the
innovative LEDGER
An e-Newsletter from The Innovative Edge™ Inc.
Vol.
10, No. 2 - February 2010
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Proof Negative
By Jeff Govendo
I
just learned a new term: abductive logic.
As
explained by University of Toronto management professors Roger L.
Martin and Jennifer Riel in an article entitled "Innovation's
Accidental Enemies" (businessweek.com, Jan. 14, 2010), abductive
logic is "the logic of what could be." It's a process
in which we make inferences based on a set of unproven, untested or
seemingly unrelated facts. It is intuitive, subjective. Some might
call abductive logic calculated guessing, or "having a hunch."
It's
exactly the kind of logic most CEOs and high-level executives instinctively
avoid in their decision-making. Usually with good reason. Most
decisions require supporting evidence. For instance, before firefighters
are sent into a burning building, shouldn't there be evidence that
there are actually people in there to save? Likewise, before a company
commits a huge outlay on R&D or marketing a new product, isn't
it a good idea to have market information indicating a need or desire
for the item?
So
it's not surprising that leaders tend to look for proof
that supports a decision they've made or are about to make. To
do this, they rely on the more familiar deductive or inductive
logic. In deductive reasoning, a new idea is validated, or "proven,"
by applying universally known and accepted rules to it. In inductive
reasoning, a new rule is actually developed by drawing upon universally
accepted data. Both of these elicit a sense of comfort and re-assurance
because they draw upon existing information directly related to the
issue at hand. Put another way, it feels less risky.
In
a world where every penny counts, you can't fault a leader for insisting
on proof that he/she is making the right decision.
Unless
innovation is the stated goal. When an organization is seeking
a substantially new direction, or a breakthrough concept, the need
for proof can get in the way.
According
to professors Martin and Riel, this penchant for proof kills a company's
capacity to innovate. "For breakthroughs," say the authors,
"there is no rule or pool of past data to provide certainty.
So when a CEO demands evidence that an idea will succeed, he is driving
innovation away."
I've
seen the dilemma this presents. On the one hand, a CEO or high-level
manager genuinely understands the need for new thinking and bold action
from a competitive standpoint. They "get" the well-known
warning, "Innovate or die!"
On
the other, they reflexively say no to a new idea for lack of proof
it will succeed. In their head they may know such proof really
can't exist; that's why it's called a new idea. But in their gut --
even if the idea seems intriguing and sounds exciting -- they just
can't say yes to it.
So
perhaps neither "yes" or "no" is the right answer.
Perhaps it's "maybe." I know, I know... seems like a
pretty indecisive response for big-time company leaders, but it's
precisely the one they need to get comfortable with in order to spur
innovation within their organizations.
Next
month we'll talk about why, and how this can lead to creative new
solutions that would have otherwise been tossed out for lack of proof.
Because
tossing out potentially great ideas... Well, there's just no logic
to that at all.
