What comes to mind when you think of innovation? Most people think of a high-tech product such as a flying car, an AI-enabled robot, or a drug with miraculous curative properties. However, it is more useful to define innovation as “new ideas plus action or implementation which results in an improvement, gain, or profit.” This broader definition encompasses not only new products, but also services, work processes, or a better business model, and it means that almost anyone can contribute.
In a cross-border innovation effort, a good place for leaders and team members to start is to establish a common definition of what they are trying to accomplish together. Whether they have a general mandate to develop new ways to grow their business, or are tasked with developing a specific solution, they will likely have a range of possible options.
Innovations with proven value for multinational organizations include creating sales and marketing techniques or packaging products in ways that are suited for different country markets, adapting product features to fit local needs, commercializing technologies invented elsewhere, acquiring new technical information, co-designing products between headquarters and subsidiaries, or inventing solutions that originate in a subsidiary context and are exported elsewhere, even back to headquarters.
Netflix in India, for instance, has introduced a mobile-only package for less than two dollars, a fraction of its U.S. price, and provides content in regional languages such as Bengali, Gujarati, or Tamil. The company has also adapted its technology to offer a data-saving feature in its mobile app that allows users in India to alter video streaming quality depending on the strength of their connection, and has produced a growing library of original content by local artists that it now offers in other selected markets.
Once a global team has determined what type of problem or customer need it seeks to address, it must tap the diverse perspectives and capabilities of team members through the idea generation, planning, and implementation stages of innovation. Companies have various innovation platforms and processes, but all must traverse the broad path from early-stage ideation and experimentation to go-to-market implementation.
During the idea generation stage of an innovation effort, diverse teams have the potential to perform in their full glory. Inclusive innovation leaders systematically leverage the many perspectives of their team members, and draw in even more when needed. Starbucks workers in Malaysia, for instance, recognized a need for employment among people in the local deaf community, and partnered with the local Society of Interpreters for the Deaf (SID) to open a “signing store” in Kuala Lumpur, staffed by deaf partners who run store operations. This store was a success, drawing in new customers from the deaf community along with those interested in signing while building substantial good will for the company. This innovative concept, supported by customized visual displays, has since been expanded to signing stores in other countries such as Japan, Indonesia, China, and the United States.
At the idea generation stage it can be useful to have everyone involved consider who their regular “go-to people” are when they attempt to identify and solve a problem. Once they have identified these people, they can then consider how to broaden their network of contacts where needed to address their objectives. They may want to consult not only with internal company colleagues, domestic and international, but possibly also with customers, suppliers, government regulators, community groups, or industry experts. It’s particularly important for cross-border innovators to have a flexible approach to different culturally based communication styles to ensure that both core team members and extended network contacts have the “air time” to contribute.
Beyond expanding their team’s network and modifying communication styles where needed, effective cross-border innovators strive to invite and evaluate novel ideas in an objective manner. On an everyday basis, whether at home or abroad, there are often team members and other colleagues who have useful ideas to offer, but due to some form of bias—related to gender, age, function, nationality, and so on—their potential contributions are being ignored or discounted.
Here is a general set of innovation barriers and enablers for teams in the idea generation stage. Although many of these are present even in a homogeneous domestic team context, the barriers are usually higher and the enablers more vital for cross-border efforts.
Unconscious Bias
Speed
Legacy Products
Market Environment
Cultural Norms
Experimentation
Once creative ideas have been generated, most innovation teams go through a planning or design-thinking process that involves testing ideas, setting priorities, and formulating an action plan. Edward de Bono became famous for his “Six Thinking Hats” approach to further exploring and developing ideas. He suggested that team members recognize the cognitive stance that they would normally take—passionate advocate (red hat), data-driven analyst (white hat), habitual critic (black hat), process controller (blue hat), etc.—and learn to wear these hats purposefully and in a collaborative manner. Beyond this application of different cognitive styles to cultivate ideas, there are other useful filters for applying the “lenses” provided by different dimensions of diversity, such as generation, race and ethnicity, gender, and culture. These diversity factors may also vary from one country to another and intersect in various ways, so it is important to keep in mind that the relevant lenses are not the same everywhere.
There are many examples of product names and marketing efforts that backfired due to lack of cultural knowledge. Less well-known is the fact that such fiascos continue unabated, at considerable expense to the organizations involved. Here is a list of relatively recent, high-profile consumer goods controversies that could have been averted by more diverse and inclusive marketing teams:
Such public relations controversies are not confined to any particular industry or country; the products listed above are from companies based in Germany, the U.K., the U.S., Spain, and China. In addition to the direct cost of wasted planning and production efforts, companies must also consider the less easily quantified but perhaps more significant toll of brand damage from negative consumer comments that go viral. Regarding one of the examples above, a consumer remarked on social media: “Shame, Shame, Shame on you. Fire your marketing person and anyone who approved this ad.”
Successful innovations are often cross-functional, and team members need to find a distinctive fit between different functional perspectives that may include R&D, manufacturing, and marketing. This is naturally more challenging in a cross-border context. When it comes time to finalize the planning stage and commit to a specific way forward, aspiring innovators tend to feel a gravitational pull back toward complexity, ambiguity, and confusion—the natural outcome of having so many different working styles and points of view. Leaders of high-performing innovation teams regularly consider several aspects of their decision-making process—what Nancy Adler called “scope,” “representation,” and “process”—that are inclusive yet remain focused on their business objectives and not just inclusion for its own sake:
Even the classic Deming cycle of “plan—do—check—act” can go astray if it does not address these three questions. It is vital to determine the scope of information the team requires (the “what”), and the right people to engage in planning together (the “who”). Then it is just as important to have a process in place that enables everyone to express their points of view and identify areas of alignment. The team must have a clearly defined decision-making process (the “how”)—whether this is democratic, consultative, or directive—that enables movement toward closure. Following a disciplined path toward key decisions based on these three criteria enables a team to keep utilizing its diverse resources but not be distracted by forces that will require it to go back to the beginning and start over.
Tom Kelley of the renowned design firm, Ideo, wrote a book called The Ten Faces of Innovation in which he describes different roles people can take to move a project toward completion. Skilled innovators know how to tap diverse team members for their particular capabilities, insights, and working styles in the implementation stage as well. In a global business environment where companies are vying for innovation leadership, it is also worth considering, for instance, how the cultural profiles of different individuals could be utilized for the benefit of the team as a whole.
A team member who is status-oriented may have unique insights into customer expectations in a hierarchical society such as China or India, and could be designated as the “Head of Customer Care.” Or to evaluate the pros and cons of product rollout timing options in different global markets, it might be useful to pair a more risk-oriented individual with a person who is more certainty-oriented. A person from a culture where building amicable and trusting relationships is an art form could be designated as the “Teambuilder,” while a task-focused team member could be assigned to some of the most time-sensitive deliverables as “The Enforcer.” Such labels can be playful, intentional, and practically useful at the same time. They also help to keep the members of a heterogeneous team focused on implementation rather than reverting back to idea generation, which comes more easily.
In addition, cross-border innovation teams are able to call upon the different viewpoints and professional experiences of their members to anticipate and proactively address possible implementation issues.
Leading cross-border innovation requires skills that include but also go beyond technical excellence. It means leveraging diversity from every possible angle to drive the innovation process all the way from ideation to implementation. This means far more than a rich brainstorming session which generates attractive ideas that then falter or fall flat when it comes to execution. Openness to learning, failing, and receiving feedback from a wide range of perspectives, while persistently making improvements and trying again, are all essential as well.
Our recommendations for the three stages outlined here—generate, plan, implement—provide a partial guide for traversing the whole path successfully. Innovation leaders who adopt these practices or invent methods of their own will discover plenty of reasons to celebrate diversity.
—
Contact us to learn more about how we can support global innovation at your organization.
