM idea presentation to management, I realize now that I did not fully appreciate how deeply entrenched their thinking was with respect to the industry culture of the time. Instead of making a presentation that gradually took them from their current level of thinking to a new level, I just dropped the idea on them expecting them to “just get it” which clearly did not work. The idea was a good one, and the rationale was sound (as shown by the presenter’s company’s success), but they just weren’t ready for it. I now believe that their reaction was due in part to filters and consistency. Their filters were looking for an OEM plan that was like what they had seen before (perception filter) which must include our desktop station hardware of which everyone was very proud (consistency).

Instead, I was saying to forget about the station hardware and focus on the underlying technology, running afoul of both their filter and consistency expectations. It would be like going to a movie expecting to see Kevin Costner and instead getting Kevin Hart. Kevin Hart could do a great job in his role, but if I am always comparing him to Kevin Costner, I will likely be disappointed in Mr. Hart’s performance. He was simply not what I was expecting. I would have to fully let go of my prior expectations so that I could judge his performance on its own merits.

It is difficult to break through the consistency and communication filter bonds, even in our own heads, but it is critical for organizations to develop an approach that does not stifle innovation. If leaders surround themselves with people who look, act, and think like them, then it shouldn’t be any wonder that the choices and decisions made from top to bottom within the organization, good and bad, look just like the one’s the leaders would have made. If the leaders are on target, then the organization can succeed. But if the leaders become out of step with their marketplace trends, they may find themselves fighting to survive in an otherwise growing market that they once led. Their fall from market leader to survival may in large part be the result of not listening to anyone who challenged their established ways of thinking and listening.

This limiting approach allows leaders to hear what they want to hear which consistently reinforces the correctness of what they already believe. It can be difficult for alternate viewpoints to be heard, much less considered, even when the leaders hire the consultants themselves. They don’t want to hear it.

I have a saying that, “When a company starts to believe its own advertising it should beware.” What I mean is that when we start to believe all of the good things that we say about ourselves as being fact, we may tend to ignore the blemishes that are part of reality and, if not tended, can become fatal flaws. Finding balance between self-confidence and mild paranoia is a process of continual learning.

Next time we will talk about different types of innovation and organizational culture, and how they are influenced by filters and consistency.

I am honored that you stopped by and promise to make each post as valuable as possible.

IF YOU LIKE WHAT YOU READ, then please click the Subscribe Now button to be notified automatically when something new is posted. Don’t miss out on something that could be helpful simply because you forgot to visit my newsletter site.

FOR SUBSCRIBERS

BizDoctor's Gazebo

Discussion about this post