Business Innovation

It's a word that American businesses love to toss about. We think it's cool. It's lauded as a virtue - always assuming that it denotes something good. I'm talking about innovation.

Ironically, most dictionaries don't define it that way. They simply say that innovation is about "something new and different." How is it then that we Americans, especially in business, automatically assume that "new and different" is always better or even always worthwhile.

Does anyone remember Jim Jones and the Kool-Aid massacre that he engineered years ago? It was new and different. Nobody in their right mind would say it was better. Remember the Ford Pinto - that turned out to be an exploding death trap? It too was new and different. Then there was the Concorde - a super fast airplane - that proved to be too expensive to be practical.

You see, the point is, innovation does not always mean value or even progress. But it seems to mean something. It seems to be paramount to our society. For some reason, we've concluded that new and different is the same as better and is indicative of progress. We assume that progress will change things - and that the change will be better. When the change isn't better - such as when a nuclear power plant melts down (i.e., Chernobyl), we write that off to an accident.

So it would seem that our society tends to believe change is always better ... that new and different is always better. And when it isn't? Well then, we write that off as an aberration ... and exception to the standard. Do you suppose this is really a wise way to approach life in general?

Fast Company magazine, which I've always enjoyed and found to be a great magazine, just did a story on the 100 Most Creative People in Business. (Check it out at http://www.fastcompany.com/100/2010.) Of course, there's another word that we seem to take for granted: creative.

Now most dictionaries define creative as being "imaginative, resulting from originality of thought." They sometimes mention that it can be productive (which we'll conclude has a definite positive connotation). But then they conclude that it could also have used exaggerated or skewed data or information. That would definitely not be good!

As I scroll through the Fast Company nominees, what all one hundred of them seem to have in common is the fact that they're observed to be creating something or doing something of value. Now the value itself may benefit only themselves --- or it could benefit the whole world. Most fascinating is the fact that they gave the first slot to Lady Gaga (http://www.ladygaga.com/). She's considered to be the single most creative individual in business today.

Lady Gaga is definitely a study in modern social norms. Time magazine lists her among the 100 most influential people in the world. Forbes magazine lists her 4th on its list of the 100 most powerful and influential celebrities in the world. Folks, these are credible business magazines. And they're citing Lady Gaga using terms such as "most powerful" and "most influential." Is this right? Is that what power and influence are supposed to look like in the world?

Don't get me wrong. Several of Fast Company's top picks for the most creative people in business today are certainly doing worthwhile things. Many are creating products that make life better, giving good service, solving big problems and even enriching their shareholders. Those are all good things to be doing. But not all of them are doing that. Some are simply, as in Lady Gaga's case, providing entertainment. Granted, they're getting rich doing it. But is that really something to be celebrated?

What kind of people are we admiring in our society today? I've heard people mention Angelina Jolie as someone they admire. She's adopted a bunch of kids and been a spokesperson for big humanitarian works. Those are good and virtuous things to do. Then again, she slept with another woman's husband, has given birth to kids out of wedlock, and is currently living without the benefit of marriage. And she's incredibly rich.

What is it that we admire so much about her? After all, there are plenty of people who've adopted more kids than Angelina Jolie! And they probably tend to lead more virtuous lives - with a lot less money. Why don't we admire and celebrate those people?

I'm convinced that there is something about the notion of celebrity that has a grip on American culture today. And it's not a good grip. We seem to be blind to the truth of any situation, depending on the celebrity. We're brutal with our politicians - but our celebrities can get away with pretty much anything. In fact the best way for a politician to redeem themselves after a fall would be to morph into a celebrity. Then we'd all love 'em!

Isn't it time that we start looking for the fabric of people. Isn't it time we stop being impressed by what they do or what they have ... and start being more taken with who they are and how they love? What if, for example, Time magazine came out with a list of the 100 Most Loving People of the Year? What if Fast Company came out with a list of the 100 Most Generous People of the Year?

When we celebrate people in our society, shouldn't we be celebrating the ones that truly make the world a better place? Shouldn't we be celebrating the accomplishments that make life more worthwhile overall? And shouldn't we be celebrating the people who best reflect the love of God to the world? Now that would be creative!

And when we celebrate innovation in business (or elsewhere), shouldn't we be celebrating the things that truly make the world a better place? Shouldn't we be limiting our celebration of new and different to only when it is also better? Wouldn't it make sense to put a requirement on innovation that it either solves problems, creates opportunities, creates new value or gives people access to value that they couldn't access otherwise? Now that would be new and different!

Gift Value?

So maybe you read it too? There's this guy in the news talking about the value of Christmas gifts. He reasons that at least 20% of all the Christmas gifts given are things that people don't want. Moreover, he reasons that if they don't want them, they don't have value to those people who receive them.

The logic is that if I pay $50 for a gift, but you don't appreciate it $50 worth, then value could be lost. So, for example, if you only care about $30 worth for the gift (assuming that your appreciation can always be measured in dollars) - then I'd have to find at least $20 of value in the satisfaction and joy I have in giving you the gift - in order to be getting full value for the price I paid for the gift. Of course, if I got more than $20 worth of satisfaction and joy from giving you the gift, then the $50 was quite a bargain.

Are you following this? The theory is that a gift only has value to the extent that the giver and the receiver value it. In other words, the value of a Christmas gift directly correlates to how much the recipient cares about the gift plus how much the giver cares about the gift. Does that make sense to you?

Now what about re-gifting, that timeless tradition of taking a perfectly good gift someone has given you (but which you don't care for) and giving it as a gift to someone else. We've already established that you-the-recipient of that gift care nothing for it ... so it has no value to you. Of course that would also mean that you-the-giver of that gift (in the re-gifting equation) obviously don't care about the gift ... so it has no value to you here either. So the only possible value proposition that this gift has is to the person who originally gave you the gift and/or the person to whom you re-gifted it. Are you following me here?

So the problem is in the gifts that don't have value. And it seems that there are quite a few gifts like that. The author of this study I read says at least 20% of the gifts given fall into this category. How does a gift come to have no value? Isn't it in the heart of the giver and in the heart of the receiver that casts such a harsh sentence on a poor, helpless gift?

What if everyone only gave gifts because they cared? What if nobody bought gifts because they were expected, because they wanted to impress, because they didn't want to show up empty-handed, etc? I don't know about you, but we have a closet where we keep the "re-gifts." We actually get so much crap that we don't care about --- often from people we hardly know, that we don't know what to do with it. Quite frequently we donate it to Goodwill or another non-profit that might be able to sell it or put it to good use. But even then we feel guilty. As a recipient of unwanted or useless gifts, it's hard to know what to do. (It's a terrible curse?)

So what's the solution here? A government bailout? Should we convene with President Obama and have Congressional testimony about the terrible gifting crisis in America? Or should we get serious about the whole notion of gift giving? Maybe we could use our hearts to love the people we want to give gifts to. Maybe we could challenge our own motives and sentiments when it comes to giving gifts?

One thing I've learned to do as a recipient is to ask for "consumption items." In other words, when my family asks what they can get me for Christmas, I've learned that "nothing" isn't going to work as an answer. The family has a desire to give to me, so I need to receive graciously. The question then becomes what I can receive graciously. I've learned that I can be much more sincerely gracious about shower soap or work gloves than I can about peanut brittle or a statue that says "World's Greatest Dad." So that's what I ask for. Every year, I send my family a list of things that I would appreciate. Mind you, many of them are things I can easily buy for myself. But this way I put the folks who love me and plan to gift me in a situation where they can be assured that the gift they give will actually have value to me. I think in that way, we both win.

I've long been turned off by weddings and the whole concept of giving at weddings. But I think I want to invent a new tradition. I think everyone everywhere should get involved in gift registries at their favorite stores. We should all maintain a "wish list" on-line with our favorite retailers. That way when someone wants to gift us they could simply go to the registry and buy us something from our list. They'd be certain to get us something we want. They'd eliminate the risk of their gift being stashed in the re-gifting closet. And most of all, they'd get the satisfaction of knowing they gave some that was actually cared about. In other words, both the giver and receiver would win.

So how about it America? How about a Father's Day registry at Home Depot? Or a Mother's Day registry at Bed, Bath & Beyond? Maybe a Christmas registry at WalMart or Target? Let's start something new --- a crusade to stamp out unwanted gifts and restore the value to giving!

Being Heard

So there is this phenomenon in American culture. It is that we want to be heard. It's not really important what the subject is - we just really want to be heard. And it's hard to explain how deep that desire is. You see, Americans consider being heard as something that is quite valuable indeed.

One of the more remarkable examples of this is something called Angie's List. I'm not sure who Angie is (or if there even really is an Angie). It is billed as a company that aggregates consumer reviews of local service companies. But it is actually a private community that only paying members can participate in. That means that in order to see a review on any company you might have an interest in, you have to pay the $59.00 annual membership fee. Similarly, to provide a review on a particular company, one must also pay the $59.00 annual membership fee.

Now you can imagine that not too many people would be willing to pay $59.00 in order to read other lay evaluations of particular vendors - whom I haven't identified yet. So how does Angie's List recruit its members? Mostly be advertising in local newspapers as a place to complain. "Had bad service? Had a poor experience? Tell it to Angie!" So here we are, like sheep being led to slaughter, willing to pay for the privilege of telling someone how awful we've been treated as a customer. Like I said, Americans place great value on the ability to be heard.

So I wonder what America might be like if Americans placed as much value on listening as they do on being heard. How might our priorities change? How do these dynamics impact our culture? I suspect the truth is that we don't know. We are probably ignorant of this impact.

Clearly there is no Biblical correlation. We are to pray without ceasing - being heard by God. But I don't find anything that says we should be heard by anyone but God. So when I see what Americans are willing to pay in order to be heard, my gut instinct tells me that this phenomenon is not without its ramifications. Now I just have to think about what those are!