the
innovative LEDGER
An e-Newsletter from The Innovative Edge™ Inc.
Vol.
9, No. 2 - February 2009
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Red State, Blue State
By Jeff Govendo
Those
who know me personally are undoubtedly looking at the title of this
piece and rolling their eyes. "Another political polemic on the
way," they're groaning. (Actually, very few people I know use
the word "polemic" in their everyday speech. Neither do
I.)
Relax,
my friends. This is about science. It refers to an article just published
in Science Magazine in which Dr. Juliet Zhu of the University of British
Columbia reports on how the colors red and blue affect how people
think about concepts they are presented.
Using
some 600 subjects in which she asked them to carry out a number of
thinking tasks in the context of either predominantly red or blue
backgrounds, she found that red evokes greater attention to detail,
a focus on functionality versus outcome, more careful planning and
calculation, and avoidance of risk. Blue, on the other hand, brought
out responses of an open, global nature, more language describing
possibility than pitfall, and in general more creative-sounding ideas.
A
couple examples. Viewing an ad for a new camera, those who looked
at it in the red context focused significantly more on the camera's
technical features and limitations, whereas those who saw it in blue
spoke more about the artistic possibilities. A toothpaste ad with
mostly red colors evoked statements about cavity prevention and bad
breath; the blue about white teeth and smiles.
Dr.
Zhu believes these are deeply ingrained, but learned responses. We
associate red with stop signs, warning lights and of course, blood.
Blue is limitless possibility: the ocean, the sky.
More
people name blue as their favorite color (again, not a political statement),
probably because it evokes more positive feelings.
There
are, of course, myriad implications in these findings for business
performance, communications, marketing, education and training, and
many other areas.
From
an innovation perspective, there is one overarching implication: innovation
is neither red nor blue; it's both. For all its complexity, the
process of innovation essentially consists of two major stages, and
for this discussion we can color-code them.
The
blue stage is new idea generation. While many businesses have been
successful modifying or tweaking existing product or service concepts
(e.g. line extensions), real innovation begins with a new and original
idea. This idea may or may not seem practicable or feasible at
first; in fact, the more creative, the less feasible it is likely
to appear.
That's
why there's a red stage too. This is idea development; where you
work with an idea selected for its imagined or hoped-for possibilities,
and systematically build in practicality and real world applications.
Both
stages are necessary. Using our color metaphor, it's a progressive
blending process. Innovation is neither red nor blue; it's purple.
Most
importantly, it is a process that cannot take place if red stage thinking
is allowed to predominate too early. Our penchant to "get
it right" and eliminate ideas that "do not work," before
taking the time to adequately explore where they might lead (say...
maybe this is about politics after all!), is probably the single biggest
impediment to innovation in business and other fields as well. When
creative ideas are critiqued and decided upon at the front end, we
lose them. We also lose the interest and confidence of those who were
most likely to offer them up. After awhile, they stop trying.
This
red vs. blue discussion of the topic, while perhaps an oversimplification,
may serve to remind you of what the process is and how best to make
it happen in your organization -- at a time when every organization
needs it.
Hopefully,
it will color your thinking about innovation.
