By Will Taylor (20-21)

Innovation is a buzzword commonplace in our management speak. For you, it may conjure up images of cutting edge technology, new consumer products, or a new way to view your favorite TV show. In a work setting, it may make you think of a separate business department, that strategizes the future, researches and develops for future product launches; a silo of clever people who can see the horizon of potential and possibility and on whom the future success of the company depends.

In a sense, this is all true, but it is realty only the tip of the iceberg in what innovation at work is really about.

Innovation is seen as really important for the sustained growth and competitiveness of a company, and so as result, a lot of research has gone in to establishing what innovation is, what is its process, how companies can facilitate it, and whether there are certain types of individual who have better skillsets to be good at innovation.

Innovation on an organisational level is seen as the accumulation of each and every employee’s contribution to innovation. It is no longer seen as just a new product feature, or a innovation hub within an organisation (although these do, of course, still exist for good reasons), but it is seen as how each employee can spot opportunities or anticipate problems, and seek better ways of doing things. It is how companies can create an environment at work where employees are encouraged to question the status quo, question conventional practices, and given the space and job security to take the initiative.

The process of innovation is important to understand if we are to understand what the end goal of innovation is. Because innovation does not start and finish with the end result, what goes before the end product? Much research today suggests that innovation can be mapped out against a simple three-stage framework. The three stages being:

1. Idea Generation. In this stage employees may spot an idea for the development of a product, or a new system for doing something at work. They will think of this idea either in a really creative way, and we know some people are more creative than others; or in an entrepreneurial way, where ideas might come from spotting gaps in the market, or from assessing what competitors are doing; or ideas may come from just trial and error – if you have been in a role long enough, then there are probably some things you know could be done better.

• Idea Promotion. In this stage, ideas that have been generated by the employee (or employees) are then suggested and promoted to the wider team and management. It is here that change-leaders can be persuaded to the idea, individuals required to make the change happen are brought on board, and the resources required to initiate the change are planned for. As you can see, this stage requires a different skill set from the first stage. It requires skills of persuasion and articulation, of relationship building with team members and management, of planning and strategizing for the change budget.

• Finally, Idea Implementation. In this stage, ideas that have support are implemented into the business practice, or ideas for product development are integrated into the production timeline. Anyone who has been involved in even minor changes at work, is aware of what a difficult process this is. This stage requires persistence to make the change happen, and adaptability to cope with the inevitable hurdles that come into play. It also requires managerial capabilities, to handle the budget and resources, and, of course, lots of charm to push individuals into making the required changes to their way of doing things, or to increase their workload with a new product development.

So this is the nutshell of the process of innovation. It is a process that if done often, will produce many false starts and dead-ends, lots of circling back and tweaking before progressing. This is a useful framework because is shows the whole iceberg, not just the tip (which is what we see as consumers). What the process also shows us is that innovation is not just for scientists, engineers or technologists; it is for all employees to integrate into their role specification.

Given the breakdown of the process, it is clear that some individuals are more suited to certain stages over others. This can be because of personality and interests, or because of skills and experience.

So what makes effective innovation, the employees or the leadership?

Likewise with the process of innovation, there is a lot of research into how companies can either heighten or dampen innovative spirit.

The overarching finding from the research is that the most important thing for effective innovation output is for business leaders to create the correct environment to encourage innovative behaviour. It is found that certain individuals, be they creative, proactive, or entrepreneurial, will always thing of new ideas for doing things, but unless the work environment is correct, these ideas will never progress to the idea promotion stage.

In what is called, Transformational Leadership, research has identified a management style that facilitates and promotes innovation. It is a style of management that empowers employees to be the best they can be. By giving employees trust and autonomy, the exchange comes in the form of increased organisational commitment and productivity. In aligning their work to the company’s vision, employees have a greater sense of work purpose and will more likely take the initiative to solve problems and seek opportunities. 

If you are a leader at work or manage a team, take some time to think about your team member’s strengths, and where they might be best suited on the process of innovation. Also, listen and consider their ideas, participate in a group brainstorming session, and invite colleagues to take part. Employees often know the company and industry better than anyone, and tapping into their ideas may provide insights and ideas beyond your expectations.

By Nahid Kausar (MSc 20-21)

I’ve undergone a subtle yet profound change as a human being, and I credit this to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). ACT, pronounced as the word ACT rather than phonetically A-C-T, is a cognitive behavioural therapy. I first came across ACT in my Organisational Psychology Masters at City University and started to use it on myself, as well as with the people I coach.  It helped me to deal with difficult situations in my life in a more beneficial way. It also improved how I coached and what I was able to help people with. Through using ACT, I feel more grounded and better able to cope with what life throws at me.

What is ACT?

ACT is a therapy that helps individuals not to let difficult thoughts and feelings stop them from doing the things they value. It does this by focusing on changing how a person responds to those difficult thoughts and feelings, rather than trying to change the thoughts and feelings themselves.  As we know, changing deep-seated ways of thinking is tricky. Also, having difficult thoughts and feelings is part of being human. We shouldn’t try to stop them from happening. Instead, we should try to respond to them in a way that is helpful, rather than harmful.

The overall aim of ACT is to improve psychological flexibility, which can be described as understanding what is important to you and taking action to move towards it, even though there may be something difficult you need to engage in order to do so. ACT looks to enhance psychological flexibility by working on six core psychological processes. By psychological processes, we mean the way our minds work and how this translates into behaviour. Those six processes are:

• Acceptance – making an active choice to experience difficult or unhelpful thoughts and feelings
• Defusion – creating psychological distance from our thoughts and feelings
• Contact with the present moment – being aware of our experiences in the present moment 
• Self as context – understanding that we exist outside of our experiences
• Values – knowing what is guiding what we want to work towards
• Committed action – taking active steps to move towards what we value

These processes are separate and also connected, as you can see illustrated in the diagram. ACT works on these processes through the use of exercises and metaphors.

A lot of research shows that ACT can help improve clinical conditions including anxiety disorders, depression, OCD, and substance abuse.  It’s used to reduce the impact of work stress and even help sportspeople perform better

What did I study?

There are a lot of ACT practitioners in the world, that is people who use ACT to help others. In the theory on ACT, ACT practitioners are encouraged to use ACT on themselves. Otherwise, how can they know what their clients are going through? Particularly as it is all about difficult thoughts and feelings, and how what we feel inside translates into the world around us. The theory also describes core competencies and how these can help improve the relationship with the client.

Given my own experience has made such a big difference, and the theory encourages those who practice ACT to do it for themselves, I expected a lot of research in this area.  However, that is not the case; very little has been researched. This led me to my study, which is exploring how personally engaging in ACT influences how you use it with others.

I interviewed 17 people who use ACT in their work to help improve overall well-being, both one-to-one and in group sessions. They work with them through coaching, therapy, leadership development, and even creating apps that use ACT. The conversations were interesting and informative, and a lot of the people who took part really valued having the time to explore.

What did I find?

I found three overall themes by applying a thematic analysis, that is reviewing the interviews word for word to identify common patterns.

The first theme was about authenticity being at the heart. Personally engaging in ACT meant that the individuals bought their real self into their work; they were more genuine and true. It also connected them more deeply to their values and this influenced who they worked with, and how they worked.

The second theme was around how courage helped. Their personal experience meant they focused on doing what mattered, even if it was difficult. This helped them to embrace new opportunities, and to help their clients in taking the next step on what was important for them. They were also braver in sharing who they were and did so with more vulnerability. This self-disclosure helped create greater connections and more equal relationships.

The third was around how their experience translated into how they responded in a respectful way. They adapted how they worked; they were more flexible and adjusted in the moment. Their personal experience also helped them to notice what was going on for their clients and for them. For one person, this noticing meant she was able to rescue a difficult relationship.

For some individuals, their personal experience had a significant impact including changing careers. For others, the impact was more subtle but equally important.

What do the findings mean?

I analysed the themes by referring to what the theory and wider research says about ACT. My analysis showed that a lot of the core competencies I mentioned earlier were demonstrated. It also showed that the six core psychological processes, also mentioned earlier, were in action. Overall, my research highlighted that personal engagement in ACT had a profound impact on how these individuals used it with others. It created a greater connection to who they were and helped inform better relationships with their clients, with better outcomes. By personally engaging in ACT these individuals lived their professional lives more in line with the spirit of ACT.

The analysis highlights a need for more research into personal engagement in ACT; in particular, how it influences enhanced relationships and better outcomes. The analysis also highlights a recommendation to those who use ACT with others to take the time to use it on themselves, as they will gain benefits similar to the individuals I interviewed and what I have experienced myself.

P.S. a caveat. As this study was only with 17 people it means you can’t assume these findings apply to other people