Last week I had the opportunity to listen to an EconTalk podcast discussion between Professor Russ Roberts, the host, and the economist Arnold Kling. The discussion was about some of the key ideas in From Poverty to Prosperity: Intangible Assets, Hidden Liabilities and the Lasting Triumph Over Scarcity, a book published in November and authored by Mr. Kling and Nick Schulz.

One idea that grabbed my attention during the discussion is that innovation and economic growth are driven by trial and error. Using the Internet as an example, Mr. Kling pointed out that early in the dotcom boom there was tremendous trial and error in business models. No one knew what would ultimately work. Over time certain models and strategies proved successful and others fell away. Mr. Kling pointed out how difficult trial and error is to work with for an economist. It is difficult to model and forecast the way economic growth will take place. Things happen that are not anticipated. Consumers, competitors and markets react in unexpected ways. Because of this unpredictability, trial and error is a more effective approach to innovation then a more linear top down approach.

When I heard this, I immediately remembered seeing something like this before.

In his book The Martial Arts Game, Rodney King discusses the reasons behind the CMDP Teaching Game. The traditional approach to teaching martial arts is a top down linear, deterministic model. If your opponent does A then you do B and he will do C and so forth and so on. What Rodney recognized is that while this approach may seem to work with a compliant partner, when one attempts this against a resisting opponent the model often proves ineffective. In an actual fight or sparing, things happen that are unexpected, difficult to predict or model.

Kling and King both describe environments that are unpredictable. In both cases competitors’ success or failure depend on their strengths, weaknesses and actions, their competitors’ strengths, weaknesses and actions and other unknown environmental factors. I believe these descriptions are so similar as to warrant a look at whether the success of the CMDP Teaching Game in helping clients discover what works in the real world may offer a similar benefit to an aspiring innovator.

The CMDP approach to the Teaching Game is designed to improve the probability of success in a chaotic environment. The CMDP approach is a spiral approach. Interestingly, it is an approach that encourages trial and error. During the spirals the CMDP coach creates a positive environment where the client is encouraged to experiment, can learn to trust his experience, is mindful of that experience, adjusts her technique based on what is learned and practices. I propose that this same approach may prove just as useful to a business or individual seeking to win in the commercial world as it does for a CMDP client wishing to prevail in a sparing match.

To apply the CMDP Teaching Game in a commercial setting with the goal of spurring innovation, a business would:

· Create an environment that promotes experimentation by staff

· Encourage mindfulness of what works and what doesn’t

· Make refinements to process and outcomes based on experience

· Promote mastery of required skills

This sounds good in theory but would it really work?

If we look at a couple companies who are often cited as innovators, Google and Atlassian, we find that they both do some interesting things. First they create an environment that encourages trial and error by allowing their engineers to spend a significant percentage of their time developing whatever ideas interest them. Second, they encourage them to record what works and what doesn’t work and share it with the greater corporate community during regular presentations. Third they encourage the community to provide feedback based on their impression of the projects and their own experience. Finally, the engineers are encouraged to refine their projects and in so doing practice their skills. Both companies report that much of their innovation springs from this process. These companies’ experiences seem to reflect the CMDP Teaching model.

Based on the above, I believe individuals seeking to promote innovation or innovate themselves would be well served to experience the CMDP Teaching Model. The above evidence, while antidotal, supports the idea that implementing a similar model in the corporate setting would support innovation. In addition experiencing the CMDP Teaching model by training with a CMDP coach provides a mechanism through which an individual can experience the model in action, develop and practice the steps, mindset, and skills necessary to create and innovate.

Jon Moore, MS, JD (CMD Trainer)

www.mettlecraft.com

This content is published under the Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported license.