Jeff Degraff's Blog, page 6

Could rule changes and safer equipment save football from itself?

I confess that I love football. I played it in high school. Some of my teammates went on to the college gridiron, and one of them even had a long career in the NFL. That’s the dream, isn’t it? Big plays and big money on Sunday. Well apparently things are changing these days, and with good reason.

John Urschel doesn’t really conform to the stereotype of a professional football player. Yes, he’s 6 foot 3 inches tall and 300 pounds, but he’s also a master chess player and currently pursuing a Ph.D. in mathematics at MIT. Recently, he made headlines when he retired at the ripe old age of 26 from a very lucrative career with the Baltimore Ravens. Why? Because he plans on using his brain the rest of his life.

According the New York Times, a recent study at Boston University found that out of 111 donated brains from deceased football players, 110 had chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, which is essentially permanent brain damage caused by repeated hits to the head. This changes the odds of a football player having a prolonged disability from possible to probable. So, how can innovation save this game that has become a beloved national pastime?

There are a number of creative ideas coming from all corners. Let’s divide them into three types: equipment innovations, diagnostic improvements, and rule changes.

One of the most interesting suggestions for equipment changes is to go back to the old leather helmets used in the 1930s and 40s. The rationale is that there were far fewer reported concussions then because the soft shell and lack of a face mask made it almost impossible to use the head as a weapon.

On the other side of the spectrum, there are efforts to make the helmet out of sophisticated composite materials. A high-tech Seattle company, VICIS, has created a space-age helmet that they call the Zero 1. It’s highly engineered and multilayered with a metal shell, somewhat similar to those worn by Formula One race car drivers. This solution underscores the severity of the impact that these on-field collisions produce.

Some sports have been pretty much saved by equipment improvements. Consider how NASCAR changed its specifications for vehicle design, race track configuration, and safety systems after superstar Dale Earnhardt was killed at the Daytona 500 in 2001. But this ethos doesn’t seem to apply to all sports.

There are significant innovations that are greatly aiding in the diagnosis of a brain injury. Sensors in the helmet can record and transmit impact data, and inexpensive smart phone apps for concussion recognition are commonly used by team trainers. But these innovations are useful only after the damage has already been done.

Finally, the rules of the game are changing at all levels. For example, using the head as a weapon is now a penalty. In college, it results in an ejection from the contest. In the NFL, it brings a fine and suspension. While big-time college and professional programs have the ability to review game video footage, many high schools and sandlot teams do not. It really comes down to the officials. Their training and their ability to control the conduct of the game matter.

John Urshel may be unique in his quantitative abilities, but not in his decision to leave football. Others have also recently quit the game in their so-called prime. NFL ratings are down, and participation in youth football is waning. I guess we’ll have to wait and see if football can take on an innovative new form in the future.

If not, what will we do with these gargantuan stadiums? And, please, please, please don’t say they will be used for the so-called “Beautiful Game.”

This article was originally published on The Next Idea.

Jeffism Video: When Nobody Wants Your Innovation

Watch Jeff explain what to do when nobody wants your innovation here.

Driving Innovation Through Shared Values

Conflict can be the spark that ignites innovation. There are four different type of innovators, and each brings his or her expertise (but also his or her weaknesses) to the table. Constructive conflict between this four points of view is the key to creating strong and lasting innovations. Today, we’ll discover the story of Mae, the Sage.

Mae loved to knit, but she didn’t like beautiful things. Elegant and chic were two words not in her vocabulary. “If you want something that’s in style, go to a store,” she joked when relatives and friends gave her their requests for tasteful scarves and fashionable hats. Her specialty was tastelessness. Homespun kitsch—the kind of sweaters people wear ironically to ugly sweater parties—those were Mae’s favorite pieces to make. She found beauty in the awful and was determined to share it with everyone she knew.

There was a sweet logic to Mae’s preference for the ugly: in her eyes, the aesthetics of knitting were an afterthought. It was the connections she made with others that she valued most about her favorite pastime. In over 30 years of knitting every day, Mae forgot many of her most hideous creations, but she never forgot any of the people she made them for.

A social worker who constantly went out of her way to help others, Mae made her passion communal. In her living room, she hosted all sorts of friends, acquaintances, friends of friends—anyone with the slightest connection to knitting, from veteran knitters, to eager beginners, to reluctant recipients of future ugly sweaters. At her gatherings, she did what she did best: knitted and talked. While she stitched away, she listened to other people’s problems, offered advice, and helped visitors find other people who might help them solve their problems. Mae created much more than too many ugly sweaters to count. Her house became a kind of community center where people could chat, meet others, unwind, recharge, find solace, and, of course, knit.

Like a child outgrowing her baby quilt, Mae’s weekly meetings got too large for her house. Eager to keep her at-home community center going, she looked around for other spaces. A nearby elementary school had recently become vacant. She’d heard rumors of an imminent demolition, so she went to the school board and asked if she could rent the space. Mae promised to keep the school in good condition and to pay a fee for the use of the space in return for the creation of an actual community center. The officials thought the idea was great and agreed to let Mae rent the space.

The knitting meet-up was only one of many regular activities at the new center. People of all ages, with interests of all kinds, showed up for a variety of programs, including open counseling groups and courses in painting, crafts, creative writing, and languages. Eventually, Mae let new teachers, mentors, and leaders run the center, and she enjoyed the facility as just another individual.

At the peak of the center’s popularity and success, Mae died. In the wake of her absence—a huge devastation to everyone in the community—the center thrived. Instead of falling apart, the members, who all had different skills and specialties, stepped up and carried on Mae’s legacy. The connoisseur of ugly had left behind a thing of surprising splendor.

A Compassionate Facilitator

Part connector, part listener, part counselor, Mae is a Sage for the ages, a mentor even to other mentors. In her radiant—indeed, contagious—warmth, she’s a shining example of this most compassionate of creative leaders. Her greatest qualities are the things that define Sages at the top of their games: persistence, empathy, and the desire, above all else, to be around, work with, and learn from both like-minded and totally different people. Sages are facilitators that put everyone they meet at ease. They attract people and bring them together, creating a family atmosphere and collaborative spirit.

Their charisma lies in their reserve, their willingness to let other people speak. Recall the way Mae gladly gave up her role heading up the community center once it got off the ground and she herself became an eager patron. Sages thrive on building a culture—defining the larger character and vision of the people they unite. They are the fundamental source of knowledge for the groups and teams they lead. They are the people who first develop the crucial competences and capabilities that endure for years or even lifetimes.

At the organizational level, the Sage companies are driven by their shared values—often by a desire to help others. They look for input from everyone within and without their ranks, from new and old employees, to consumers, to friends, and they welcome people of all kinds into their family. Think universities. Think Habitat for Humanity. Think Doctors Without Borders. This is a dynastic kind of innovation—a vision that gets passed down from generation to generation.

The Sage is one of the actors of innovation. To get the best out of your innovation project, don’t hesitate to use all the resources that are available to you. Do not avoid conflict, but embrace it, as it will allow you to see and understand how you can improve your processes and innovate in a way that you didn’t know was possible.

Excerpted from The Innovation Code by Jeff and Staney DeGraff (Berrett-Koehler Publishers August 7, 2017)

 

The Innovation Code is a rigorous but highly accessible guide for achieving breakthrough solutions by utilizing the full—and seemingly contradictory—spectrum of innovative thinking.

Learn More

Conflict Creates Innovation

Conflict doesn’t have to be a bad thing. In fact, conflict is the very force that will bring about the best outcome in almost any given innovation initiative. The only way to create unlikely yet groundbreaking, provocative, and winning solutions is to build a team that doesn’t agree—a team that challenges each other by combining deeply dissimilar worldviews.

Constructive conflict propels innovation at the personal and organizational level. There are four basic approaches to innovation: the Artist, who loves radical innovation; the Engineer, who constantly improves everything; the Athlete, who competes to develop the best innovation; and the Sage, who innovates through collaboration.

The disharmony between Artists and Engineers and the tension between Sages and Athletes correspond to the two different dynamics of innovation: magnitude and speed. When it comes to the magnitude—or the intensity—of an innovation, Artists drive Engineers to be more radical while Engineers rein in Artists, bringing some pragmatism to their visions. When it comes to the speed of an innovation, Sages slow Athletes down, encouraging them to build a culture that will last for generations, while Athletes keep the Sage’s head in the game, calling attention to quick wins and short-term strategy.

While these two forms of conflict are the fundamental dissonances that propel innovation and growth, it’s crucial that all four of the dominant worldviews interact with each other. The ideal team or organization contains Sages, Artists, Engineers, and Athletes. The key is not to strike a balance but to know when you need more or less of each approach.

Jeff DeGraff presents The Innovation Code

 

As an innovation leader, you will find it important to take an inside-out perspective in developing your team. First, look at your own skills and decide objectively where you think you might be incompetent. Give those kinds of tasks and responsibilities to another member of your team. Next, look at the areas where you are merely competent and assign these actions to other members of your team to supplement your own competency. Then, find the areas where you are masterful and choose a member of your team whom you can train as your understudy in those tasks. Finally, determine the areas in which you are unique—your one-of-a-kind gifts or skills. Here is the part of the innovation leadership proposition that you need to focus on. This is the way to maximize your own value to the team.

Teams are works in progress. They are dynamic groups that you need to add to and take away from as you move along in your project and see what you need more and less of. The same people who are great at starting a project are not the same people who are great at getting the project to scale.

Conflict is inevitable when you put such a wide variety of perspectives on one team—and that’s a good thing. The ugliest word in innovation is apathy. When an Engineer clashes with an Artist or an Athlete butts heads with a Sage, resist your impulse to bring about peace. Engage. Dwell in the conflict. See what happens when opponents push each other to their limits. For that is when the game-changing hybrid solutions you never could’ve foreseen on your own arise. The best hybrid solution is a temporary one. In solving the immediate conflict, it sets the stage for the next better conflict. Like a boxing match with infinite rounds of ever-escalating intensity, innovation is a year-round sport.

Excerpted from The Innovation Code by Jeff and Staney DeGraff, Berrett-Koehler Publishers (August 2017)

 

The Innovation Code is a rigorous but highly accessible guide for achieving breakthrough solutions by utilizing the full—and seemingly contradictory—spectrum of innovative thinking.

Learn More

Dwelling in the Conflict

Behind some of the twentieth century’s most iconic love songs is a series of prolonged, tense, irreconcilable conflicts. In the writing room and the recording studio, John Lennon and Paul McCartney were everything their music wasn’t: disharmonious, discordant, hostile. As professional partners, their worldviews couldn’t have been more different. Lennon, the Artist, was the nonconformist, always looking for the next big thing. McCartney, the Engineer, sought beauty by embracing order. Far from putting their differences aside, the diametrically opposed geniuses dwelled in the conflict. They didn’t fake accord for the sake of a peaceful working relationship. They were competitive with one another and pushed and pulled each other as they cowrote albums that managed to alternately highlight their divergent gifts. They didn’t compromise. They didn’t give in to the other. They elevated each other through their conflict. In seven years of constructive conflict, they wrote close to 200 songs and released 13 albums. The two men who made irresistible, genre-defining art out of the simple wish to hold your lover’s hand might’ve, under all other circumstances, very well preferred to be apart from each other.

This kind of constructive conflict is crucial in any creation process—not just for the collaborative production of art but for any degree of innovation in your life or your organization. And you don’t need to be a once- (or twice-) in-a-millennium virtuoso to cultivate constructive conflict.

In fact, there are concrete steps you can take to generate positive deviance in your innovation initiative. This isn’t to say that they’re easy and always guaranteed to work. Quite the contrary: this is a complicated process that takes long periods of practice and failing to finally find success. Like playing a piano, dwelling in conflict is a skill you need to try and try doing over again to perfect. And, in the process, it will take you to uncomfortable places. But that’s a discomfort—like the conflict itself—that you can and should dwell in. The very impulse to innovate comes from a negative feeling, a form of dissatisfaction: you’re unhappy with the present and so you want to make it better and new. Harness that dissatisfaction and make it into productive energy. As you work through that dissatisfaction, the discomfort will get greater before it lessens; the mess will get bigger before it becomes manageable. Don’t try to tidily clean up the mess. Get deeper in it and follow these steps:

Assemble a diversity of perspectives
Engage in the conflict
Establish a shared goal or vision
Construct hybrid solutions

Start with Lennon, end with McCartney. Innovation happens in phases, and at every moment, one viewpoint is more important than the other. No one can be fully effective at all phases of innovation. It’s crucial that you understand when each worldview should be put first.

 

Jeff DeGraff presents The Innovation Code

 

In the beginning, the Artist is likely to be the most important contributor. Her divergent point of view looks to the future and opens new possibilities. This is the moment when the Engineer should contribute least, as she’s likely to eliminate the wow factor of an innovation because her mind always goes to practical concerns, asking what’s actually possible. At the tail end of an innovation, when you need to bring the project to scale, the Engineer steps in as the driving force as her expertise with process and reliability becomes most important, and her talent for tinkering and improving things is vital. By this point, an Artist will likely have lost interest and be searching for the next avant-garde thing.

In the middle stages, Sages and Athletes are invaluable. A Sage negotiates, gets buy-in, and pushes the innovation through the organization, while an Athlete keeps the project on track, hits all the success measures, and grows momentum. These two need each other. Without the Athlete, the Sage is too busy bringing everyone along to hit important milestones. Without the Sage, the Athlete plows through without any buy-in or support.

One of the most important things about leading and managing innovation is keeping the team flexible and realizing when the current team configuration no longer produces the constructive conflict you need. Some team members can also burn out or can no longer contribute because of other commitments or assignments. Keep your network wide and platoon players in and out as you need them. Do not be afraid to try different combinations of people. Learn what makes the team work and create some rules that you can use for the future.

All innovations end. There is a natural end to any creative lifecycle. Brian Epstein’s death precipitated the breakup of the Beatles. Without the glue that held the band together, the man who helped the guys work through their conflict and maintain their shared vision, the band’s demise became inevitable. John became increasingly unsatisfied with the production of his songs and found inspiration in Yoko instead. A true Engineer, Paul wanted to make sure that the band continued to make good financial decisions without Epstein. But when he wanted to bring in a different manager, the others refused. Paul and John could no longer collaborate on songs. The constructive conflict was no longer sustainable.

The next problem and the next agents of constructive conflict that will power its solution: that’s the innovation afterlife. The hope is that if you’ve successfully created a culture of constructive conflict, where positive deviance is an everyday norm and the teams of people who practice it are ever-changing, you’re already looking toward the future.

Excerpted from The Innovation Code by Jeff and Staney DeGraff, Berrett-Koehler Publishers (August 2017)

 

The Innovation Code is a rigorous but highly accessible guide for achieving breakthrough solutions by utilizing the full—and seemingly contradictory—spectrum of innovative thinking.

Learn More

Jeff-ism Video: See the Future First

Watch Jeff explain how to see the future first here.

Arguments Aren’t Bad for You, If You Know How to Disagree

Conflict is everywhere. On social media and late night television we see never-ending arguments about politics, religion, or generational gaps. What if these disagreements were productive?

Conflict is necessary for creativity and development; however, it has to be constructive. America was founded on combining old ways of thinking and producing something new. The idea isn’t to compromise, but to take the different perspectives and create hybrids. Constructive conflict could even resolve the seemingly elusive healthcare issue that has divided our nation.

There are two stages to harness constructive conflict successfully: rules and conversation.

Stage 1 is to establish the basic rules for differing parties to communicate. Expectations for the discussion must engender respect and esprit de corps. It is imperative that all parties are willing to work together towards a common purpose:

Use respectful language (no shouting or personal attacks)
Ensure information is readily available to all parties and verifiably accurate
Answer questions honestly
Develop a new solution
Respect basic human rights
Test and evaluate solutions by putting it into practice

Constructive conflict can be an engine for genius

Look closely and you will find constructive conflict where creative genius flourishes. For example, Saieh Hall, the University of Chicago has been the birthplace of a wide array of economic theories that have greatly influenced how the free world of meaningful commerce functions.

The Department of Economics has been home to 28 Nobel Laureates and has created an educational dynasty over the past century.  Famously competitive and contentious, every speech, research finding and published paper is an opportunity for disputation. But that’s what moves the field forward. Imaginative new theories are created and debated. Monetary policies, options, derivatives, and several other aspects of modern finance, for better or worse, are the inventions or improvements of the “Chicago Boys.” Thankfully, these days their ranks include women as well, because talent is prized above all.

Stage two to harness constructive conflict is an open conversation. The key is to treat the other parties as respected colleagues. Avoid debate since it leaves people in a reactive and judgmental position that will not be useful. Everyone needs to participate and develop new ideas; not compromise.  Each participant should answer the following questions in turn:

What results do you want to achieve?
What result do you want to avoid?

After listening to everyone’s answers, each participant should do the following:

Suggest a potential solution in detail
Evaluate the upside and downside of their potential solutions

Focus on potential improvement points to each solution. Everyone should have their solutions critiqued by both themselves and the other participants.  Cluster the similar positive and negative solutions. Looking for common themes and hot spots to work towards a hybrid solution.  The purpose is for ideas to mix together. Think of it like having a baby. Create something that is “ours,” not just “yours” or “mine.”

Collaborate to create a shared vision that encompasses the desired results everyone wishes to achieve and how to achieve them.  Run experiments and evaluate what works and what doesn’t.  Adjust and repeat as appropriate.  Diversity of thought is an essential characteristic of innovation, whether in pairs or communities, because it produces novel combinations and connections.

Constructive conflict has changed history

The world is moved by the creative power of constructive conflict. Consider how Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony not only had different strengths, but also very different ideas about how to achieve voting rights for women. Anthony was a committed leader and brilliant strategist, but frequently alienated potential supporters with her uncompromising approach. Stanton was a polished speaker, writer, and a natural community builder. With seemingly oppositional skill sets, the two women started the National Women’s Suffrage Association, which eventually led to the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, giving women the vote. Their shared goals and ability to creatively channel their conflicting approaches constructively, made it possible for them to change history.

Look for people who are different, not the same

The people we befriend, listen to, or enlist in our latest venture usually, reinforce our beliefs.  Innovation is a form of useful novelty. It’s the opposite of “normal”.  For new ideas, you must first encounter and engage with people who are “different.” Of course, not all conflict can be made constructive, but with each attempt to create new and imaginative hybrid solutions, we can move forward together.

 

This article originally appeared on Lifehack.

Jeff-ism Video: Innovate Your Way to a Good Job

Watch Jeff explain how to innovate your way to a good job here.

Jeff-ism Video: How to Make Time for Your Biggest Ideas

Watch Jeff explain how to make time for your biggest ideas here.

Your Worldview Is Your Greatest Strength (But Also Your Greatest Weakness)

A worldview is more than a type or a style. It’s a collection of deeply held beliefs about how we interpret and experience the world. A dominant worldview is a comprehensive conception of the world from a specific standpoint. We derive these views from our personal experiences as well as the cultures in which we are socialized, for we are neither self-contained nor self-created. We exist as part of a larger community and system. Our dominant worldview may change over time as we experience new situations and become more self-aware of our own inclinations.

In revealing your greatest strength, your dominant world-view also reveals your greatest weakness. Furthermore, it considers how each kind of thinker and leader interacts with others, so you can determine the other people you need to surround yourself with most. The best innovation teams are like bands of superheroes: each member acknowledges and makes use of his or her gifts and talents, but they don’t let those superpowers limit them. They use them at the appropriate moments and then stand back and let their partners take over at other moments. There are four basic approaches to innovation: the Artist, who loves radical innovation; the Engineer, who constantly improves everything; the Athlete, who competes to develop the best innovation; and the Sage, who innovates through collaboration. These approaches come together to produce a positive tension, a constructive conflict that promotes sustainable and scalable growth.

When you combine the radical, visionary thinking of the Artist and the methodical, practical thinking of the Engineer, you get innovation that’s both revolutionary and manageable, highly ambitious but without high risk. When you combine the cutthroat, results-oriented attitude of the Athlete with the conscientious, values-oriented attitude of the Sage, you get innovation that’s both a good investment and good for the world.

In today’s snappy corporate speak, forms of creative leadership are like statement blazers or ultra low-rise jeans: they’re either in or they’re out. Every year, the most popular business magazines claim that a certain type of person is the most innovative of the moment. This month, it might be the triumph of the technological guru. In the fall, it might be the rise of the artistic genius. Pundits treat innovation strategies as if they were fashion trends, hot during one season, only to become passé the next.

The truth is that dominant worldviews are more than just catchy buzzwords on a glossy list. There is no single approach to innovation that will always come out on top. There is no over-riding trend you can rely on. Rather, knowing which kinds of leaders to bring to your project is about knowing all the things you can’t do yourself.

Excerpted from The Innovation Code by Jeff and Staney DeGraff (Berrett-Koehler Publishers August 7, 2017)

 

Innovation requires creativity, discipline and work. The Innovation Code is the perfect tool to discover the secrets to get the most out of your innovative process and learn how to best approach innovation.