Normative Models in Innovation Consulting

Espoused normative belief’s represent the collective ideas, assumptions, and beliefs a group or individual has about oneself. When these beliefs differ from the actual ‘held beliefs’ implemented the results can be confusing for stakeholders. The gap observed between the group’s espoused vs held beliefs can undermine the group’s credibility, trustworthiness, and ability to leverage shared action.  In a business setting this can undermine strategy, shared vision, and business model alignment.

Espoused beliefs can help set the direction for creating value, and delivering impact, but can also limit the group’s ability to grow, learn, and adapt.

Resolving the Gap

Innovation consulting is often faced with having to distinguish the customer’s espoused beliefs with the strategies, behaviours, and actions that are physically present. The broader the gap between the customer’s espoused and held beliefs the more difficult the consultant’s task to create a solution. The situation becomes increasingly challenging to evaluate as:

• Symptoms are confused with problem sources
• Intent is confused with what is actually occurring, and
• Personal contributions are confused with environmental contributions (and vice versa)

Normative Models

Similar challenges are also contributed when normative-models are uncritically applied to complex problems. These normative-models often over-simplify the challenges faced, implying the solution is simpler than it really is. The most common normative models in a business setting involve:

• Leadership
• Communication
• Collaboration
• Planning,
• Engagement, and
• Growth

A gap between espoused and held beliefs can challenge the application of these already oversimplified models. The results can be discerned through common evaluation and analytical tools but not without the ability to consider new and innovative paradigms.  

What is the impact of a specific belief? Is it aligned with its results?

Consider the limitations of the following normative model definitions:

• Leadership: Build it and they will come?
• Communication: Share information and they will understand/agree? 
• Collaboration: Developed a shared plan and it will be implemented flawlessly?
• Planning: Create a plan and it will help the business overcome any challenges faced?
• Engagement: Offer and opportunity for engagement and participation and all stakeholders will feel valued?
• Growth: Add more resources and the business impact will increase?

Strategic Misalignment

Value driven industries with a significant social component (healthcare, etc.) are increasingly conflicted as the above increases the misalignment between the industry’s inputs and outputs:

• Satisfaction
• Impact measures
• Social vs. profit goals, etc.

The structures necessary to support innovation are further strained as a result of:

• Organizational structure
• Differences in formal training
• Professional credentials and licensing requirements, and
• Silos, roles, and scope of authority

It can be proposed that each project has its own personality. Similarly, every profession seems to have a certain personality type that is attracted to it. The composite of the individual personality and professional training combine to create a pedagogical approach to problem evaluation, analysis, and resolution. Despite best intentions even the most dynamic and sophisticated training depends on normative-models that are soon to be outdated.

Normative models, as a heuristic, need to be challenged and updated regularly.

Example as Metaphor

The golden rule has often been referenced as the standard for social models: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Overtime this normative-model was found outdated and the platinum rule was born: “Do unto others as they would want done unto them.” Inherent in this paradigm shift was the realization that we are all unique and that a one size fits all approach is not effective.

Emotional intelligence models have been similarly updated. Beginning with foundations that emphasize self reflection, insight, and learning this normative framework has moved towards more utilitarian measures of influence and impact. Central to this transition is the insight that what we believe is helpful is not always so. Similarly, what we intend is not always the result.

Consequences

For the sake of argument lets propose that a group’s espoused beliefs always contain a favourable image of oneself. Thus any action that has a negative impact is unintended, accidental, OR the result of extenuating circumstances (environment, etc.). Attempts to improve the group’s results will then often emphasize external changes and overlook the opportunities available at the group level. Any improvements that result are celebrated as validating the assumption that the source of the misalignment is external instead of recognizing that the following explanations may apply:

• Customer requirements changed
• The problem definition changed, or
• Customer expectations changed

An over-reliance on normative models can also be blamed for the following:

• Solution is no longer relevant
• Problem definition is not accurate (or complete)
• Performance metrics deteriorate, or
• Competitive lag in innovation

Espoused Beliefs Gap Analysis

The following tool can be used to evaluate existing value based commitments. Begin by identifying what is the currently espoused belief followed by what do the artifacts (including strategies, behaviours, etc.) tell you the real belief is? Next describe the gap between the espoused vs. held beliefs and any suggestions for closing that gap.

Efforts to bridge the gap can represent a fairly significant change management endeavour. Misalignment often results for a reason and is reinforced by existing homeostatic mechanisms. Additional tools for bridging the gap between present and future vision includes change management, stakeholder consultation, business model analysis, project management and strategic planning, mission/ team building activities, and creating an innovation lab (to name a few examples). The tool selected will depend on the group’s baseline, innovation trajectory, and assessed risks.

Shared terms and normative models need to be evaluated and updated regularly to account for changes in the environment, constraints, and opportunities for improvement. Challenging espoused norms head-on can be a recipe for derailment and should be avoided at all cost. Instead an iterative approach is needed to builds upon existing momentum. Analyze the business’ pain points first followed by a discussion of strategy, values, and intent. As trust builds, and the capacity to self reflect is strengthened, teams are then supported to explore contradictory information and data in the pursuit of additional insights.

Business culture influences which models and values will be successful

Innovation consulting involves bridging the gap between the present and the future vision. By emphasizing the dissonance between the present and future self the group is empowered to evaluate its priorities and hopefully recommit to the espoused vision.

Overcoming resistance begins with strategies that target the path of least resistance. This means leveraging and building upon the vision of normative-models and the group’s espoused beliefs.

Pursuing innovation is often not for the faint of heart. The conversations needed will often be viewed as a direct challenge to the normative models supported by the group. Supporting the transition from the present to future self will thus requires trust, integrity, and patience to navigate.