Blockers to Innovation

Fear and Short Term Thinking

Michelangelo, the Italian sculptor, painter, architect, and poet of the High Renaissance is famous for many works including his fresco on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Two of his best-known works, the Pietà and David, were sculpted before the age of 30. Remarking on his sculptures, he is believed to have stated, “The sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material.” Reflecting on this statement I suspect that innovation is apparently similar to marble, it’s in each of us but we have to chisel away the superfluous to let it out. 

Innovation is extremely important to most endeavors including businesses as well as research. Therefore it should be no surprise that what drives organizations and individuals to be more innovative has been widely studied. These studies range from identifying traits of individuals who are innovative, such as sensitive, not motivated by money, sense of destiny, adaptable, etc. to the role psychological ownership plays in employee innovation. Then of course there is the diffusion of innovation theory by Everett Rogers, that attempts to explain how new technological innovation gets adopted, and all the derivative works explaining why people adopt or don’t adopt everything from patient portals to the internet of things. While some of this is potentially helpful to organizations seeking to become more innovative, most of it offers little practical value. 

Some of us turn to companies that we admire for their innovation in an attempt to find inspiration or to emulate their approach. One such example is Google with their “20% time” concept, which allows employees to dedicate 20% of their work time to projects they are passionate about. This approach has resulted in the development of innovative products such as Gmail, Google News, and AdSense. However, this is like most things not without some amount of controversy. Sociology professor Abraham Walker, from Queens College, has deemed this practice as "exploitative" because it grants employers the intellectual property rights over the personal business ideas of their employees.

What might surprise you is that Google didn’t invent this concept. In the mid-1970s, Art Fry, a curious scientist at 3M, faced a small but persistent problem: his bookmarks kept falling out of his church hymnal. It was a simple frustration, but one that sparked his imagination. Fry remembered a quirky adhesive developed years earlier by his colleague Spencer Silver, a glue that stuck lightly but didn’t leave a mess. Silver's adhesive hadn’t found a purpose yet, but in Fry’s mind, its moment had come. What if, Fry thought, he could apply this strange adhesive to the back of a piece of paper? He imagined it could solve his problem, creating a bookmark that stayed put without damaging the pages. This whimsical thought, born out of frustration, turned into the iconic Post-it Note, a tool so essential today that it's hard to imagine life without it.

But here's the twist: Fry didn't come up with this idea while pulling a late-night shift on a major project or following strict company directives. No, this small innovation was born out of something magical: Fry’s “15 percent time,” a program at 3M that let employees carve out a portion of their paid workweek to chase their own creative dreams. It was a gift of freedom to explore without an immediate goal, an invitation to hatch ideas that might never otherwise come to light. As Fry tinkered with Silver’s glue during his “rainbow-chasing” time, he unknowingly set the stage for one of the most beloved office supplies in history. The Post-it Note, humble as it may seem, is a testament to the power of giving people space to let their minds wander. It reminds us that sometimes the best ideas emerge when we’re not looking for them at all.

Another well vaunted approach to innovation is Design Thinking, which is a human-centered approach to problem-solving that emphasizes empathy, creativity, and collaboration. It begins by deeply understanding the needs and pain points of the people you're designing for, often through observation and direct interaction. From there, teams generate a wide array of ideas, no matter how unconventional, before rapidly prototyping and testing those ideas. The process encourages iterative refinement, taking feedback from users, learning from mistakes, and adapting solutions until they truly meet the intended needs. By combining the analytical with the imaginative, Design Thinking helps organizations tackle complex problems in innovative, user-driven ways.

Design Thinking traces its roots back to the 1960s, where it evolved from the fields of architecture and industrial design. Stanford University and firms like IDEO, a global design & innovation company, were instrumental in popularizing the methodology, especially in the early 2000s. Tim Brown, Executive Chair of IDEO, explained the concept as, “Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer’s toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success.” One of the most notable success stories comes from Apple, which embraced Design Thinking to revolutionize product development. By focusing on user experience and intuitive design, Apple created products like the iPhone and iPad, transforming both the tech industry and the way people interact with technology. The company's success demonstrated the far-reaching impact of this approach, showing that when businesses prioritize empathy and creative iteration, they can produce groundbreaking innovations that resonate deeply with consumers.

While 20% time or Design Thinking sound like interesting concepts to consider to improve innovation within an organization, I think there is something even more fundamental when it comes to understanding why some organizations are less innovative. A reader recently commenting on the intersection of failure and innovation stated, “The biggest shortcoming I've seen in product development organizations during this time is a reluctance to fail, which in turn results in too little experimentation and thus too little innovation.” I think this is spot on. The fear of failure seems to be the biggest blocker for innovation. 

The fear of failure often stifles innovation by creating an environment where experimentation is viewed as risky, and new ideas are avoided in favor of the tried and tested. This fear is exacerbated when organizations are overly focused on short-term revenue and EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization) goals. While financial discipline is essential, an overemphasis on immediate returns can drive a culture where the long-term potential of innovation is sacrificed for short-term gains. The pressure to hit quarterly numbers pushes teams to optimize for incremental improvements rather than investing in bold, disruptive ideas that carry the risk of failure but offer the potential for transformative success.

Rapid iteration, an approach that embraces frequent testing and refining of ideas, is often overlooked in such environments, yet it offers a viable path to innovation. When teams are allowed to test, fail quickly, learn, and iterate, they can progress toward groundbreaking solutions without the paralyzing fear of failure. In fact, rapid iteration thrives on the understanding that failure is not just possible but inevitable, and it’s through this cycle of trial and error that the best innovations emerge. Companies like Amazon have mastered this approach with their “two-way door” philosophy, which treats most decisions as reversible, allowing teams to make quick adjustments rather than get bogged down in perfectionism or fear of making a wrong move. This mindset of rapid iteration reduces the sting of failure by emphasizing learning and progress over instant success.

However, when an organization’s focus is squarely on meeting short-term revenue targets, it inadvertently narrows the scope for experimentation. Teams are driven to deliver immediate financial results, which can often mean focusing on optimizing existing products or services for efficiency rather than exploring new, untested ideas. While these strategies may boost profitability in the short term, they rarely lead to the kind of breakthrough innovations that ensure long-term competitiveness. In this scenario, the fear of failure isn't just about personal or team reputation, it's about the very real pressure to meet financial goals. Leaders, in particular, may become risk-averse, sidelining initiatives that don’t promise immediate returns or that carry significant uncertainty.

This short-term focus is a critical blocker to innovation. Projects with long-term potential, those that require time to mature through multiple iterations, are often abandoned too soon. The rapid iteration model provides a counterbalance to this short-term mindset. It allows for manageable, incremental failures, which are valuable because they occur early and cheaply, providing critical insights before too much time or capital is invested. Yet, in environments fixated on short-term performance, even these small failures can be seen as unacceptable. The irony is that the most innovative companies, those that have redefined industries, often achieved success through precisely this type of iteration, not from executing perfectly from day one.

A culture that supports rapid iteration must also embrace the concept of psychological safety. Teams need to feel secure in the knowledge that they can propose new ideas, test hypotheses, and fail without fear of retribution or career damage. In organizations focused on meeting aggressive financial targets, this safety net often erodes, and employees revert to working within the confines of what is already known to succeed. Leaders, meanwhile, become more conservative in their decisions, preferring to allocate resources to projects with clear, short-term payoffs rather than nurturing ideas that may take several iterations to bear fruit.

To break free from the fear of failure, organizations need to shift their perspective on risk. Instead of viewing failure as a setback, they must see it as an integral part of the innovation process. This is where rapid iteration shines, offering a structured approach to test new ideas in small, manageable steps. Each iteration provides feedback that informs the next, reducing the overall risk while still allowing for bold, creative solutions. Leaders should champion this process, modeling behaviors that show it’s acceptable, even encouraged, to fail quickly, learn from the experience, and iterate toward success.

When organizations reframe their approach to failure and adopt rapid iteration, they unlock a more sustainable path to innovation. By balancing the need for short-term financial performance with a commitment to iterative learning, companies can create a culture where failure is seen not as a threat to profitability, but as a key component of long-term success.