I was a on team that we were doing a major project. We basically ran Kanban but had to run "sprints" so we chose 4 week sprints to get it out of the way and we put everything on the board we had to get done that month to stay on track. Our pipeline was setup in such a way that you were required to have a jira ticket to push a commit. We were really crushing our timeline, doing 2x the work we were expected, a really great team honestly. But we opened up bugs and additional features in the middle of our sprints to track our work as we did it.

What this amounted to was maybe us saying we have to do 40 tickets this month, and wed be closing like 80. Everyone should have been thrilled by this development! Well we had a sprint review where some "Senior Project Manager" That wasn't really affiliated with our project but was some manager higher up was mad that us opening up new tickets mid sprint and closing them was ruining the org level burn down charts and expected delivery. They wouldn't give up on this, and said it was our fault for not estimating better (which sure, but we were beating expectations!). So we did the reasonable thing and improved our estimates! No of course not, we doubled our number of tickets and filled in "placeholder" on half of them, and used them as needed then closed everything out at the end of the sprint, where we were congratulated by everyone for our phenomonal estimation.

1. (99% of) employees don’t care. They have their own job to do and working on other things is an eyebrow raise from their manager (see 3). And what’s the e benefit? Mostly it’s a pat on the back or some “points” in the company award system that you can use to buy shitty merch at the end of the year.

2. Executive leadership doesn’t care because for the most part they don’t trust their own tech team to innovate. Why take the risk when you can buy a startup which comes with a bona fide certificate of innovation.

3. But the real problem (as commonly identified) is middle mgmt, who not only don’t care but are generally hostile to nonstandard work. The reasons for this are complex, partly it’s the aging manager suffering from Peter Principle, partly it’s the fear of negative pushback from senior leadership.

PS: Steve is amazed, but 10 months for the sort of setup he describes which includes HW buy and setup, in a Big Corp is very fast.

What was interesting to me was the self-fulfilling prophecy of dysfunction: because there was so much manual process and red tape, the cost of fixing a particular problem is larger than than the benefits (i.e: time spent on the task exceeds time saved by automating it).

But because the tasks do not get automated, the amount of time required to fix things increases bit by bit due to the processes in place. The cost of fixing a task increases marginally every day, and so the cost/benefit ratio increases every day, becoming further justification NOT to fix things. At a certain point you have to look at the bigger picture and recognize that there is a much larger problem in your company than a few excel spreadsheets that could be better automated.

I think it's more of a lost cause, really. If you want to work on cool new stuff, don't work at a large org. I play the "innovation hero" role often enough, and the diversity of pushback we encounter is impressive. It ranges from thinly veiled hostility, the sdev equivalent of NIMBY, lies through omission, through nonviolent noncompliance, all the way to blithely unaware absurdity.

One amazing moment stands out to me - we were jumping through the usual hurdles as described in the article, trying to get a prototype to prod, and in one meeting the head of IT indignantly exclaimed "I am not here to solve problems!". To paraphrase a scene from the Big Short: he wasn't confessing, he was bragging. The top brass exist to stifle any and all deviation from the norm.

Another commenter in this thread makes a very good point: most of these innovation initiatives die stillborn, because the existing power structures exist, their MO is to maintain, and the C-suites would rather buy a successful startup than take any political risks internally.

One of them is the Google example. To get promoted beyond a certain level, you must have brought some new product over the finish line. Result? They have so many new things happening all the time, all of them suck, and then just move on to the next. Eg how many chat products do they need to invent before they settle on one and let it mature?

For every "innovation hero" that wins an award, there are 5 who are "managed" into leaving, marginalized, or disenfranchised. The high nail gets the hammer. I have been into and out of the startup space for the last 20 years, and most of the times that I was an "innovation hero" it was because there was one person in a corner office who was using me as a proxy for a change they wanted to see happen.

The American system of organizational management is...basically glue.

The problem is that large organizations naturally drift toward inertia and ossification. If a forward-looking leader wants the culture to change, they are faced with a conundrum:

- use a strategy like this (e.g. some top-down “innovation center” approved at the C level) which reinforces the rigidity and process-oriented thinking that needs to change, or

- create an insurgent skunkworks group that hopes to prove a different approach via undeniable results. This usually ends with back-alley knives getting unsheathed.

I was the one who had to stay late multiple Fridays making sure our Formal Builds would still work. I've been working to roll back the least well executed portions of this innovation for the past year because it doubled the amount of time required to release our software in the last stages of the pipeline (which was already five days, another rant, I work at VeryBigCo on a mixed HW/SW product).

I believe in this story the entrepreneur referenced worked to clear all similar hurdles, but it's hard to feel bad for folks who view themselves as Innovation Heroes when in many cases they're applying solutions in search of a problem. It's also very not fun to be "that person" aka "The Adult in the Room".

Yes, today the "Innovation" is part of our processes, but in stripped down form and it cost us two missed formal builds with the corresponding loss of credibility in our customer's eyes... in addition to my own sour grapes and missed dinners with my kid. It also cost me a personal friendship with the hero (my fault, but it's really hard for me to get past the fact this individual put their ego over my time with my family).

Agree it's a sign of a dysfunctional organization but it goes both ways. As an Innovation Hero, you should be aghast at how inefficient your org is, but as a part of that org, you should stop and ask, "How did we get this way and am I sure my solution truly solves all aspects of this situation?"

This team generated all of the sales documents for the company; thousands of templates.

Within weeks I wrote some VBA macros that automated 75% of the process and they promoted me to manager a couple months later.

What I found fascinating though was the group of existing document specialists were not suddenly capable of doing 2 - 3x the work. They just appeared to move slower. It was like pulling blood from a stone. They had no interest in learning new work which they were now free to do, they just wanted to clock in, turn their mind off for 8 hours, click the button and clock out.

40% of the staff at large companies are likely not needed and can be automated away.

Kind of made me feel sad.

> what we just witnessed was leadership rewarding and perpetuating a dysfunctional and broken system.

Leadership's first responsibility is to keep the system happy and running smoothly. The first responsibility is not to shareholders, not to attempting to seize potentially higher profits, but to the organization itself. The organization may be "dysfunctional" and "broken" but this is completely irrelevant - the Fortune 500 is still generating massive profits and the public institution is still nominally discharging its duties. This is why the vast majority of Fortune 500 CEOs are "caretaker" CEOs and why deep cultural change of public institutions is so difficult.

Culture is fundamentally a question of who you hire, who you promote, and who you fire. Those decisions do not happen overnight in healthy organizations. That's why it's slow.

“When [W. Edwards Deming] came to spread the gospel of continuous improvement in 1950, he was preaching to the choir. Toyota already believed in it. [Deming] simply gave them a process to better understand how to progress from failure. The idea of ever-improving coupled with what they learned from Deming—especially the Theory of Knowledge and shorter feedback loops via the PDSA loop, as well as the Theory of Variation and the accompanying statistical process control—let them succeed in their failure.”

From “Deming’s Journey” by John Willis. Solid recommended new read.

https://www.amazon.com/Demings-Journey-Profound-Knowledge-In...

If you want to get a government agency to perform better, fix the incentives.

This reminds of that.

That shouldn't mean that you don't celebrate those superstars. They're not a bad thing certainly--which is probably where I differ with the post a bit. But understand that we shouldn't be depending on them all the time.

Why do we immediately assume that innovation = progress? Sure, the things that SURVIVE are useful, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of ideas are just like mutations in evolution more likely to be at best useless and probably damaging in various ways.

You see, social constructs are not as dumb as they appear to be to the armchair intellectual. "Why, we should embrace innovation and immediately adopt any idiocy that Mary from accounting is suggesting as our global company policy". I assure you that by natural law, if "random idea from random guy" were profitable on average, we'd have a system that would encourage such ideas. The sad fact is that they aren't and will never be.

Friction (named in the article as "Dysfunctional Organization") is an unfortunate but necessary process which ensures "survival of the fittest", even among "innovation". It's as simple as that.

This is certainly an interesting article to read about but I'm not sure his suggestions or analysis are that substantive. Complex institutions develop rules to simplify decision making and streamline information flows. They choke otherwise. "Develop an innovation doctrine" isn't really effective advice.

The point the author wants to make can be made without denigrating the glorious matter of a person who is willing to overcome adversity to and ambiguity and chaos to do something wonderful.

When process mavens attack heroism, they are essentially saying that high performance and creative solutions should be an algorithm, a mechanism, something inhuman rather than fully human. They want the business to be an equation, and that should offend us, not comfort us.

By all means let’s do something to make innovation reasonably acceptable and not unreasonably expensive— but no organization should lightly enter into highly speculative work. Heroism is heroic partly because it’s also dangerous. There are good reasons to discourage it and good reasons to engage in it. Heroism is fraught— but it’s essential to any kind of technical work, since we are surrounded by obscure, “wicked” problems.

A good organization will reward heroism that doesn’t have a happy ending, as long as it was responsibly and competently pursued.

Playing the innovation hero in that kind of org is dangerous, and I have the battle scars, the burn-out and resentment to prove it. Others have pointed out that the point of the power structures is to self-perpetuate and any threat to that is swiftly dealt with.

It's just so sad to see, all because people fear change. I don't know how to change that other than replacing those lifers and swapping out management.

Now I know what to look for and am willing to bounce at the first sign of it.

There's an argument to be made for bureaucracy: once you reach a certain scale (of complexity and/or size), the law of large numbers makes that you're prone to more risks than when you're a startup. It's "fine" for a startup to not be aware of the latest development of privacy policies in Finland, and if you provision a couple resources in the cloud everything's fine because when looking at the bill, you can simply ask around "who owns that thing?". At enterprise size, you're much more prone to be audited by governments, to be attacked by hackers, to be the target of lawsuits, to have runaway costs that get hard to diagnose ; and the complexity of your systems (wet or hard) doesn't increase linearly. I don't think you can avoid having some processes to control that.

The problem is when the enterprise gets into a vicious cycle in which the only fix to any process issue is to slap on more process rather than rethink the existing ones. Such as illustrated in that post, where the solution to a lack of innovation is the creation of innovation heroes to incentivize the behaviour. I've been in three enterprise organizations, two of them have policies where you need to ask for permission, the other grants permission by default but reviews what's been done. That second policy is much better, as the level was quite high, people tend to respect the rule, and get caught if they don't. That allows for faster work.

But then there's also the matter of recruitment. As a startup you can handpick people, create a team that's functional and with an edge. In an enterprise, recruiting is done at an industrial scale, where your inbound fresh flesh exposes you to the simple truth that, by definition, half of humanity is below the mean.

Because often you can solve 99% of companies problems with boring software.

I am reminded of this blog post from earlier this week:

> Most organizations cannot ship the most basic applications imaginable with any consistency, and you're out here saying that the best way to remain competitive is to roll out experimental technology that is an order of magnitude more sophisticated than anything else your I.T department runs,

https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/i-will-fucking-piledrive-you...

The middle management problem is they are right in the worst place possible. They are removed from the actual work being done so they don't know what it actually takes to do anything and they are blamed for things not accomplished. Further, they are rewarded for every little stupid thing done. It hyperintensities them to do lots of small safe initiatives and vehemently oppose anything with any sort of risk. All while being almost completely disconnected from what actually needs to be done.

This all leads to a culture meant to squash innovation. Middle management isn't rewarded for implementing a grunt's idea, they are rewarded for delivering CEO initiatives. Anything that takes time away from that is seen as waste.

As legendary methodologist Alistair Cockburn teaches us: People hate change. They really, really hate change. (paraphrasing)

> not only don’t care but are generally hostile to nonstandard work

Most persons have an immunological-like response to any and all change. Our minds (personalities?) strive to maintain an equilibrium at all costs. Even when the status quo sucks. Even when we intellectually commit to changing. We keep getting pulled back into the rut, foiling our own best intentions.

This trait makes change very, very hard (for most people).

Now multiply that by 10, 100, or 1000 persons. Organizational (cultural) change is that much harder.

Noob me was belligerently intolerant of apathy and inaction. A total wrecking ball.

Elder me now appreciates notions like patience, deep listening, radical empathy. Like trying to empower people to improve their own situation, instead of always running them over.

> aging manager suffering from Peter Principle, partly it’s the fear of negative pushback from senior leadership

is not typically the reason, in my experience. I've seen a lack of full comprehension on the part of the team pushing the innovation as to the actual benefit and cost of the innovation to all the affected teams. And as a result, the lack of a plan to address those issues...

I've seen a lot of incomplete innovations, where the benefit is real and useful, but the plan leaves various concerns of different teams unaddressed -- no doubt due to the innovation team being unaware. Strangely, the innovation team often wants to push forward anyway, which is not good since the plan is basically unworkable with critical issues unresolved (I can tell they kind of think the issues aren't critical but only because they don't understand them -- leading with ignorance when the processes and products actually have to work at the end is always doomed to fail.)

The most common way plans are incomplete that I've seen is when they don't account for the schedule. The plan will take X time away from other work to implement, but the schedule for delivery of that other work isn't moved back X, nor are there other compensating measures. That's an unworkable plan, and any half-decent manager will push back on it.

(Schedule impact is usually a tough one... at least at larger places, in my experience, the high-level delivery schedule is negotiated at a high level, and it hard to change for political reasons. That means time for any innovation plans has to be included from the start. Yet slack in any schedule tends to get gobbled up at the team level or below, addressing their concerns -- who doesn't have tons of technical debt they are dying to resolve? There's a way to handle this, but it has to be planned for and done at a high level, and done correctly. The fruits of any innovation team that doesn't have this are gong to be minimal.)

This always confused me. It looked from the outside like Google does so many things right on the innovation front, but after some early success they have had a rough streak.

I'd argue that one thing that Google is doing wrong is gatekeeping promotions based on (overly) well-defined criteria such as new products. Goodhart's Law applies to this situation: you're sure to see lots of new products if its highly rewarded - a lot more than you'd see naturally. As the author mentioned - this might still be desirable depending on the market conditions, but there is a lot more to this discussion, and it's not entirely clear that Google has it wrong.

I'd argue that they emphasize comparability of assessment results(e.g. being able to quantify someone's output like a percentage grade in a course) over the actual relevancy of the assessment criteria/work/kpi to the company's bottom line(e.g. does the course's test actually prepare students for the real world). This probably comes as a by-product of the organization's heavily academic-focused staff - so it might actually be the best culture choice for them given that context - but it might also lose to companies that can successfully put a bigger weighting on the right "intangibles".

If your manager is a director or higher, they can appeal the promo denial and an appeals committee can be manipulated into giving a promotion. That's what happened to me- promo saw no impact to my launch. Then my director went to appeals and basically said "promote him, he's doing good work".

Everything about Google messed up my expectations and planning around career. To work anywhere else (a startup, or a pharma) I had to unlearn all the bad habits of self-promotion and cookie-licking and impact-demonstration.

Of course many people joke the best way to get promoted at Google is to leave, get promoted elsewhere, and return to Google at a higher level (using all your newly learned negotiation skills).

My theory for why Google is different remains unpopular, however.

Maybe true for some government organizations, but not true on the whole.

Governments spend billions (and sometimes trillions) on innovation to compete with each other. Collectively, government programs probably account for 99.99% of all "innovation" spending.

And they have the highest stakes when it comes to being "outcompeted".

The USDS is enabled to succeed in this mission through the support of the Executive Office of the President, the equivalent of corporate executive sponsorship. Culture comes from the top.

https://www.usds.gov/impact-report/2024/

https://www.usds.gov/impact-report/2024/by-the-numbers/

(full disclosure: went through a USDS interview cycle and was extended an offer, no other affiliation)

Can you really imagine a military that didn't have and celebrate heroes?

If a large organization can't have those that sacrifice themselves and break rules to achieve the greater goal, then they're unlikely to succeed against a significant foe. At the same time communication within large organizations is challenging and leadership is unlikely to know what the challenges at the front line are. Fostering all innovation is as likely to lead to regularly scheduled mediocre "improvements" and "features" that nobody really wants in order to meet whatever metric is in place (to the detriment of what is not explicitly measured).

The argument of the article seems to be, just be so good and well directed by both senior and middle managers that exactly the "right" innovations occur within the process. That likely means those in the trenches aren't getting what they need.

The most effective rapid innovation method I've seen (though painful and challenging to implement) is having separate teams competing to several performance milestones (which allow more generic goals and targeted metrics). At the milestones they share their results and innovations, which competing teams can then use/combine to compete against them. Management needs real goals with known tradeoffs, 2-3x more people than a single team, and it's stressful hitting deadlines knowing that failure is an option. The failure mode is putting all the "best" people on one team which is supposed to win, though I've seen even that get broken by a team of underdog "heroes" who embarrassed the chosen team, and luckily senior management rewarded that.

It's similar to "red" vs "blue" pen-testing or wargaming, but you can have more than 2 teams and the goals can be aligned against the status quo (sometimes a tweaked current solution is the winner).