I especially liked your notion of reports being transformed into visual maps to spot trouble areas.
Thanks for your concerns to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy. Would you agree that innovative organizations also require ongoing need to facilitate people to both spot and remove those subtler and deeply ingrained ruts and systems that seem convenient yet hold back innovation?
Consider ratings, as detailed here and used in the MIX as brief examples along with new research about the innovative mind.
Two key concerns come to me when ratings link to compensation for instance – since we now have several reasons to see how ratings come flawed, and inaccurate from a mental standpoint.
To address specifics in your proposed design - would your team consider two key questions– related to ratings as described here and used to move ideas forward in the MIX as well as in many corporations:
1). How do you account for research that folks rate higher – what and who most looks like themselves and what most resembles their own ideas, culture, and in several aspects look similar to already conventional approaches?
(Brain fact: Folks typically draw on their brain’s basal ganglia equipment and that highly used mental equipment defaults us daily to familiar ruts and comfortable routines.)
2). How would you address cognitive and neuro research that now shows how people tend to ignore differences or in the case of ratings - tend to rate lower, what least looks familiar and what least resembles their own recognized approaches?
(Brain fact: To risk vastly new directions, is to rely far more on the brain’s (often uncomfortable) working memory along with increased dopamine it takes to risk any strikingly new and often completely unfamiliar approaches – for the innate rewards of potently new and currently unfamiliar outcomes. )
In light of these facts ratings themselves can prevent the very diversity needed to fly new machines that may vastly differ in size, shape, texture and aroma – from what we know as reliable. What do you think?
Thanks for your comments. Some thoughts...
To your first question... I haven't seen the research, but yes people rating highly things that are more familiar to them is something I've definitely seen before. I think it is a very dangerous slope when significant actions are tied to ratings. In a lot of my work, we look at basing reviews/comp on outcomes over activities, which means ratings are simply a place to start asking questions - not something to make a decision on. The key I think is to focus on the outcomes - have barriers been removed? what was the impact? Or, were attempts to remove barriers blocked?
Your second question feels to me like an inverse of the first. Again, I personally prefer to use ratings as a starting point of discussion/investigation, not a thing to base significant decisions on. If we just look at ratings without looking at outcomes and what actions/inactions led to those outcomes, then we don't really have enough to go on. I can see a very high risk to people rating highly people they like personally, for example, regardless of whether they actually deserve the rating.
One thought I had while we were writing this, would be that instead of doing a rating system we could create a web form that people would use to report examples of when somebody actively removed a time sucking system/took away a barrier, or insisted upon the use of one. The form would ask the user to describe the situation, the person in question, and the details of the actions that person took and the outcome. The concept would be that everyone gets in the habit of using this reporting tool as they experience examples. That way the ratings would be focused on examples (outcomes) vs. ratings done later, which may be more subject to the kind of bias you are describing. But still, that's far from perfect.
Would love more feedback to see this idea evolve!
Wonderfull stated - it's a great start!
What a good start at that. For an MBA course on Innovative Leadership I designed at the invitation of the Bittner School of Business I created a final assessment based on evidence of outcomes in somewhat similar ways that you detailed so well here. Ratings make a negative difference - when they hold back great ideas from the mix - and they do, for some of the reasons we both agree.
Great stuff Sam - Chris also remains open and innovative in the area of ratings - so that area could be central to innovational leadership that wins.
Terri Griffith
June 28, 2011 at 5:32pmI love hacks that are multidimensional in their approach. This one hits on organizational process, technology (the rating system), and people. No silver bullets here!