Scott Berkun

Innovation by firing people

In these recessionary times it might seem cruel to bring this up, but if the goal is to be more creative, or to up the odds new ideas become products, the easiest move is is to get people out of the room. Either take away their power, or get them off the team, but reduce the number of people in rooms where decisions are being made.

The most common bottleneck by far to progress in the middle ranks of corporate America is too many people in the room. Especially too many people with the power to veto – lower the number of people with veto power and more change will happen all on its own, especially if you pick risk takers and mavericks as the ones to leave alone. Ever feel your meetings are too slow? Arguments go on for too long? Rethink your invite list. Why do so many have to have a say on so many things if their feedback is often so uninspired? So hard to get? Pick the least useful people and make their power over creative decisions match their usefulness.

Often referred to as Too many cooks, no matter how smart the people are, if they all think they are the main creative force for the project and insist on fighting for their own vision, there is no alternative to throwing some of them out of the kitchen. Start-ups thrive in part because there are way more decisions to be made than people, granting individuals tons of autonomy. When there are 10 decisions to be made, but only 2 people, there’s little motivation to fight over decision making power. But when a company grows and the ratio of people to decisions runs the other way (2 decisions to be made by 10 people), the thriving ends and the bureaucratic misery begins.

When I was at Microsoft (‘94-’03) the biggest inhibitor to innovation was too much democracy. Hard to believe, but it’s true. There is a long history of internal projects with great ideas that never made it out of Redmond – they were killed by the culture of rough consensus. If a handful of middle managers couldn’t achieve rough consensus on your idea, your project got thrown into the closet. Grand ideas are often divisive, and a rough consensus decision making system will kill them. Many companies I’ve visited over the last five years suffer from the same pattern of behavior. They mistakenly believe the problem is the quality of ideas, when in fact the problem is the conservative psychology inherent in democracy. Pure democracy is not the political system that will create the most change – it’s a system geared for stability, not for innovation.

I’ve seen many great designers, engineers, and even managers hired in to well known companies, who prototype great things, and propose grand ideas, but watch in slow despair as the corporate culture’s insistence on letting everyone have their say watered their ideas down into mediocre, barely recognizable, intellectual sludge. You could throw a Johnathan Ives, a Rem Koolhaas, or a Will Wright, into most of corporate America and the output of those companies would barely change.

Some would argue this is by design – consistently mediocre is better than what many companies produce, and it can be enough to be a market leader (Look around: the best selling music, food, or software is unlikely to be considered the best by anyone in that field). And that’s fine: success and creativity are two related but different things. However if you ask for more innovation without changing the authority structure, I’ll call you crazy. Consensus is prone to slamming on the brakes – Autocracy is prone to putting the pedal to the metal.

The secret for Microsoft and many companies is to shift the pendulum of authority two notches away from democracy and towards autocracy. I’m not saying create a tyrany – don’t go all the way – but do identify the creative leaders and give them leadership power based on those talents. To be a VP, or a General manager depends on political acumen, not creative insights, despite how the hubris of power muddles the distinction. If instead a VP or GM grants the best creative mind on the team license to lead, and rallies the majority of the team to accept the role of followers, the rate of positive change will always rise. Look to the autocratic models of building architecture, film making, and pop music – one or two creative minds are granted huge amounts of authority, disproportionate to the corporate hierarchy.

So when in doubt – look around the room. If your team is flailing or struggling to resolve a creative decision, create more autocracy. Either get the dead weight out of the room, or pick the person in the you as the leader believe has the best perspective and grant them your authority – let them make the call. If you can’t change the balance of power by any other means, thin the herd. If you have no other alternative, pink slips might be the best thing for everyone involved: the talent you fire may find, or create, the autonomy they deserve elsewhere. But either way, do what you can to give the creative minds in your world the autonomy they need to thrive.

• Posted Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 10:48 pm


• in Innovation, Management, Microsoft, creative thinking | 9 Comments » |