Innovation (Noun.)
A term used loosely, with great frequency, in business, technology, and creative fields. But what does it mean to be innovative? And how does being innovative differ from innovating? One an adjective, the other a verb, at once closely related and distinctly nuanced, each capturing different aspects of the creative process. Let’s consider the theoretical and practical distinction of these words and any actionable implications for business leaders.
To be innovative describes capacity and potential; a propensity for creativity; a disposition toward novel solutions and approaches. It suggests an innate characteristic that exists even in the void of expression and realization.
A person or organization may be innovative in their thinking and approach while working on routine tasks and exhibiting vigilance for spotting transformative opportunities.
Consider a software developer who approaches maintenance tasks with an innovative mindset. While fixing routine bugs, she notices patterns suggestive of broader improvements. Here innovativeness is intrinsic, constant, a lens through which she views all her work and collaboration.
In contrast, the act of innovating describes execution and realization; a propensity for action; a disposition toward achievement and results. It requires a threshold of attainment possible only via expression and realization.
A person or organization is innovating only, when so enabled, through planning and deliberate effort, they produce concrete, novel outcomes.
Consider a software developer who conceptualizes and pitches a new module, gets approval and funding, architects and builds it, collects critical feedback and suggestions, and builds and launces v2.
Consider two approaches toward innovation. One team espouses a culture of innovation, creative thinking, celebrating prior successes, and taking pride in being innovative. Another team puts resources behind new initiatives, tolerates productive failure, and consistently bringing new ideas to market. Here the distinction reveals itself in tangible outcomes – one team possesses potential, while the other consistently delivers results.
What are the practical Implications for business leaders?
Understanding the distinctions discussed above can be transformative. It can reshape how organization, teams, and leaders think about innovation. Here’s how this understanding can be applied:
- Leaders must recognize that being an innovative organization, hiring innovative people, having an innovative culture, while valuable, isn’t sufficient.
- Being innovative represents potential energy.
- Innovating is converting potential energy into kinetic energy to produce actual movement and change.
- This means creating structures and processes that actively nurture, catalyze, and sustain innovating behavior.
- Innovating cannot be siloed to one group of creative characters in an organization. It must be distributed and democratized. *
In conclusion, the distinction between being innovative and innovating reveals a fundamental truth about organizational change: potential must be paired with action to create value. While Innovation potential provides the foundation for transformation, it’s the active process of innovating that turns possibilities into reality. Leaders must nurture this potential, provide the structure and support needed to consistently transform that potential into tangible productive change..
The implications of this understanding extend beyond individual projects or initiatives – they touch on fundamental questions about how organizations approach change and improvement in an increasingly kinetic business environment. Part 2 of this series will examine why this distinction is more critical today than ever. In summary, being innovative is a state of potential, while innovating is a state of productivity. Leaders must understand this nuance and catalyze innovation accordingly. Look for Part 2 – Why now more than ever?