433: Research finds “both/and” thinking is best for innovation – with Marianne Lewis, PhD

The ABCD framework for dealing with tensions in product management and innovation

As product innovators, we encounter many tensions. To name just a few of these, perhaps meeting this quarter’s objective or creating the breakthrough of the future, perhaps the team building we want to do or having more personal flexibility, or what about process improvement or just getting the job done that is in front of us right now. Research has found that such tensions reflect underlying paradoxes, and they might actually be something that can help us in the end. How can we be more effective in dealing with these tensions or even using them to our benefit?

Our guest, who has been researching this for over 20 years, is Dr. Marianne Lewis. She is the dean and professor of management of the Lindner College of Business, University of Cincinnati. She is a thought leader in organizational paradoxes and among the world’s top 1% most cited researchers in her field.

Summary of some concepts discussed for product managers

[4:59] What is “both/and” thinking?

“Either/or” thinking tends to be our default. We experience tension or a dilemma, weigh the pros and cons, make a decision, and move on. That’s the default because it makes us feel like we have control, clarity, and consistency in our decision-making. “Either/or” thinking is a potentially detrimental approach because it’s limited to a binary, not considering other possibilities. Often in innovation, I see the false dilemma, “Are we focused on today’s products or are we focused on bold, new innovation?” If we only do one or the other, we soon hit a real challenge, because those two behaviors feed each other.

“Both/and” thinking is about seeing tensions as opportunities for learning, creativity, and growth rather than paralyzing moments when you must make a call. Instead of thinking about tradeoffs, think about a paradox. I picture the yin yang. One side is the bread-and-butter current products, and one side is the bold, new innovations. The current products fund radical R&D;, and new innovations become our core products. See current and new products as two parts of a bigger hole and as a persistent tension.

[9:33] How have you seen organizations deal with the tension between tactical work and strategic work?

We studied product design firms in Silicon Valley, which were incredibly financially successful. You might assume all their work is radical product development, but they pay their bills by doing version 2.0 of a phone or a mouse. We found the tension between three different levels—strategy, team, and individual. At the strategy level, these firms were really good at thinking about their project portfolio and making sure they always had a mix of incremental projects that pay the bills and projects that were potential award-winning showcase projects. They didn’t need many showcase projects, and when they didn’t have enough they would start their own. At the individual designer level, they would rotate designers among different projects. If they kept designers on incremental projects, the designers would feel they weren’t actually doing design, but if they kept designers on only the showcase projects, the designers would think about it 24/7 and get burned out. After some time on a showcase project, a designer needed to be on an incremental project to hone their skills and rebuild their confidence. These firms fostered the identity of practical artist in their designers. They helped people feel good about both types of projects.

As another example, the chief digital officer of Fifth Third Bank told me, “If I’m not careful, urgency will always, always, always push out creativity and innovation.” I asked her what she does about that, and she said she needs people hitting the targets,