To Cede, or to Seed, that is the question:
Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of a down quarter or year,
Or to take arms against the Tyranny of Now
And by opposing overcome it.
To Cede – to withdraw,
Spend no more; and by stopping to say we end
The innovation and the thousand natural insights
That pave the way: ‘tis a necessity
Stoically to be endured
To Seed, to spend;
To spend perchance to grow – ay there’s the rub:
For in that spending on innovation what revenue may come,
When we have emerged from this uncertainty,
Must give us hope – there’s the advantage
That makes success of such a business
To cede or seed is the question facing so many executives right now.
The same question faced executives in 2001, 2008, and 2020.
And an answer is required.
But what’s the right answer?
As a friend likes to say, “It’s contextual.”
Cede is the most common answer for two main reasons: (1) executives feel they don’t have a choice because super-senior executives mandated an x% budget, or (2) executives need to boost results by allocating resources to things with “guaranteed” ROI.
Whatever the reason, innovation is a luxury the business can no longer afford, and the core business is a necessity to be supported at all costs. As a result, rather than scaling back a little in a lot of places, managers believe it is safer and easier to eliminate innovation entirely and maintain, or even increase, resources for operations.
Sometimes, this is also the right answer.
If the business is hemorrhaging cash, its value is plummeting, and people are questioning whether or not it can stay in business, then Cede is the right answer. There’s no sense in investing for success in one, three, or five years if there’s little chance of seeing the next day, week, or month.
But odds are, you’re not in that situation.
The Dot-com bubble. The Great Recession. COVID-19 recession.
The 21st century has allowed us to study the impact of different decisions during and after economic crises.
And when it comes to innovation, evidence shows that companies that continue to invest in innovation during times of economic uncertainty outperformed the market by 10% during the crisis and by up to 30% in the five years immediately following the crisis.
But not all companies.
A study of 4,700 companies during three global recessions (1980 – 1982, 1990 – 1991, and 2000 – 2002) found that “Businesses that boldly invest more than their rivals during a recession… enjoy only a 26% chance of becoming leaders after a downturn.” However,
“Companies that master the delicate balance between cutting costs to survive today and investing to grow tomorrow do well after a recession. Within this group, a subset that deploys a specific combination of defensive and offensive moves has the highest probability—37%—of breaking away from the pack. These companies reduce costs selectively by focusing more on operational efficiency than their rivals do, even as they invest relatively comprehensively in the future by spending on marketing, R&D, and new assets. Their multipronged strategy…is the best antidote to a recession.”
The takeaway – Seed, don’t splurge.
It’s easy, and incredibly biased, of me to assert that there is one and only one right answer. That the executive who cuts innovation spending (along with travel budgets and probably a few other things) is woefully short-sighted and dooming his business to a never-ending cycle of cutting back, losing ground, and racing to catch up, only to cut again when the next downturn hits.
It’s also very unfair because I’d be using history and theory to judge an executive grappling with the reality of organizational mandates, limited resources, and very real responsibilities.
The right answer is the one you can live with.
Ceding makes sense in the short term, but it’s a liability in the medium and long term.
Seeding pays off in 2-3 years, but you’ll endure skepticism and risk your bonus or job while waiting.
Research says Seeding is the right answer.
Reality often dictates Ceding.
The choice is yours.
Just remember that, like Hamlet, you live (or die) with the results.
“Innovation” is not peanut butter.
You can’t smear it all over everything and expect deliciousness.
When discussing innovation, you must be specific so people know what you expect. This is why so many thought leaders, consultants, and practitioners preach the importance of defining different types of innovation.
It’s easy to get overwhelmed by the options and worry about which approach is “best.” But, like all frameworks, they’re all a little bit right and a little bit wrong, and the best one is the one that will be used and get results in your organization.
Everything in the official story is true, but not the whole truth.
“Innovation” is not peanut butter.
You can’t smear it all over everything and expect deliciousness.
When doing innovation, you must remember your customer – the executives who make decisions, allocate resources, and can accelerate or decimate your efforts.
More importantly, you need to remember their Jobs to be Done (JTBD) – keep my job, feel safe and respected, and be perceived as competent/a rising star – because these jobs define the innovations that will get to market.
SAFE – The delightful solution to decision-makers’ JTBD
Most closely aligned with Core innovation, improving performance or efficiency, and Horizon 1 because the focus is on improving what exists in a way that will generate revenue this year or next. Decision-makers feel confident because they’ve “been there and done that” (heck, doing “that” is probably what got them promoted in the first place). In fact, they’re more likely to get in trouble for NOT investing in these types of innovations than they are for investing in them.
STRETCH – The Good Enough solution
Most like Adjacent innovation because they allow decision-makers to keep one foot in the known while “stretching” their other foot into a new (to them) area. This type of innovation makes decision-makers nervous because they don’t have all the answers, but they feel like they at least know what questions to ask. Progress will require more data, and decisions will take longer than most intrapreneurs want. But eventually, enough time and resources (and ego/reputation) will be invested that, unless the team recommends killing it, the project will launch.
SPLATTER – The Terrible solution
No matter what you call them – transformational, radical, breakthrough, disruptive, or moonshots – these innovations make everyone’s eyes light up before reality kicks in and crushes our dreams. These innovations “define the next chapter of our business” and “disrupt ourselves before we’re disrupted.” These innovations also require decision-makers to let go of everything they know and wander entirely into the unknown. To invest resources in the hope of seeing the return (and reward) come back to their successor (or successor’s successor). To defend their decisions, their team, and themselves when things don’t go exactly as planned.
How do people react when you say “innovation?”
If you answered C, you’re in good company.
Innovation is a buzzword. Quick searches of Amazon and Google Scholar result in 100,000+ books and 200,000+ articles on the topic, while a scan of the SEC’s database yields 8,000 K-1 filings with the word “innovation” in 2020 alone.
“Innovation” is meaningless, like all buzzwords. There’s a reason that practitioners and consultants insist on establishing a common definition before starting innovation work. I’ve been in meetings with ten people, asked each person to define “innovation,” and heard 12 different answers.
But all this pales in comparison to the emotional response it elicits. Some people get incredibly excited, bouncing out of their seats, ready to bring their latest idea to life (whether it should be brought to life is a different story.). Some nod solemnly as if confronted by a necessary evil, accepting a fate beyond their control. Most roll their eyes because they’ve been through this before and, like all management “flavors of the month,” this too shall pass.
The emotions and opinions we tie to “innovation” overwhelm the dictionary definition, making it difficult to believe that the process and, more importantly, the result will be different this time.
We need a different word.
One that has the same meaning and none of the baggage.
This may feel impossible, but if “literally” can mean “figuratively” (do NOT get me started on this 2013 decision) and the Oxford English Dictionary can add 700 new words in 2022, surely we can figure this out.
The following options are sourced primarily from conversations with other experts and practitioners.
Yes, #10 is intentionally missing because…
Finding a new word (or maybe changing how “innovation” is perceived, understood, and pursued) is a group effort. One person alone can’t do it, and a few people on a call complaining about the state of things certainly won’t (we’ve tried).
What do you think?
Do we need a different word for “innovation,” or should we keep it and deal with the baggage?
If we need a different word, what could it be? What do YOU use?
If we keep it, how do you combat the misunderstanding, eye rolls, and emotional baggage?
Let us know in the comments.
* This option came directly from a conversation with a client last week, and I kinda love it.
We discussed the challenge of getting engineers to stay in a discovery mindset rather than jumping immediately to solutions. Even though they work in R&D (the function), he observed that 99.9% of their work (and, honestly, their careers) is spent on the D in R&D (development).
That’s when it clicked.
Research begins with investigation and inquiry to understand a broad problem and then uses the resulting insights to solve a specific problem. It is a learning process, just like the early stages of Innovation. And, just like in the early days of Innovation, you can’t predict the result or routinize the work.
Development focuses on bringing the “new or modified product or process to production,” Just like the later phases of Innovation when prototyping and experimentation are required, and risk is driven out of the proposition.
Traditional R&D focuses on technical and scientific exploration and solutioning,
Innovation focuses on market, consumer/customer, and business model exploration and solutioning.
It is R&D for the business.
Business R&D.
