Visit our Books area.

In Paradoxical Thinking: How to Profit from Your Contradictions (Berrett-Koehler; San Francisco; $24.95), authors Jerry Fletcher and Kelle Olwyler suggest that people tend to create habitual patterns of thought and action. While there is something to be said for consistency, the authors note that it can be ultimately stultifying.

That is, although some people might argue that the "old tried-and-true" has experience on its side that therefore ought to be repeated (perhaps with an ever-so-slight modification) ad infinitum, there is a counter line of thinking that points out that "things aren't what they used to be," so sticking with the old tried-and-true under new and ever-changing con-ditions is, well, inappropriate, to put it politely.

When we were young we tried more things. We were naturally more experimental. As we aged, and especially after we entered the working world, we had to reign in some of our wild horses and our flights of fancy. Pegasus went on a tether.

Certainly, some of this behavior modification is necessary because it would be extremely chaotic if everyone did their own thing. But what unfortunately often happens is that within an organization people tend to model their behaviors on either their immediate or ultimate superior. Although this could be partially beneficial in some cases—if, for example, the people at the top are continuously and brilliantly innovative—chances are better that the result is that the people within the organization, consciously or not, become less than they could be.

If everyone, day after day, goes down the same path, pretty soon there's an awfully deep rut.

The competitive battle in the 21^st century is not going to be about high quality, low costs and timely deliveries. Companies that aren't offering them—no matter if those companies supply the mass market or to technical customers—are currently finding themselves struggling to make the millenium's end. No, what will make or break companies in the years to come is innovation. Note well that "innovation" doesn't automatically mean something exotic, something completely different from what has come before. Indeed, Clayton M. Christensen, in The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail (Harvard Business School Press; Boston; $27.50), a book that should be on the reading list of anyone who is interested in product development or competitive positioning, describes products that overthrow the existing model by observing, "disruptive products tend to be simpler, cheaper, and more reliable and convenient than established products." Imaginative, yes; bizarre; unlikely. It is a combination of the old tried-and-true with the spin of imagination.

This whole issue of innovation meeting tradition came in clear focus when I attended an open house at which 19 college students displayed the results of a 13-week internship directed by the GM Design Center. The students were organized into teams consisting of a sculptor, a designer and an engineer. Mentors were assigned to aid and assist. The six teams created concept vehicles for Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC Truck, Oldsmobile, and Saturn divisions. Not only was this a matter of making some attractive sketches and ¹/₃-scale clay vehicles, but of researching the market rationalization and determining engineering/manufacturing feasibility. They talked with people who work for the various GM programs; there were GM Design staff on hand for assistance.

One of the students, Brian Anderson of Central Michigan University, served on the Olds team as its engineer. He told me that he discovered that one of the important things that an engineer can do is to convince people that something can be done. Often, he explained, he discovered that some people tended to fall back on the "we can't do that/we've always done it this way" excuse. But then he would show them that someone else had done something similar, which helped break the barrier to progress. They then moved ahead. As he detailed the work that he and his colleagues had done on the Olds Cignus (for the 2010 model year), his excitement was evident.

Tom Lauer has been with GM Design for 31 years. He was one of the three program managers for the internship, serving as the studio engineer. He said that he was surprised that the time at the studio annex where he worked with the students had gone so quickly. "It's really been refreshing for me," he commented.

And it is understandable why he felt that way. The imaginations were still running strong among the students. We should all attempt to let ours loose, too.