Disarming the Seven Enemies of Innovation

As a designer you encounter your fair share of criticism, both constructive and otherwise. Constructive criticism should be welcomed and accepted, it makes designs better. Un-constructive criticism also goes with the territory — when you’re putting your ideas up for scrutiny, ideas whose merits may be subjective, it’s bound to happen. Dealing with it is a matter of developing confidence in your abilities and accepting that what you do won’t and really shouldn’t, please everybody all the time.

But beyond the snipers and critics, there’s a whole other category of dissenters, the innovation killers, who strike early in the design process in an attempt to smother the first glimmers of a new idea before it has any chance to take hold. Here’s seven of my personal favorite lines of argument employed by these enemies of the new idea, and some strategies that may help to disarm them.

1.) We’ve tried that before, and it doesn’t work.

A true classic, one of my all-time faves. Implicit in this is that they’ve tried every single variation on the general concept and proven the whole approach invalid, always and forever. It’s at times like these that I like to recall that Thomas Edison famously tried 3000 different permutations in his invention of the electric lightbulb. If it was up to our innovation killer detractor, we’d still be reading by candle-light. A telling of this anecdote can be effective in calling out the absurdity of the objection.

2.) I don’t like it.

Simple enough, but this one depends on the perceived authority of the disliker. Negativity is quite contagious, especially if the naysayer is influential. Sometimes it can be deflected with some probing questioning about what specifically is disliked. Very often nothing specific will be identified, suggesting that the dislike is more about unfamiliarity than anything else. It can often be a case of “I know what I like, and I like what I know”. Fuzzy critical thinking does not hold up well under scrutiny — insist they explain themselves.

3.) It seems like it will be too expensive.

This argument stems from a perception that may or may not be accurate. When possible, counter arguments can be made that the costs have to be looked at within a larger context. Perhaps this is more expensive than the old way, but it saves money in consumables, or human resources, for example. At a concept phase, it’s not always possible to have this holistic costing figured out. I think it’s best to acknowledge the point and indicate that savings (or other mitigating factor) are anticipated, details to follow.

4.) Has anybody else done this before?

Classic risk-adverse thinking. The client does not want to be the test pilot for your crazy ideas. Fair enough, but depending on context, it may be worthwhile to have a discussion about whether they want to be leaders or followers. It can also be helpful to explain how others have done things that are partly like this, but that this is innovative precisely because nobody has ever quite done THIS before.

5.) Our CEO/President/Manager won’t go for that.

This is generally a sign of a toxic corporate culture wherein superiors routinely engage in a game of “blind man’s bluff” with their underlings. Your client contact is afraid of displeasing management based on a set of criteria that is mostly guessed at. The best strategy is to meet it head on – insist that you be permitted to present the idea to the decision-maker. You can’t work effectively by trying to appease a phantom.

6.) We can’t do that here.

Oft-used phrase by defenders of the status quo. The implication is that there is something different or special about this organization that precludes them from entertaining a certain approach or idea. Implicit here is that this is either something they’ve never done, or something they tried and got burnt with on another occasion. I think the probing question approach works best here — what is it about your organization that makes this impossible?

7.) IT, or HR or (insert department here) will never support that.

This is a passive-aggressive way of opposing the idea, by blaming the opposition on somebody else. “It’s a great idea, but Fred in IT is going to bury this, so we better forget this one.” Again, it helps to probe and discover what the objection is. If Fred would never allow that on his network, then let’s find out why, and what he would allow. Is it even Fred’s decision anyway? Did Fred ever say this?! Try to get a meeting with Fred, he might actually be a reasonable guy.

The common denominator in all of these innovation roadblocks is a basic fear of change. Whenever you’re hearing these things, it’s symptomatic that at least part of the team is going to be working against you, vigorously defending the status quo. Your best move is to disarm these enemies of innovation swiftly and decisively before their attitude of intransigence infects the entire team. By exposing their faulty reasoning and marginalizing their resistance, you create more fertile ground for innovative ideas to flourish.

Like this? More from the Design Process category.

Follow me on Twitter (@intudes) for interesting links and occasional observations.

Subscribe to the RSS feed, and don’t miss another post.