The Pros and Cons of Specialization - Be Wary!

I've been a long-time fan of science fiction author Robert Heinlein. His observation on specialization, and that it's for insects and not
humans, often comes to mind as I reflect on recent events. I think it's worth keeping in mind and recognize what specialization can and can not do for you.

In general I believe specialization is a good thing. How far you take your particular specialty is entirely dependent on where it is you want to go. Simply stated, a marine biologist who is more than happy to study and teach about the inner workings of single celled animals in the Mississippi Delta for the majority of their life is an extreme example of specialization. This isn't a fictitious example - I know of such a person. This individual has a passion for discovery and finds that one lifetime is probably inadequate to uncover all the mysteries and make sens of them for the world. This individual might not have any strong desires to branch out into other areas of biology, and is perfectly comfortable with their scope of study.

Consider the business world however and the above example. The above type of specialty is dangerous if to much time is spent on it in the course of a career where the ultimate goal is to lead. Or, be given the opportunity to use their skills and acumen in other areas. Such focused specialty is almost doomed to confine the individual to a very narrow band of growth potential.

In reality there is nothing inherently wrong with focused specialty, but one should be aware that it can happen quite naturally without the individual realizing it. Then later, years passed, the individual could find himself limited in the opportunities available to him. I know of such individuals. One manager I know got exactly what he wanted, a prestigious position managing a large organization. The problem he has now is he has no where to go. He's reached his pinacle in his field and isn't recognized for anything else but leading a certain type of organization. Furthermore his management skills and capabilities fall short of what one would expect from an enterprise leader because what got him to where he is was solely due to technical competence, not leadership competence. He's socially incapable of engaging with colleagues and building trust. So he's limited in that he doesn't have followers and isn't recognized in his field as a true leader other than in the purely technical sense.

My message to you is to be wary of specialization. What Heinlein really meant with his idea is that specialization is a quick path to extinction, or in the business sense, irrelevance. In my view a generalist with certain strengths in specialties is probably the better route if you want to be considered for roles of greater responsibility and diversity.

I believe you can focus and explore a specialty and also develop a broader set of expertise and capabilities. Doing both, not only can win you rewards and opportunities in the short term, it can set you up to be able to exploit diverse opportunities in the future.

Add curiosity to your cultural transformation - start with your kids!

I've been a long time fan of Seth Godin. I often refer to his ideas on what society should be doing with our young minds - teaching them how to be leaders and solve interesting problems.

I'd like to add one additional criteria and that is to teach them to embrace and live with curiosity. I don't believe our educational system is doing a good job of this.

In our household we have a wide band of ages from 11, 17 and 23. Yes the 23 year old should be out on his own but that's a story for another day. The lack of curiosity is never more apparent in the 17 and 23 year old. They meander through their lives like cows grazing in a field. When life throws an obstacle at them they just collide with it like being hit by a large wave, fall down and ever so slowly right themselves. If they're lucky they manage to stay up for a bit before the next wave hits.

The 11 year old still has an element of that curiosity we've all been annoyed by from children forever asking why, why, why? I do see however change happening in her as the environment and people around her conspire to mold her into another consumer-producer.

I was much the same as a teenager. I can even recall when a particular high school teacher actually tried to stir up a level of curiosity in us during class. We would sit there like inanimate statues, every one of us afraid to openly discuss ideas for fear of looking either way too smart or way to ignorant. I recall even feeling sorry for that teacher - he really tried. Classrooms with 25 or more highly hormonal adolescents are probably not the right environments to instill the behaviors I've come to value. It's going to take parents who have a passion for this stuff and a willingness to impart these ideas to their children as they mature.

Ultimately it's curiosity that will be at the core of an effective leader and of course someone devoted to solving interesting problems. That's what I want for my daughter - a life filled with curiosity observable as achievements, and people who come to follow her as a leader no matter what she is doing. I recognize I have some work to do on her behalf.

Discared the Box and Build Bridges Instead

Traditionally I've come to recognize that some leaders manage their direct reports in a way that leaves lots of potential on the shelf and individual colleagues under-utilized. I'm referring to an individual manager's style of motivation. Are they Prevention Focused or Promotion Focused? (Reference below)

I would argue that organizational fit has more to do with the manager's style and the match or mismatch to that of his or her direct reports than any other factor alone. When you manage colleagues and consciously, or unconsciously, characterize them as to their fit within the organization, you are essentially creating a box. Within the box is acceptable, outside of the box is not. Being inside the box means the colleague thinks, behaves (or obeys) and shares the same passions for work as you do. What motivates you and that colleague are generally the same.

The problem then is when the colleague is only 50% within your box, or worse, only 25%. As a leader that continues to manage the colleague as if they are squarely within your box, you will fail to develop a stable and successful relationship. The colleague may not recognize the source of friction between herself and you as her manager. She may also be unskilled at adjusting to and accommodating your dominant style of motivation. The net result is her talent and potential remain untapped and wasted. She may become frustrated with the relationship. You may observe her performance over time varying greatly from unsatisfactory to exceptional for no apparent reason. Worse, she may be driven to look for work elsewhere for the wrong reasons.

What can you do?

Through away the box and build bridges!

Let me first state with great emphasis that a leader that insists all of his colleagues adapt to his style, whether consciously or subconsciously, is simply not a leader. He's a dysfunctional and incompetent manager - period!

A true leader will take steps to understand the dominant motivational style of his direct reports. What are their passions for work and aspirations for career development. What do they want to be when they grow up? What is it about the work they love, that which they dread, and why? By understanding these details of your direct reports you can build bridges - which will be far more effective than trying to get your directs to fit within your box. Once you embark on bridge building you should start to see the disconnects and why the box you expect direct reports to fit within isn't going to work for everyone on your team.

Most important is to recognize within yourself as their manager how your passions, aspirations and motivations differ. When you do this, and discuss this as part of one-on-one or team conversations, you lay the foundations for building bridges.

Each of us has rivets, cables and girders that make up our sense of self, what motivates us and is observable as professional purpose. Take the time to get to know each individual's working parts.

The reward for building that bridge is immense. You have the opportunity to leverage diversity and creativity and tap that wasted potential. A team of individuals squarely in your box will not be creative, innovative or impactful. There is no diversity in a population of programmed robots.

If you do this, will you notice it? Yes, some of your metrics are colleague performance, engagement and morale. Your team will be delivering more innovation and creativity within a working environment people recognize is healthy and collaborative. You should observe consistently exceptional performance of individuals. If not, recognize you still have some sides of your box to tear down and additional bridges to build.

Reference: Do you play to win, or to not lose?

Personal Success using Innocentive's Open Innovation Problem Definition Process

Early in my career it was fair to say I had a love-hate relationship with Innovation in theory and practice. I've

image courtesy of drupal.org

come to realize it's because the small organizations I was typically part of simply lacked sufficient vision. Management espoused the benefits and sought to instill innovative thinking into the hearts and minds of all of its employees. However my managers were process driven and biased to efficiency and quick decision making. Doing anything termed as "innovative" first had to come from allowable resources, various rules, a well understood process and management's blessing to engage directly with customers. Also missing was a tolerance for risk, reliable models to experiment with solutions and sufficient time given to consider the unexpected. A typical problem solving session could be characterized by the following exchange:

Employee: We have a problem.
Manager: What's the fastest and least costly solution to the problem?
Employee: Considering solution A, B, C and D, solution A fits that criteria.
Manager: A it is then. Great! Get to it. Keep me apprised of your progress.

I think you would agree that with this simplistic approach innovative ideas were rare to emerge. The least disruptive decision was always preferred. Solution C might have been a more optimal choice over the long term even though it would not have been as quick or inexpensive as A.

When management asks for and supports this type of problem solving approach they are working against instilling a mindset conducive to innovative thinking. My source of past frustration with innovation is now obvious. It's the old "Do as I say, not as I do" phrase, in this case "Do as I say (think innovation) as long as it's the quickest and cheapest option". Hardly conducive to innovation and instilling the proper mindset.

Fortunately I've come to recognize that much of what makes for innovative thinking is an individual's personal choice. I've made it mine. So when I came across Dwayne Spradlin's article in HBR I jumped at the chance to apply the problem definition process in an innovative manner. In my case I took Dwayne's process and further innovated by applying it to a brand in my firm without Open Innovation as the final target. I realized that it would allow me to deliver value to our business and that I could package the problem definition process into something that would be understood and embraced by management. I also foresaw that it would eliminate the chance of a repeat of our past failures around innovation with this brand.

image courtesy of publicpolicy.telefonica.com

The Innocentive approach is not entirely new and readers might recognize the output of it as a "challenge statement" or "problem statement". Widely accepted innovation processes focus on the problem definition and a few put sufficient focus on ensuring it is meaningful before embarking on subsequent steps. The Innocentive method does as well, and quite successfully I might add. In my view what makes the Innocentive method so powerful is that it is focused on the use of an external resource that is not really within the span of control of the problem owner. This makes it even more potent when the targets for idea generation are internal to the firm. I believe it's fair to say Dwayne never intended to restrict the benefits of the methodology solely to open innovation environments.

Let me set the stage for my case example. One of our major blockbuster brands wanted packaging innovations. The brand recognized that packaging can be a key component to success. The problem however was that none of us understood why we were really trying to generate new ideas and what problem we would try and solve. Of course the brand colleagues were happy to have our support and resources to generate ideas. But in giving it to them for free, and quite willingly, we lost focus on the 'why'.

We used tools and generated a slew of ideas. Not surprisingly none were ever adopted or carried forward. The ideas went nowhere because we weren't innovating around the right problem definition. The business simply could not equate an innovative idea for product packaging to a problem meaningful and relevant to their needs. It's fair to say the brand could have built a business case to pursue an idea but our hap-hazard approach meant they would never have the right links to customer, benefit and value.

This has proven true in a rather surprising way. Late last year I and one other manager proposed we try again. I suggested we use the methodology from Innocentive. We formed a cross-functional team of operations and commercial colleagues and lead them through the problem definition process. Several problem definitions were created and one had staying power. This winning definition was about the end user and delivering value to the patient and brand via differentiated packaging. The immediate benefit was that we didn't have to host new idea generation events. The business elected to fund an idea that was generated previously. This was a huge win for us because it greatly accelerated the remaining activities. The older concepts and mock-ups were dusted off. The brand conducted market research to validate our problem definition and the value of the packaging idea. The business case was made and management gave the "go" to proceed with commercialization.

image courtesy of Paul Foreman

I would advise anyone adopting this method to problem definition to keep in mind a few learnings.

First, be comfortable diving in without being an expert on the process steps. Although I have a proven ability to be comfortable working with a new and uncertain process or method, it might not be your forte. The questions Dwayne recommends you ask for each step in the process are your guide posts. If you're still a bit overwhelmed at how to start I would advise enlisting a co-collaborator or two. Read and discuss the HBR article together. Put the process into your firm's environment and conduct a dry run. Feel free to use my powerpoint slides as a rough distillation of the process steps.

Once you are ready for your initial meetings to gather insight with your internal customers sit them down and explain the process and steps. Relate how the Innocentive method is similar to other processes they might have experience with. Most important is to have them focus on the output - the problem definitions themselves. Finally outline for them what happens after the definitions are complete and winners selected. This may then slot in to an existing process and pick up with research, review of past ideas or new idea generation events.

After you have captured insights I recommend you provide some initial direction and structure as to how you see the problems in order to get your collaborators thinking. If the process is new to you it most certainly will be to them and they may have trouble distilling insights into problem statements. You have to remain flexible on those initial problem ideas. In my case one particular problem definition I thought would be very relevant for the business was in fact true but not something the business was interested in addressing. That in itself was a positive event because it meant we wouldn't be wasting time on generating ideas just because the problem was important to me as the leader.

We also found it very beneficial for the team to spend time assessing what others have done to solve the same problems. We spent a lot of time talking about what our competition is doing, and where and how we might be able to compete. The benefit to this was to better direct limited resources. Our business and operations colleagues understood we simply could not compete in the same manner. There would be insufficient budget and time to capitalize on differentiating our product. Therefore the winning problem definition had far more chance of success than those we might have elected if less considered.

I wish you success with your use of the Innocentive method. It is a very valuable tool to have at the ready as a champion of innovation, and innovation that delivers value.

References:
Dwayne Spradlin's HBR Article

My distillation of the Innocentive Problem Definition Method
An excellent set of Innovation Resources at Innocentive's website