I first heard the Hegel Dialectic from my 11th grade english teacher, Mr. Samuel Lehrer, at Plainedge High School. Whether or not I ever understood Hegel or Mr. Lehrer, I did remember the famous triad of Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis and I often quote it in the context of managing innovation. In my view, it’s out of creative tension that we find the path to innovation.
It goes along with the view of research articulated by one my mentors, Dr. Dah Yu Cheng, when I was at International Power Technology. At one of our Monday morning R&D Group meetings, Dr. Cheng came in and asked if any of the young Ph.D.s working for him knew what ‘research‘ meant. We were all smart enough to keep quiet and wait for the lecture that was heading our way, where we learned that research is derived from the French verb rechercher, meaning ‘to look again.’ Dr. Cheng wanted us to be both efficient and effective by reviewing the literature so we neither repeated others’ errors nor pursued paths that would not be fruitful.
So when I ran Engineering at Ausra and AREVA Solar, I would often announce (tongue in cheek) that there was a bonus for making mistakes, as long as it was an original mistake, and I would tell the story about the meaning of rechercher. This disciplined approach to research is an element of the Hegel dialectic, providing the antithesis that helps to forge the original thesis into a practical innovation that can be executed to deliver value.
Yet it can often be a challenge to get alternative points of view, particularly when managing early career professionals. That is the real value of late career professionals, both as mentors, and as voices of wisdom, who can provide additional perspective from their experiences. In that context, I tell people that prophets are often considered crazy, but the craziness is not that they can predict future. Rather, what makes them crazy is that they can’t change a future that they see all too clearly. That is another critical element of the innovation dialectic.
But antithesis can be difficult to sustain in a corporation. CEOs cherish alignment, and they resist alternative points of view, feeling that the dissenters are not being ‘team players.’ Alignment is important after a decision, but corporate politics often wires an outcome so it appears that a decision is unanimously supported by all executives.
So it was refreshing to read the interview with Bob Pittman, CEO of Clear Channel Communication in today’s Sunday New York Times Business Section column The Corner Office. He said
“I want us to listen to these dissenters because they may intend to tell you why we can’t do something, but if you listen hard, what they’re really telling you is what you must do to get something done.”
What was really valuable to me, was how he makes this concept actionable:
Often in meetings, I will ask people when we’re discussing an idea, “What did the dissenter say?” The first time you do that, somebody might say, “Well, everybody’s on board.” Then I’ll say, “Well, you guys aren’t listening very well, because there’s always another point of view somewhere and you need to go back and find out what the dissenting point of view is.”
This is really valuable management advice. If we don’t know the opposing point of view, it’s time to look again.