A Fool-proof Strategy for Safe Choices
Erring on the side of caution is really bad advice.
Erring on the side of caution is a vote for the status quo. It says, “Let’s keep this really simple and round the corners off of it. That way, the potential failure will be minimized.”
Everyone sleeps well the night before the launch. After, I can envision smug and knowing smiles as “disaster” is averted. Nothing really changes and no-one looks bad… unless you step back. From there, you can see that avoiding failure cost you the opportunity to make something valuable happen.
An example:
There’s a theory that goes something like this:
- employees have great ideas
- our system doesn’t allow them to invest in or launch those ideas
- if our employees had resources and corporate support, these ideas would flourish
- we need some sort of “outside of the system” system that TOTALLY supports our employees
- some of the ideas will be stinkers, so we’ll need a way to identify the good ones before we take them too far. We don’t want to waste money/look bad/prove the naysayers right/give our bosses a reason to say no.
Do you see a flaw? The “safe” resolution to our innovation need is to keep the paradigm but change the forms. We’ve decided to institute a new and improved Bureau of Idea Approval. We’re exchanging one form of vetting for another.
Well, here’s some surprising news. We have enough vetting in our organizations to kill excellent projects already. It’s layered so thick, you could take out every official “sign off” process in your organization and you STILL wouldn’t get ideas. There’s a culture of safety and maintenance that goes well past the policy and procedures manual.
Building a process that remotely acknowledges that there might be bad ideas is a mistake. Trust me, stuff that won’t work will get caught. You don’t have to design more roadblocks.
Don’t believe me? Here’s a test: If your boss announced a prize for the biggest mistake, would you still be cautious?
When we get a huge stinker out of the gates, that’s when we’ll know we’ve had some success.
Don’t necessarily agree, Nevin. There’s a difference between submitting an idea with the corners “rounded off,” and submitting an idea in a way that isn’t going to offend the approvers.
To me, a big part of the issue is semantics.
You still have to get through the approval system, whether you like it or not. Writing a submission that approvers will respond to positively is the challenge.
Thanks for reading and commenting Colleen!
I agree when the issue in question is one of semantics. In that case, adjustments to get it through the system are absolutely necessary.
What if it’s not semantics though? What if the team is identifying an element that will be unpopular but they feel is integral for the solution to be effective? I think this is where it gets interesting. The solution that is acceptable to the approvers and the rational, best solution identified by the team could be two different things.
If that’s the case, I’m not sure our obligation is to get through the approval system. Sometimes, for the best result, we may have to challenge it.