I have just begun a book about innovation called Lead and Disrupt.
The authors´ ( and primary argument is that exploitation (of your existing enterprise assets) and exploration (for innovations) are both simultaneously necessary for organisations to survive/thrive today. So far, so good. They say that leaders must be ambidextrous, able to deal with both exploitation and exploration simultaneously. So far, not so good.
I am troubled by these ideas. Not necessarily because of the argument itself but, rather, because of the utility of these two premises to real-life. I have only just begun the book, so I will see whether my concerns are addressed in the coming chapters. But, for now, here are my problems with the utility of this in my world:
- Firstly, in my circle of acquaintance, I know no ambidextrous people, really both right- and left-handed, that are equally able to do everything with either hand. And I have never met any either. So if ambidexterity is the way to overcome the innovator´s dilemma, we may have a problem here, Houston.
- Secondly, exploitation and exploration, the authors state, are not the same thing. Having worked in the mining industry, I know this is true. The authors also say that ambidexterity means leaders must exhibit both capabilities. Having worked in the mining industry, I also know that great explorers don´t make for great mine site managers. Setting sail for distant shores takes a very different mindset to staying home and minding the sheep. I am sceptical about the embodiment of both types of outlooks in a single being.
But I remain committed to keeping an open mind in the chapters to come.
Tangential to this book, but still on the topic of innovation, I have just read an article in this week´s Economist on innovation in China. The authors of Lead and Disrupt provide a list, early on, of companies that have been around for a long time that are still around. And another of companies that have been around a long time that are not. Or are not long for this world, in any case. Both lists comprise of mostly US companies, with a light dusting of European. These lists have missed out a massive emerging force in innovation: The Economist cites Mr Edward Tse, “an expert on Chinese innovation”, and says “the country´s vast and growing market, its urban hyper-density and its legions of tech-hungry and free-spending young people provide a better proving ground for aspiring global entrepreneurs than do the stagnant markets of the developed world.” The rest of the piece gives some excellent data to back up this bold statement. I suspect no amount of ambidexterity is going to be useful in dealing with the sheer scale of innovation Chinese entrepreneurs are working on, however convincing Messrs O`Reilly and Tushman prove to be.