Post by John Uliano on Apr 7, 2021 13:26:57 GMT
How do you engage a team in innovating when they have anxiety around change?
When embarking on a project that will lead to innovation, I believe that a little bit of anxiety is natural. By definition, innovation is a new approach to something, and as our assignments have noted, this new idea can potentially disrupt the status quo, which can be upsetting to some. I think it is a leader’s responsibility to normalize and communicate that anxiety is a normal response, while also stressing the advantages realized by the innovating idea. This may not work for the entire team, and similar to the model of change that Lorrie Lutz presented in last week’s class, there will likely be laggards on the team that are not ready to work towards the change. The strong leader will recognize this and shift their focus to quelling the concerns of those worried by change and motivating the team members ready to embrace innovation. Additionally, utilizing the perspectives of innovation, as outline in this week’s ready, provides a formulaic approach to supporting innovation. A team leader could conduct an exercise showing how the innovation addresses the perspectives, which exhibits to the team that the planned change has been well thought out and should address invocation anxiety.
What is the relationship between innovation and steady state? Should innovation be embedded in steady state?
Innovation should be embedded in steady state. I think steady state affords the opportunity for thoughtful consideration, planning, and testing of new ideas. A leader needs to be thoughtful and intentional about innovation, as it is easy to get comfortable with “the way things are.” Innovation does require a degree of creative energy that may be hard to sustain when a program is doing well, and thing are just kind of moving along. An innovative leader finds ways to incorporate the consistent exchange of new ideas for improvement into the culture of their team, which is not an easy task.
Apollo 13 videos:
Where did you see innovation?
I saw innovation in the plan to run the shuttle on very minimal power. It was apparent it was a novel idea, as the team members fought against it, although eventually acquiesced upon realizing it was the only option for the astronauts to have a successful reentry.
In the second video, it was apparent that innovation would be required in order to create a new air filter on the fly. The team lead even notes that they will have to figure out a way to fit a square peg into a round hole. I think this saying sums up pretty the well the process of innovation!
What innovations intrigued you the most?
The innovation regarding powering down the spacecraft is most intriguing to me. The risks in doing so were abundant as there were so many unknowns as to how the spacecraft (Would it get pointed in the wrong direction? Would it eventually repower up?) and crew (Would they freeze to death?) would respond in light of the decision. The other instance of innovation was no less serious, although seemed more cut and dry to me, in that the filters had to be figured out or the crew would asphyxiate.
What was the team’s response to the need to innovate?
The initial responses of the team in video 1 and video 2 were opposite. The team in the first video loudly opposed the suggestion that the mission could operate on a minimal level of power. While they mostly fell in line and embraced a more innovative mindset, due to the coaxing of their leader, there continued to be some disparate voices. In the second video, the approach to having to innovate was more matter of fact. It felt more task-based, if that makes sense. The team in video 2 were told they had to come up with a way to create an air filter and they started their work with no resistance.
The difference in the teams’ approaches could lie in the way the need to innovate was communicated to the teams tasked with creating the innovation. In the first video, the team did have to come up with a way to ensure the astronauts would have enough power to return to Earth. It was presented as life and death, which it was, although this resulted in an outpouring of emotion because of the levity of the situation. While the second scenario also dealt with a life and death situation, it was not presented as such. It helped that the goal was more established in the second video – the need to make a new air filter, while in the first video the decision on how to proceed, and the need to innovate, was less defined, until the team lead made a decision on how to move forward, which resulted in the increase level of anxiety displayed by the team members.
How did the leader drive innovation?
In video 1, the team leader was tasked with first making a decision on how to innovate. He utilized his critical thinking skills to make the best decision at hand, as well as when directing the team, after making the decision, to collect and analyze all the information they could gather about power usage on the spacecraft. Once his decision was made, he set the team with the task at hand and shared his expectations – failure not being an option! Similarly, in the second video, he makes the decision that the team create an air filter and the levels the expectation that it will have to work. In both instances, he decided the plan on how to innovate and his expectations for success.
When embarking on a project that will lead to innovation, I believe that a little bit of anxiety is natural. By definition, innovation is a new approach to something, and as our assignments have noted, this new idea can potentially disrupt the status quo, which can be upsetting to some. I think it is a leader’s responsibility to normalize and communicate that anxiety is a normal response, while also stressing the advantages realized by the innovating idea. This may not work for the entire team, and similar to the model of change that Lorrie Lutz presented in last week’s class, there will likely be laggards on the team that are not ready to work towards the change. The strong leader will recognize this and shift their focus to quelling the concerns of those worried by change and motivating the team members ready to embrace innovation. Additionally, utilizing the perspectives of innovation, as outline in this week’s ready, provides a formulaic approach to supporting innovation. A team leader could conduct an exercise showing how the innovation addresses the perspectives, which exhibits to the team that the planned change has been well thought out and should address invocation anxiety.
What is the relationship between innovation and steady state? Should innovation be embedded in steady state?
Innovation should be embedded in steady state. I think steady state affords the opportunity for thoughtful consideration, planning, and testing of new ideas. A leader needs to be thoughtful and intentional about innovation, as it is easy to get comfortable with “the way things are.” Innovation does require a degree of creative energy that may be hard to sustain when a program is doing well, and thing are just kind of moving along. An innovative leader finds ways to incorporate the consistent exchange of new ideas for improvement into the culture of their team, which is not an easy task.
Apollo 13 videos:
Where did you see innovation?
I saw innovation in the plan to run the shuttle on very minimal power. It was apparent it was a novel idea, as the team members fought against it, although eventually acquiesced upon realizing it was the only option for the astronauts to have a successful reentry.
In the second video, it was apparent that innovation would be required in order to create a new air filter on the fly. The team lead even notes that they will have to figure out a way to fit a square peg into a round hole. I think this saying sums up pretty the well the process of innovation!
What innovations intrigued you the most?
The innovation regarding powering down the spacecraft is most intriguing to me. The risks in doing so were abundant as there were so many unknowns as to how the spacecraft (Would it get pointed in the wrong direction? Would it eventually repower up?) and crew (Would they freeze to death?) would respond in light of the decision. The other instance of innovation was no less serious, although seemed more cut and dry to me, in that the filters had to be figured out or the crew would asphyxiate.
What was the team’s response to the need to innovate?
The initial responses of the team in video 1 and video 2 were opposite. The team in the first video loudly opposed the suggestion that the mission could operate on a minimal level of power. While they mostly fell in line and embraced a more innovative mindset, due to the coaxing of their leader, there continued to be some disparate voices. In the second video, the approach to having to innovate was more matter of fact. It felt more task-based, if that makes sense. The team in video 2 were told they had to come up with a way to create an air filter and they started their work with no resistance.
The difference in the teams’ approaches could lie in the way the need to innovate was communicated to the teams tasked with creating the innovation. In the first video, the team did have to come up with a way to ensure the astronauts would have enough power to return to Earth. It was presented as life and death, which it was, although this resulted in an outpouring of emotion because of the levity of the situation. While the second scenario also dealt with a life and death situation, it was not presented as such. It helped that the goal was more established in the second video – the need to make a new air filter, while in the first video the decision on how to proceed, and the need to innovate, was less defined, until the team lead made a decision on how to move forward, which resulted in the increase level of anxiety displayed by the team members.
How did the leader drive innovation?
In video 1, the team leader was tasked with first making a decision on how to innovate. He utilized his critical thinking skills to make the best decision at hand, as well as when directing the team, after making the decision, to collect and analyze all the information they could gather about power usage on the spacecraft. Once his decision was made, he set the team with the task at hand and shared his expectations – failure not being an option! Similarly, in the second video, he makes the decision that the team create an air filter and the levels the expectation that it will have to work. In both instances, he decided the plan on how to innovate and his expectations for success.