I’m sore, sunburnt and stupendously happy after a long cycle into Surrey. It was one last half-time Friday before the data collection phase of my research begins on the 1st of June. Doing my own primary research was a key attraction to the EMC at INSEAD. It’s an opportunity to dive deep into a part of my practice and work to better understand some of the mysteries of business and human nature. The campus on the edge of the Fôret de Fontainebleau is the best place I can imagine to create space and focus for research and development..

Some of you know my area of interest but let me frame it a bit wider for everyone. At INSEAD we are pushing into the growing field of systems psychodynamics. As the top global business school, INSEAD teaches strategy and organizational theory (the systems bit) better than anyone. In fact, they birthed many of the leading models of value creation used in businesses as well the very concept of tailored executive education. They are also aware of the limits of traditional business school theory and acknowledge as even best practice fails more than it succeeds.

Why there is so much unrealized potential in business is where the psychodynamics part comes in. Building on the psychoanalytical field pioneered by Freud we live at a time of growing neuroscience and behavioural economics that better understands concretely the often overlooked role of psychology in leadership and change in the workplace. I specifically am interested in the systems psychodynamics of digital innovation.

Innovation however is in a sad state. Innovation is a top priority for 75% of companies. Yet a meagre 6% of executives are happy with their innovation efforts. That’s a tremendous amount of frustration and unrealized potential.

We see innovation celebrated in strategy departments, grand speeches and in heroic films yet for all the process charts in the world there is relatively little genuine understanding of how to lead it. Which is why we need some new hypotheses on how to think about it. Actually, we especially need new hypotheses for how to think when doing it. Or at least be more aware of how we are thinking, and feeling, and behaving, when doing it. After all, those are the drivers of our judgements and decisions.

Over the past six months, I’ve been speaking to innovation leaders at a host of companies including Diageo, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple, Dyson, Phillips, McKinsey, Bain, Standard & Charter and other leaders in startups, academia and investment. A common experience to all was seeing irrational responses or judgments within innovation journeys that the theory and case studies don’t explain. There was a common pain caused by the distance between aspiration and execution. Thus, to explore this space, my research proposal is:

The animal spirit of innovation is always present though rarely addressed. Today’s reliance on process, resource models and leadership trait theory doesn’t explain the innovation gap where as little as 6% (McKinsey, 2019) of executives are happy with their firm’s innovation efforts. Corporate innovation is generally treated as a process or resource problem to control. Whereas the intangible risks to identity, reputation and self-actualization are only partially addressed, if at all, though strongly present through behaviours and felt emotions. In general, the emotions, feelings and behaviours of leaders that produce success for an organization are uncharted territories in the loci of leadership theory. Within the situational context of innovation journeys, how do the animal spirits of a leader’s internal emotions influence progress?

In-depth interviews with repeat innovators in multiple geographic regions and industries will analyze through a psychodynamic lens their thoughts, emotions, feelings, motivations and behaviours in both successful and unsuccessful innovation journeys. The grounded theory qualitative research method provides the rigour and interpretive framework to accept multiple perspectives, to collect and analyze a wide set of data on the felt emotions, acted behaviours and underlying motivations to identify how they may influence innovation efforts towards reaching their full potential.

So that’s the next 6 months of my life. I have some provocations and hypotheses in mind but I need to let the data emerge and interpret it objectively. I would love to hear what reactions you have when reading the abstract. What makes you happy, sad, mad or glad about it. Indifferent is helpful to hear too. Just reply to this mail (don’t worry it won’t cc anyone).

Also - I’d appreciate your nomination for interview subjects - maybe it’s you even or someone you know.

I’ll continue to drop progress updates along the way. The full research will be published in 2021/22 but the findings will be valuable from early on. Let me know if they can be of help in your work.

“I can accept failure, but I can’t accept not trying.”

— Michael Jordan

Movements

It’s been a week of progress. Gillian and I ran our first Leaders Remote Roundtable which surfaced some excellent reflections and insight for how leaders are coping and adapting through the pandemic. My Digital Product Innovation Micro-Masterclass is being edited by the D&AD folks for a release next month with the festival. A first experiment for me towards possibly creating a library of remote learning experiences around leading and running innovation.

Otherwise, I’m clearing the deck to start my first batch of data collection over June.

Stay curious,

- Brett

PS Please share this newsletter on LinkedIn with a call to subscribe. It makes a big difference to help grow the Connecting Dots community. Thank you.

Subscribe to Connecting Dots