中英文稿

我需要澄清一點(diǎn)：?我是一位經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)教授，?我的目標(biāo)是去幫助其他人學(xué)會(huì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)。?但是最近，我發(fā)現(xiàn)?大多數(shù)人認(rèn)為良好的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力?在創(chuàng)新領(lǐng)域并不管用。?我是一位人種論學(xué)者。?我用人類學(xué)的方法?去研究我感興趣的問題。?與3個(gè)同事一起，?我花了接近十年的時(shí)間， 通過更私密的途徑去觀察那些?創(chuàng)新領(lǐng)域的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。?我們研究了16位男性和女性，?他們分布于全世界七個(gè)不同的國家，?在12個(gè)不同崗位上工作。?我們總共花了數(shù)百個(gè)小時(shí)，?在現(xiàn)場關(guān)注他們的一言一行。?我們最后得到了一頁又一頁的筆記，?從而能夠通過分析去弄清 這些領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的行為模式。?重點(diǎn)是什么呢？?如果我們想要建立可以 持續(xù)不斷創(chuàng)新的機(jī)構(gòu)，?我們必須拋開對(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力的傳統(tǒng)認(rèn)識(shí)。?領(lǐng)導(dǎo)創(chuàng)新不是去創(chuàng)造一種理念，?然后啟發(fā)他人去執(zhí)行它。?那我們所說的創(chuàng)新是什么意思呢？?創(chuàng)新是一種既新穎又實(shí)用的東西。?它既能是產(chǎn)品也能是服務(wù)。?它既可以是一個(gè)過程， 也可以是一種管理方式。?它可以是一提升長，或者是一項(xiàng)突破。?我們有一個(gè)很全面的定義。?

有多少人認(rèn)識(shí)這個(gè)人？?舉起你們的手。?保持舉手，如果你知道這個(gè)人。?那這些熟悉的面孔呢？?（笑聲）?從你們舉手的情況來講，?大多數(shù)人都看過Pixar出版的電影，?但是幾乎沒人認(rèn)出 Ed Catmull,?Pixar的創(chuàng)建者和CEO——?這是我有幸去研究的公司之一。?我第一次去拜訪Pixar是在2005年，?當(dāng)時(shí)他們正在制作《料理鼠王》，?一部備受關(guān)注的關(guān)于一只老鼠 成為大廚的電影。?現(xiàn)在，電腦制作的電影是主流，?但是，Ed和他的團(tuán)隊(duì)花了接近20年的時(shí)間?才創(chuàng)造出第一部完整的電腦制作的電影。?在之后的20年里，他們制作了14部電影。?我前不久還去過Pixar， 現(xiàn)在在這里可以告訴你們，?第15部電影肯定會(huì)相當(dāng)賣座。?當(dāng)我們當(dāng)中的很多人想到創(chuàng)新的時(shí)候，?我們會(huì)想到愛因斯坦靈光一現(xiàn)的時(shí)刻。?但是我們都知道那是一個(gè)迷。?創(chuàng)新不是關(guān)于個(gè)人的天賦，?而是關(guān)于團(tuán)體的智慧。?讓我們想一想制作一部Pixar電影 都需要些什么：?不需要個(gè)人才智，不需要靈光一現(xiàn) 去制作那樣的一部電影。?相反，這需要250人工作4到5年?去完成這樣一部電影。?為了讓我們明白這整個(gè)過程，?一名工作室人員畫了 這樣一個(gè)版本的流程圖。?他畫的時(shí)候很猶豫不決，?因?yàn)檫@個(gè)過程是一系列緊湊的步驟，?由一些獨(dú)立的小組所完成。?即使有這些箭頭， 他還是認(rèn)為這并不能真正地告訴你們，?這是一個(gè)涵蓋如此大量重復(fù)性和高度關(guān)聯(lián)性， 以及說實(shí)話，相當(dāng)雜亂的過程。?故事的發(fā)展貫穿一部Pixar電影的制作。?所以，設(shè)想一下。?一些鏡頭過得很快。?它們不全部按順序過。?這取決于當(dāng)他們?cè)谥谱?一個(gè)特殊情節(jié)的時(shí)候，?遇到的挑戰(zhàn)有多么令人煩惱。?所以當(dāng)你想到《飛屋環(huán)游記》中?小男孩把一塊巧克力遞給小鳥的場景，?那10秒鐘的場景花了一個(gè)動(dòng)漫師 接近6個(gè)月的時(shí)間去達(dá)到完美的效果。?另外一件關(guān)于Pixar電影的事，?是電影的任何一個(gè)部分都不能算完工，?直到整部電影制作完成。?制作到一半時(shí)，一位動(dòng)畫師畫了一個(gè)擁有?彎眉毛的角色， 想表現(xiàn)出他淘氣的一面。?當(dāng)導(dǎo)演看到繪畫的時(shí)候，他覺得很棒。?畫的非常漂亮，但是他說：?“你不能采用它，這不符合人物形象?！?兩周過后，那個(gè)導(dǎo)演回來說，?“我們還是花幾秒鐘 把彎眉毛放進(jìn)電影里吧?！?因?yàn)槟俏粍?dòng)畫師被允許去分享?我們所說的他自己那部分的智慧，?他才能夠幫助導(dǎo)演重新構(gòu)建那個(gè)角色?從而以一種微妙而又 重要的方式改進(jìn)了故事。?

我們所知道的是， 創(chuàng)新的核心是一個(gè)悖論。?你必須釋放很多人的才能和激情?并且有效地利用它們。?創(chuàng)新是一番旅程。?它是一種團(tuán)隊(duì)型解決問題的方式，?通常存在于一群擁有不同特長，?不同觀點(diǎn)的人當(dāng)中。?創(chuàng)新很少在一開始就達(dá)到完美。?正如大部分人知道的那樣，?它們通常是嘗試和犯錯(cuò)的結(jié)果。?很多錯(cuò)誤的開始， 錯(cuò)誤的步驟和錯(cuò)誤的結(jié)果。?創(chuàng)新的產(chǎn)品可以令人非常振奮，?但也可以變得十分可怕。?所以當(dāng)我們思考為什么Pixar能夠獲得成功，?我們必須先自問， 這是一個(gè)怎樣的團(tuán)隊(duì)呢？?當(dāng)然，歷史上還有好萊塢，?是一個(gè)星光璀璨卻不斷遭遇失敗的團(tuán)隊(duì)。?大多數(shù)的失敗是因?yàn)?有太多的明星或者說， 有太多的廚師在廚房里了。?那么為什么Pixar有那么多的“廚師”，?但仍能一次又一次地成功呢？?

當(dāng)我們研究一個(gè)在迪拜的伊斯蘭銀行時(shí)，?或者一個(gè)韓國的奢侈品牌， 或者一個(gè)非洲的社會(huì)企業(yè)，?我們發(fā)現(xiàn)創(chuàng)新機(jī)構(gòu)?是擁有三個(gè)特點(diǎn)的團(tuán)體：?創(chuàng)意摩擦，創(chuàng)造的靈活性， 以及創(chuàng)新的解決方式。?創(chuàng)意摩擦是指能夠通過辯論和討論的方式?創(chuàng)造出很多想法。?在創(chuàng)新機(jī)構(gòu)里， 人們會(huì)放大差異，?而并不是弱化它們。?創(chuàng)意摩擦不是關(guān)于頭腦風(fēng)暴，?在這個(gè)過程中人們只是持保留意見。?不，他們知道如何進(jìn)行激烈 而又有效的爭論，?去創(chuàng)造一個(gè)充滿不確定性的方案匯總。?在創(chuàng)新集體里的個(gè)人?要學(xué)會(huì)如何去詢問，如何去主動(dòng)聆聽， 但是你們知道么？?他們也知道如何去貢獻(xiàn)他們自己的觀點(diǎn)。?他們知道如果你不具備多樣性的思維， 不知道如何爭論，?創(chuàng)新就很難實(shí)現(xiàn)。?創(chuàng)造的靈活性是關(guān)于通過快速 追尋，反應(yīng)和調(diào)整，?來檢驗(yàn)并提煉這些點(diǎn)子。?這是以發(fā)現(xiàn)為動(dòng)力的學(xué)習(xí)過程，?以不同于計(jì)劃的方式創(chuàng)造你的未來。?這是關(guān)于設(shè)計(jì)一種思維方式，能夠把?科學(xué)方法和藝術(shù)過程有趣地結(jié)合起來。?這是關(guān)于進(jìn)行一系列的實(shí)驗(yàn)， 而不是一系列的試點(diǎn)。?實(shí)驗(yàn)通常意味著一種學(xué)習(xí)。?當(dāng)你得到負(fù)面的結(jié)果，?你依然在學(xué)習(xí)你需要知道的東西。?試點(diǎn)性實(shí)踐通常要保證可行性。?當(dāng)它們的效果不理想時(shí)， 某些人或某些事就要對(duì)此負(fù)責(zé)。?最后的能力是具有創(chuàng)造力的解決方式。?這是關(guān)于做決定的方式，?通過最終結(jié)合包括對(duì)立觀點(diǎn)的方式?去重新塑造它們從而形成新的組合，?來得到一個(gè)新的，有用的解決方法。?當(dāng)你分析創(chuàng)新機(jī)構(gòu)時(shí)，會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)他們從不 以犧牲個(gè)人觀點(diǎn)的方式去融入集體。?他們從不妥協(xié)。?他們不會(huì)讓一組人或一個(gè)人做主，?即使是上司，或是專家。?相反，他們發(fā)展出了?一種既具備耐心又更包容的方式 去達(dá)成一個(gè)決定，?允許雙方的解決辦法都得到體現(xiàn)，?而不是簡單的一方觀點(diǎn)。?這三種能力就是為什么Pixar?能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)目前成就的原因。

?再給你們舉一個(gè)例子，?這個(gè)例子是關(guān)于Google的基礎(chǔ)建設(shè)部門。?Google的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施部門是一個(gè)?讓網(wǎng)站持續(xù)運(yùn)作的部門。?當(dāng)Google準(zhǔn)備推出Gmail和Youtube時(shí)，?他們知道自己的數(shù)據(jù)庫 還無法滿足要求。?當(dāng)時(shí)工程組和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施組的組長，?是一個(gè)叫做Bill Coughran的人。?Bill和他的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)小組或者說智囊團(tuán)，?不得不想辦法應(yīng)對(duì)這種情況。?他們思考了很久。?他們沒有選擇新建一個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)去 強(qiáng)行執(zhí)行這個(gè)任務(wù)，?而是決定讓不同的小組 在不同的方案中?同時(shí)施展他們的才能。?兩個(gè)小組合并了。?一個(gè)就是我們現(xiàn)在了解的 大桌(Big Table)，?另一個(gè)就是無中生有 (Built It From Scratch)。?大桌提議他們?cè)诂F(xiàn)有的系統(tǒng)上工作。?無中生有卻提議這是 重建另一個(gè)系統(tǒng)的時(shí)候了。?這兩個(gè)隊(duì)被允許分別從他們?自己的觀點(diǎn)出發(fā)來全面開展工作。?從工程學(xué)的角度來講， Bill把他的角色描述為?”以倡導(dǎo)爭論的方式向過程中注入誠實(shí)。“?最開始時(shí)，各組被鼓勵(lì)去 打造原型，以能夠?“與現(xiàn)實(shí)進(jìn)行對(duì)比，從而發(fā)現(xiàn)?自己方案中的優(yōu)勢和不足”。?當(dāng)無中生有與另一組分享原型時(shí)，?這一組的傳呼機(jī)就會(huì)在半夜響個(gè)不停，?如果網(wǎng)站出問題的話，?他們會(huì)被明確告知這個(gè)獨(dú)特設(shè)計(jì)的局限。?當(dāng)對(duì)解決方案的需求越來越緊急，?然后數(shù)據(jù)，或者說證據(jù)開始浮現(xiàn)時(shí)，?很明顯，大桌的解決方案?是當(dāng)時(shí)最合適的。?所以他們選擇了那一個(gè)。?但是為了確定他們不會(huì)失去?無中生有團(tuán)隊(duì)的知識(shí)，?Bill讓兩名無中生有的隊(duì)員 加入這個(gè)新的，正在成長的隊(duì)伍，?來一起建造下一代的系統(tǒng)。?整個(gè)過程花了接近兩年，?但是我聽說每個(gè)人都開足馬力工作著。?在過程剛開始時(shí)， 其中一位工程師找到Bill說?”我們的時(shí)間全都花在 這個(gè)沒有效率的體制上?去執(zhí)行雙向?qū)嶒?yàn)了?！?但是當(dāng)整個(gè)系統(tǒng)充分運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)起來， 他開始理解?這種能讓有才能的人 充分釋放激情的智慧了。?他承認(rèn)， “如果你強(qiáng)迫我們?nèi)拷M成一隊(duì)，?我們也許會(huì)專注于誰對(duì)誰錯(cuò)，?而不是學(xué)習(xí)和尋求對(duì)于 Google而言最好的答案。”?

那么為什么Pixar和Google 可以不斷進(jìn)行創(chuàng)新呢？?原因是他們已經(jīng)掌握了 這一過程所需要的能力。?他們知道如何去解決集體問題，?知道如何進(jìn)行以探索為動(dòng)力的學(xué)習(xí)，?也知道如何去做集體決定。?你們?cè)谧挠行┤艘苍S會(huì)心想，?“我們不知道如何在我的機(jī)構(gòu)里 實(shí)現(xiàn)這個(gè)過程。?那么為什么在Pixar他們就知道 如何做到這一點(diǎn)呢，?還有Google也同樣做到了呢？“?當(dāng)很多為Bill工作的人告訴我們，?在他們看來， Bill是在硅谷最好的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者之一，?我們完全同意，那個(gè)人是個(gè)天才。?領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力是其中的秘訣。?但這是另外一種領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力，?而不是我們常說的那種 偉大的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力。?我之前見到的一位領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者告訴我，?“Linda，我從不讀關(guān)于領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力的書。?這些書只會(huì)讓我感覺很糟。“ （笑聲）?“在第一章他們說我應(yīng)該創(chuàng)造一種理念。?但是如果我要去進(jìn)行全新的嘗試， 我沒有答案。?我不知道我們?cè)谙蚴裁捶较蚯斑M(jìn)，?我甚至都不確定要如何實(shí)現(xiàn)目標(biāo)?！?當(dāng)然，有時(shí)具有預(yù)見性的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力?是十分必要的。?但是如果我們想要打造 可以不斷創(chuàng)新的組織，?我們必須重新樹立我們對(duì)于 什么是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力的認(rèn)識(shí)。?領(lǐng)導(dǎo)性創(chuàng)新是關(guān)于創(chuàng)造一種空間，?讓人們?cè)敢獠⒛軌蚺ぷ鳎?以創(chuàng)新的方式解決問題。?

現(xiàn)在，你們中的有些人也許在想，?“領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力到底是什么呢？”?在Pixar， 他們知道創(chuàng)新需要集體的力量。?領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者們專注于建造集體意識(shí)?和培養(yǎng)那三種能力。?他們?cè)鯓佣x領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力呢？?他們說領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力是關(guān)于創(chuàng)造一個(gè)?人們想置身于其中的世界。?在Pixar工作的人們想要 置身于一個(gè)什么樣的世界呢？?一個(gè)讓你身居前沿的世界。?他們把時(shí)間用在哪里了呢？?不是在創(chuàng)造理念上。?相反，他們把時(shí)間用在思考?“我們?nèi)绾稳ピO(shè)計(jì)一間擁有公共意識(shí)的，?能夠讓人們溝通融入的工作室？?讓我們制定規(guī)矩：任何人， 拋開他們的級(jí)別或角色，?都可以向?qū)а荼磉_(dá)?他們對(duì)于某部影片的感受。?我們要如何確保?所有與集體意見相左的人， 所有少數(shù)人的?發(fā)言都會(huì)被聽見呢？?還有最后，要能夠大方地分享功勞?！?我不知道你們是否仔細(xì)看過 一部Pixar電影片尾的貢獻(xiàn)者列表，?就連在制作過程中誕生的 所有嬰兒都被列出來了。?（笑聲）?Bill是如何看待他自己的角色呢？?Bill說，“我領(lǐng)導(dǎo)著一個(gè)志愿者集體。?有才能的人不想到處跟著我。?他們想與我一起共創(chuàng)未來。?我的工作就是從一開始 就不斷地在后方鼓勵(lì)他們，?并且不讓他們因?yàn)橥瞬蕉斐苫靵y。“?他是如何看待他自己的角色呢？?“我是一個(gè)榜樣， 我是一個(gè)人類膠水，?我是一個(gè)連接者， 我是一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)的聚集者。?我從來不是一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)的獨(dú)裁者?！?有任何關(guān)于如何實(shí)踐 自己角色的忠告嗎？?招聘與你爭論的人。?還有，你猜什么？?有時(shí)最好謹(jǐn)慎地表現(xiàn)出一種模糊的態(tài)度。?你們有的人現(xiàn)在也許在想，?這些人在想些什么？?他們?cè)谙耄?“我不是一個(gè)有遠(yuǎn)見的人， 我是一個(gè)社會(huì)建筑師。?我在創(chuàng)建空間， 讓那里人們想要并且能夠?去分享并融合他們的才能和激情。“?如果你們其中的一些人 在擔(dān)心你們沒有在Pixar上班，?或者不在Google工作，?我想告訴你們，仍然有改進(jìn)的空間。?

我們也研究了很多并不是?你們所想像的以創(chuàng)新?而著稱的機(jī)構(gòu)。?我們研究了一個(gè)制藥公司的 總法律顧問，?這個(gè)人不得不想辦法讓外圍律師?和19個(gè)競爭對(duì)手一起進(jìn)行合作和創(chuàng)新。?我們研究了一個(gè)德國汽車制造商的 營銷總管，?他們從根本上相信設(shè)計(jì)工程師們?才是應(yīng)該具備創(chuàng)新能力的人， 而并不是市場銷售者。?我們還研究了在HCL Technologies， 一個(gè)印度外包公司任職的?叫做Vinneet Nayar的人。?當(dāng)我們見到Vineet時(shí)，?據(jù)他所說， 他的公司正在變得無關(guān)緊要。?我們看著他把那個(gè)公司變成了一個(gè) IT創(chuàng)新領(lǐng)域的全球引領(lǐng)者。?像其他許多公司一樣，在HCL科技，?領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者們已經(jīng)學(xué)會(huì)了去 把自己當(dāng)做設(shè)置方向的角色，?并且確保沒有人去偏離它。?他所做的是去告訴他們，是時(shí)候?該重新思考他們應(yīng)該做什么了。?因?yàn)楫?dāng)時(shí)所有人都在 依據(jù)上層的決策而行動(dòng)，?你還看不到像Pixar或Google那樣?從下到上的創(chuàng)新。?所以他們開始向那個(gè)方向靠近。?他們不再給出答案，他們 不再嘗試去給出解決方案。?取而代之的是，他們開始發(fā)現(xiàn)?在金字塔底層的，年輕的，?與客戶最親近的人，?才是創(chuàng)新的來源。?他們開始把機(jī)構(gòu)的成長模式?轉(zhuǎn)移到那個(gè)級(jí)別。?用Vineet的話來說， 這是關(guān)于顛倒金字塔，?以便你可以通過松開少數(shù)人的束縛?去釋放眾人的力量，?并且增強(qiáng)創(chuàng)新的質(zhì)量和速度，?這的確是每天都在發(fā)生的事。?當(dāng)然，Vineet和其他所有 我們研究過的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者們，?實(shí)際上都是理念者。?當(dāng)然，他們明白那不是他們的角色。?所以我認(rèn)為你們當(dāng)中的 許多人沒有認(rèn)出Ed不是偶然。?因?yàn)橄馰innet一樣，Ed明白 我們作為領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的角色?是去布置舞臺(tái)，而不是在上面表演。?如果我們想創(chuàng)造一個(gè)更好的未來，?并且我認(rèn)為那正是我們中的 許多人在這里的原因，?我們就需要去重新構(gòu)想我們的任務(wù)。?我們的任務(wù)是去創(chuàng)造一個(gè)空間，?在那里，每個(gè)人的才華?都能被釋放和駕馭，?并且轉(zhuǎn)變成集體智慧的成果。?謝謝。?（掌聲）

I have a confession to make.?I'm a business professor?whose ambition has been to help people learn to lead.?But recently, I've discovered?that what many of us think of as great leadership?does not work when it comes to leading innovation.

I'm an ethnographer.?I use the methods of anthropology?to understand the questions in which I'm interested.?So along with three co-conspirators,?I spent nearly a decade observing up close and personal?exceptional leaders of innovation.?We studied 16 men and women,?located in seven countries across the globe,?working in 12 different industries.?In total, we spent hundreds of hours on the ground,?on-site, watching these leaders in action.?We ended up with pages and pages and pages of field notes?that we analyzed and looked for patterns in what our leaders did.?The bottom line??If we want to build organizations that can innovate time and again,?we must unlearn our conventional notions of leadership.

Leading innovation is not about creating a vision,?and inspiring others to execute it.?But what do we mean by innovation??An innovation is anything that is both new and useful.?It can be a product or service.?It can be a process or a way of organizing.?It can be incremental, or it can be breakthrough.?We have a pretty inclusive definition.

How many of you recognize this man??Put your hands up.?Keep your hands up, if you know who this is.?How about these familiar faces??(Laughter)?From your show of hands,?it looks like many of you have seen a Pixar movie,?but very few of you recognized Ed Catmull,?the founder and CEO of Pixar --?one of the companies I had the privilege of studying.

My first visit to Pixar was in 2005,?when they were working on "Ratatouille,"?that provocative movie about a rat becoming a master chef.?Computer-generated movies are really mainstream today,?but it took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years?to create the first full-length C.G. movie.?In the 20 years hence, they've produced 14 movies.?I was recently at Pixar, and I'm here to tell you?that number 15 is sure to be a winner.

When many of us think about innovation, though,?we think about an Einstein having an 'Aha!' moment.?But we all know that's a myth.?Innovation is not about solo genius,?it's about collective genius.?Let's think for a minute about what it takes to make a Pixar movie:?No solo genius, no flash of inspiration produces one of those movies.?On the contrary, it takes about 250 people four to five years,?to make one of those movies.

To help us understand the process,?an individual in the studio drew a version of this picture.?He did so reluctantly,?because it suggested that the process was a neat series of steps?done by discrete groups.?Even with all those arrows, he thought it failed to really tell you?just how iterative, interrelated and, frankly, messy their process was.

Throughout the making of a movie at Pixar, the story evolves.?So think about it.?Some shots go through quickly.?They don't all go through in order.?It depends on how vexing the challenges are?that they come up with when they are working on a particular scene.?So if you think about that scene in "Up"?where the boy hands the piece of chocolate to the bird,?that 10 seconds took one animator almost six months to perfect.

The other thing about a Pixar movie?is that no part of the movie is considered finished?until the entire movie wraps.?Partway through one production, an animator drew a character?with an arched eyebrow that suggested a mischievous side.?When the director saw that drawing, he thought it was great.?It was beautiful, but he said,?"You've got to lose it; it doesn't fit the character."?Two weeks later, the director came back and said,?"Let's put in those few seconds of film."?Because that animator was allowed to share?what we referred to as his slice of genius,?he was able to help that director reconceive the character?in a subtle but important way that really improved the story.

What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox.?You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people?and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful.?Innovation is a journey.?It's a type of collaborative problem solving,?usually among people who have different expertise?and different points of view.

Innovations rarely get created full-blown.?As many of you know,?they're the result, usually, of trial and error.?Lots of false starts, missteps and mistakes.?Innovative work can be very exhilarating,?but it also can be really downright scary.?So when we look at why it is that Pixar is able to do what it does,?we have to ask ourselves, what's going on here?

For sure, history and certainly Hollywood,?is full of star-studded teams that have failed.?Most of those failures are attributed?to too many stars or too many cooks, if you will, in the kitchen.?So why is it that Pixar, with all of its cooks,?is able to be so successful time and time again??When we studied an Islamic Bank in Dubai,?or a luxury brand in Korea, or a social enterprise in Africa,?we found that innovative organizations?are communities that have three capabilities:?creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.?Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas?through debate and discourse.?In innovative organizations, they amplify differences,?they don't minimize them.?Creative abrasion is not about brainstorming,?where people suspend their judgment.?No, they know how to have very heated but constructive arguments?to create a portfolio of alternatives.

Individuals in innovative organizations?learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, but guess what??They also learn how to advocate for their point of view.?They understand that innovation rarely happens?unless you have both diversity and conflict.?Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas?through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment.?It's about discovery-driven learning?where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future.?It's about design thinking where you have that interesting combination?of the scientific method and the artistic process.?It's about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots.

Experiments are usually about learning.?When you get a negative outcome,?you're still really learning something that you need to know.?Pilots are often about being right.?When they don't work, someone or something is to blame.?The final capability is creative resolution.?This is about doing decision making?in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas?to reconfigure them in new combinations?to produce a solution that is new and useful.?When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along.?They don't compromise.?They don't let one group or one individual dominate,?even if it's the boss, even if it's the expert.?Instead, they have developed?a rather patient and more inclusive decision making process?that allows for both/and solutions to arise?and not simply either/or solutions.?These three capabilities are why we see?that Pixar is able to do what it does.

Let me give you another example,?and that example is the infrastructure group of Google.?The infrastructure group of Google is the group?that has to keep the website up and running 24/7.?So when Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube,?they knew that their data storage system wasn't adequate.?The head of the engineering group and the infrastructure group at that time?was a man named Bill Coughran.?Bill and his leadership team, who he referred to as his brain trust,?had to figure out what to do about this situation.?They thought about it for a while.?Instead of creating a group to tackle this task,?they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously?around different alternatives.

Two groups coalesced.?One became known as Big Table,?the other became known as Build It From Scratch.?Big Table proposed that they build on the current system.?Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.?Separately, these two teams were allowed to work full-time?on their particular approach.?In engineering reviews, Bill described his role as,?"Injecting honesty into the process by driving debate."

Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could?"bump them up against reality and discover for themselves?the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach."?When Build It From Scratch shared their prototype with the group?whose beepers would have to go off in the middle of the night?if something went wrong with the website,?they heard loud and clear about the limitations of their particular design.?As the need for a solution became more urgent?and as the data, or the evidence, began to come in,?it became pretty clear that the Big Table solution?was the right one for the moment.?So they selected that one.

But to make sure that they did not lose the learning?of the Build it From Scratch team,?Bill asked two members of that team to join a new team that was emerging?to work on the next-generation system.?This whole process took nearly two years,?but I was told that they were all working at breakneck speed.

Early in that process, one of the engineers had gone to Bill and said,?"We're all too busy for this inefficient system?of running parallel experiments."?But as the process unfolded, he began to understand?the wisdom of allowing talented people to play out their passions.?He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team,?we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning,?and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."

Why is it that Pixar and Google are able to innovate time and again??It's because they've mastered the capabilities required for that.?They know how to do collaborative problem solving,?they know how to do discovery-driven learning?and they know how to do integrated decision making.

Some of you may be sitting there and saying to yourselves right now,?"We don't know how to do those things in my organization.?So why do they know how to do those things at Pixar,?and why do they know how to do those things at Google?"?When many of the people that worked for Bill told us,?in their opinion, that Bill was one of the finest leaders in Silicon Valley,?we completely agreed; the man is a genius.

Leadership is the secret sauce.?But it's a different kind of leadership,?not the kind many of us think about when we think about great leadership.?One of the leaders I met with early on said to me,?"Linda, I don't read books on leadership.?All they do is make me feel bad." (Laughter)?"In the first chapter they say I'm supposed to create a vision.?But if I'm trying to do something that's truly new, I have no answers.?I don't know what direction we're going in?and I'm not even sure I know how to figure out how to get there."?For sure, there are times when visionary leadership?is exactly what is needed.

?