In the realm of innovation, there’s a perennial debate on how best to handle negativity and naysaying in teams. Two differing but insightful perspectives come from Lars Behrendt and Desmond Sherlock, both of whom have navigated the treacherous waters of innovation in their careers. Their thoughts offer two alternative methods for creating a culture of innovation while addressing the inevitable resistance.
Lars’s Perspective: Ignoring the Naysayers
Lars believes that innovation transcends technology, tools, or methods—it’s fundamentally a way of thinking that encourages different approaches and fresh ideas. “Innovation isn’t all about technology, tools, or methods – it’s a way of thinking that encourages you to do things differently. There will always be haters and critics, but don’t let them bring you down. Keep pushing and you’ll succeed!”
From Lars’s experience, negativity often stems from fear of change. “I’ve dealt with lots of negative people in my career. You can’t convince people to try new things if they’re scared and don’t want to. I learned to deal with them in a pretty simple way: Just ignore them.” For Lars, the key to pushing forward lies in perseverance and ignoring the detractors who stymie progress with their skepticism.
Desmond’s Perspective: Objecting to the Critics Unfair Feedback
Desmond, however, believes in standing up to unfair naysaying and browbeating. “Personally, I believe instead of ‘pushing through,’ we should just stand up to unfair feedback. I don’t believe that ignoring this behavior is going to succeed. In fact I find ignoring and ignorance to be one of the most objectionable behaviors one can find in a team. Go figure.”
Desmond underscores the importance of addressing objectionable behavior head-on. “I think the biggest cause of objectionable behavior in teams is the failure to object to it. Pretty obvious, right? However, you Lars, say, ‘Just ignore them’. I believe unfair naysaying and browbeating have more of a detrimental affect on innovation and the team, as a whole, than one realizes, and passively/aggressively trying to ignore them is not going to be as effective as objecting to their objectionable behavior, in my book. I mean, what if their content was valid and only the context of their delivery was objectionable?”
Desmond highlights the importance of distinguishing between constructive criticism and destructive naysaying. “I don’t believe the content of their disbelief is the problem, but it’s how the message is delivered that is the issue. Eg. ‘I don’t believe your idea can work at the moment because of this reason …..’ this is fine, as far as I am concerned, but ‘Erk!! That’ll never work!!’ would not be acceptable to me, and I would object to such objectionable behavior, on the grounds that it was overly dogmatic and no reasons were supplied. It would be so easy for team members to confuse fair naysaying for negativity, in my view, especially if one simply ignores the feedback completely, rather than investigating the voracity of it’s contents”
The Importance of Honest Feedback: Lessons from Humane
The recent example of Humane and their AI Pin project underscores the importance of addressing rather than ignoring negative feedback. According to a report, Humane had a policy that deterred negative feedback from their staff, leading to significant issues. “If you want to know how a company makes it all the way to market with such an out-of-touch, poorly performing product, the Times interviewed ’23 current and former employees, advisers and investors,’ and their anecdotes shed a lot of light on how this can happen. The two founders apparently ‘preferred positivity over criticism, leading them to disregard (*ignore) warnings about the AI Pin’s poor battery life and power consumption. A senior software engineer was dismissed after raising questions about the product, they said, while others left out of frustration.’ After that software engineer was fired for questioning if the AI pin would be ready for launch, the report describes a staff meeting where the founders ‘said the employee had violated policy by talking negatively about Humane.’ It’s hard to make a good product if you can’t honestly talk about the negatives and positives for fear of retaliation.”
*the author’s input – Article by Ars Technica
Leveraging from SpatzAI
This is where platforms like SpatzAI come into play. SpatzAI emphasizes structured micro-conflict resolution and supports bold idea-sharing within teams by addressing both the content and delivery of feedback.
SpatzAI Guiding Principle:
At SpatzAI, we advocate for splitting of a team member’s idea or feedback into two distinct aspects:
- The content of the idea or feedback.
- How the content is delivered (biased and dogmatic Vs as an opinion).
This principle ensures that team members can freely express their ideas and feedback, knowing there are rules of engagement for addressing unfair naysaying and browbeating. The SpatzAI intervention involves pausing the conversation to verbally caution inappropriate delivery, and if challenged or ignored, escalating through a structured three-step app procedure—1.Caution, 2.Object, 3.Stop and Post on the Spatz Team-Assisted Review (STAR) platform.
Implementing SpatzAI:
0. Verbal Caution: A respectful pause in the conversation to address the delivery of the message.
1. Official Caution: If unresolved, the behavior is documented and formally cautioned via the SpatzAI purpose-built messaging app.
2. Objection: If still challenged, an official objection is lodged with the offending team member requiring a simple apology.
3. Stop: For unresolved conflicts, the issue is escalated and automatically posted to the team-assisted review platform for a broader and transparent resolution.
By adopting the SpatzAI toolkit, teams can effectively address objectionably negative feedback that, on occasion comes with every new and radical idea. By team members being empowered to stand up to unfair naysaying, ensures a more objective and proactive approach to handling so-called negative feedback.
Conclusion
Innovation thrives on fresh new ideas and the constructive criticism or feedback of them, but it can be hindered by either ignoring the feedback or actively punishing it. While Lars advocates for pushing forward and ignoring detractors’ feedback and their information overall; inevitably risking the throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Desmond stresses the importance of standing up to unfair naysaying and only when resolved, then evaluate their content using the SpatzAI toolkit. He believes that this ensures a structured and supportive environment where innovation can flourish, and any micro-conflicts that occur, from unfair feedback are resolved constructively.
Embracing such tools and principles can help teams navigate the challenges of sharing innovative ideas and evaluating objectively, the feedback that comes with them.
Object123 
Leave a comment