But two words of caution:

. All large companies (and also large aid organizations) are innovative to some degree. Toyota or BMW are getting out new models of their cars quite often, the same is true for Procter&Gamble or SAP or . . But their objective is to improve proven products and ideas. And they are using superior marketing money and outreach to repackage other people’sinnovations and push them into the market. Point in case: The IPod. MP3 has been invented by a German research institute and you could buy MP3 players from other companies before the IPod came into existence.

. All large companies with a reputation for innovation that I am aware of integrate large parts of the value chain. At the end of the day, the number of people that are hired for creative work is probably below 5% of the overall headcount.

The economist Clayton Christensen has done some research on innovation. He differentiates between two types: disruptive innovation (shaking the status quo) and evolutionary improvement. According to his research, successful companies defend themselves against disruptive innovation generated by insiders (for good reasons). Disruptive innovation can only survive in startups and small guys.

It is important to continue to work towards a new paradigm where ‘changing the world starts from within’. A first step towards this may be to reflect and to look at our own psychological motives (at both individual and organisational level) for engaging in aid/development. It is the vision within that shapes our outside world. It is our values, attitude and the way we think, feel and act beyond ‘abstract ideals’, that construct our relationships and the projects on the ground. It is crucial to cultivate qualities such as creativity, encouraging people to think outside the box, opening our ears and hearts, and acknowledging that maybe that image of perfection that we would like to project is unhelpful.

I find that the most effective aid workers and organisations are the ones that are willing to be seen as they are. Learning not to be afraid to look at our own personal shadow side, as well as the shadow side of aid work is an important step towards ‘smart aid’ and towards the construction of a ‘learning organisation’. As Jung said the more that shadow aspect is denied, the more it will emerge in unwanted ways, and we clearly see that in the kind of humanitarian intervention that has lost its soul, in the fear of showing vulnerabilities, of acknowledging mistakes and power dynamics.

As individuals burnout, I think that organisations burnout too, and both often keep going aimlessly, driven by a sense of duty and guilt embedded in the very idea of ‘doing good’. I believe that a different way of being and therefore doing things is possible. In my work I see many humanitarian professionals who search for that way within in order to engage with the world in a more effective way. When HOW we do things unfolds from the honest awareness of WHO we are, with our strengths and limits, change within and out there in the world takes place.
Good luck in your new job, I’m sure who you are will have a positive impact on how things unfold.

Private sector experience shows that we need organizations that are good at innovating, but that we need much more and much larger organizations that are good at implementing proven ideas effectively. I feel that the place of large aid institutions is in that implementation space. In this space operational efficiency is required. Therefore they are a bad place for “a lot of things should be done differently”-thinking.

One additional point: I have to admit that I am an outsider and that I have insight in only a very limited sample of aid organizations. But all I have learned about their processes makes me believe that they still have to learn the basics of (lean) management. Incompetent management can largely contribute to frustration of competent and creative people.

Take ‘aid’ out of the core equation, and different kinds of relationship become possible, including mutual solidarity in efforts to achieve social and economic justice for all.

Another honest and thought-provoking piece from How Matters. Thank you.

I can’t help but notice my own (unwelcome) skepticism over whether large institutions can change….. I suppose this is why we have placed on our focus on empowering the individual @ Satori…. because after years of witnessing the failure of top-down approaches to changing organizational culture (remember, I was a gender mainstreaming expert before Satori!) people powered change– one individual at a time– seemed the only viable way.

That said, the argument for strong leadership where self-care, humility, and service are concerned is pretty compelling. Where are our role models for this is Aid? I feel we may have to look more toward other disciplines for this kind of inspiration, because our own heroes are still unsung. Though i feel they are beginning to make themselves known…

Your point on product over process is well heard over here…. and we feel it even in our own org when we see that what we are trying to achieve is fundamentality immeasurable…. or at least not in concrete, material terms. But this is an age old problem in development, isn’t it?

Good luck with your new position….. I guess that makes you an ‘intrapreneur’ now?