8/7/2019 Just Enough Disunity for Progress (The Truth About Innovation - Max Mckeown)

1/3

Just Enough Disunity For ProgressValuable innovation is often the product of discord and disagreement. "Stop",

cries the innovator, "You're going the wrong way". Someone has to depart from

conventional wisdom however convenient and comforting it is. They need to

disagree even if they are wrong.

The Goldilocks theory suggests that you need enough unity but not too much,

enough disunity but not too much. Too much agreement and there are no new

ideas. Too much disagreement and no one can work together to make the new

idea work.

At the national level, this happened in 15th

century China when the all powerful

emperor ordered the destruction of its ocean-going ships. Because there was nopossibility of disagreement China quickly lost its technological lead over the rest

of the world because it was no longer connected to new ideas. In Europe, disunity

meant that ideas rejected in one country could be adopted in another. Famously,

Columbus pitched his idea to five European monarchs before finding one to

support his proposed voyage to bring unimagined wealth to the continent.

At the organizational level, you have the same friction between stability and

progress. There are those who want their experience respected and their

fiefdoms secured. There are others attracted to discontinuity because they either

want things to be different so they can get ahead or they simply like to see things

done better. These improvers have an emotional need to see just how well they

can do something. They are vital to progress.

The former CEO of Intel was devoted to the idea of scientific debate. In the

technical domain, he believed that the best idea should win and the argument

should be robust. He called this approach "constructive confrontation" and it

enabled Intel to double the number of transistors on a chip every couple of years.

He was far less willing to embrace ideas questioning his business direction. He

sent mixed messages about effective leadership, acted as if they are not mixed,

made his mixed messages undiscussable, and made the undiscussability

undiscussable. At its best, constructive confrontation allowed open debate that

8/7/2019 Just Enough Disunity for Progress (The Truth About Innovation - Max Mckeown)

2/3

improved solutions.At its worst, it allowed powerful managers to crush the

arguments of their underlings while pretending that the interaction was a

balanced debate between equals. It was only after he retired that the company

was able to open up the discussion about business direction. The new CEO holds

more than 100 meetings a year with engineers butwithout their managers. New

ideas previously squeezed out, in calls for unity of purpose, are allowing Intel to

diversify into mobile phones, health care, and wireless communications.

Patience Is Needed With Disagreement. The comfortable level of disunity and

unity shifts depending on the work that is being done. Most people expect

disagreement early on in a project. Some of this disunity is a group finding out

about each other while the rest is the result of alternative ideas conflicting and

competing. As a project continues, impatience grows with anyone who still argues

for different approaches or keeps throwing up dissenting opinions. The rest of the

group, or managers who are focused on an image of consensus, attempt to isolate

the dissenting voices or simply ignore them.

The Goal Unifies. If the goal is flexible enough, big enough, broad enough it is

possible for individuals to disagree while still sharing common objectives.

Agreement on vision allows progress to be made that utilizes diverse viewpoints

as a source of strength. Willingness to embrace the benefits of disagreement is akey characteristic of so-called high reliability organizations. These are companies

that operate in high risk environments like medicine, nuclear fuel, space travel,

and policing, but have far fewer accidents or problems. They encourage

commitment to the objective of having fewer accidents rather than any particular

way of achieving it. Substance is more important than style or saving face.

Politely Pretending to agree allows bad decisions and increases frustration

between colleagues. Aggressively seeking to win arguments, or defend positions,

is damaging. Its better if individuals criticize their own ideas without becoming

upset and accept the benefits of open enquiry at all stages of projects and in all

circumstances. If everyone feels obliged to sing from the same hymn sheetand

drink the same Kool-Aidthe chances of innovation diminish because it requires a

departure from sameness. Innovation is about making difference work.

8/7/2019 Just Enough Disunity for Progress (The Truth About Innovation - Max Mckeown)

3/3

References

Argyris, C, 2004, Reasons & Rationalizations: The Limits To Organizational

Knowledge, Oxford University Press

Diamond, J, 1997, Guns, Germs, and Steel, W. W. Norton & Company

Ford, C, & Sullivan, DM, A time for everything: how the timing of novel

contributions influences project team outcomes, Journal of Organizational

Behavior, John Wiley & Sons

Pearce, CL, & Ensley, MD, 2004, A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the

innovation process: the central role of shared vision in product and process

innovation teams, Journal of Organizational Behavior, John Wiley & Sons

Perrow, C. 1984. Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies. New York:

Basic Books. (Princeton University Press, 1999)

Roberts, K.H. and Bea R. (2001)When systems fail. Organizational Dynamics. 29,

179-191.

Roberts, K.H., and Bea R. (2001) Must accidents happen? Academy of

Management Executive, 15 (August), 70-79