Chasing Innovation vs. Real Strategy
There’s a difference between pursuing meaningful innovation and simply chasing what’s new.
Every leader is being told they need to innovate. Board members ask about it. Consultants pitch it. Conferences celebrate it. And in the era of AI, that pressure has only intensified. Scroll through LinkedIn on any given day and the message is hard to miss: if your organization isn't doing something innovative with AI, you're already falling behind.
But there's a difference between innovation and merely chasing what's new.
Real innovation solves a meaningful problem or creates a capability that didn't exist before. Merely chasing what's new starts somewhere else: with the AI initiative because AI is hot, the digital transformation because everyone else is transforming, or the new business framework because another successful organization swears by it.
The distinction matters because from the outside, the second one might look a lot like the first. But they’re totally different.
When innovation becomes another priority
I've seen organizations fall into a familiar pattern. The AI initiative follows the digital transformation initiative that followed the CRM overhaul. Each one seemed sensible when it was introduced. Each came with a compelling reason to act. And each required time, money, attention, and organizational energy that had to come from somewhere.
The problem isn't necessarily that any of those initiatives were bad ideas. It's that most organizations are already trying to do too much.
Leadership teams set priorities, then continue adding new ones as opportunities and challenges emerge. A few months later, the things everyone agreed were important haven't moved very far – not because people aren't working hard, but because attention has been spread across too many competing commitments.
Innovation-chasing makes this worse because new ideas are particularly easy to say yes to. They feel like progress before they've actually produced any.
One question I like to ask clients is: If this initiative took twice as long as you think it will, would you still be enthusiastic about it?
If the answer is no, that's useful information.
The harder work comes before the idea
Before deciding whether to pursue something new, mature leadership teams spend more time on the less exciting questions: What are we actually trying to accomplish? Does this help us get there? What will we have to stop or delay if we say yes? And what evidence would tell us this is actually working?
There's an old-fashioned word for that process: discernment.
I don't mean sitting around contemplating an idea indefinitely. I mean exercising enough judgment to understand your particular situation before deciding what deserves your organization's attention.
That requires clarity about the outcome you're trying to produce, an honest look at the evidence you have, and some agreement about what success would actually look like.
It also requires saying no.
And not just to bad ideas. Those are relatively easy. The real discipline is saying no to good ideas that don't fit what you've decided matters most.
That's uncomfortable, especially when competitors are doing the thing you're saying no to. But if your strategy is based on your organization's specific goals, capabilities, and circumstances, it probably shouldn't look exactly like everyone else's.
Trying to be innovative by copying what everyone else is doing is, after all, a bit of an oxymoron.
Discernment doesn't compete with innovation
This is why I don't actually see discernment and innovation as opposites.
Discernment is what makes meaningful innovation possible.
An organization that knows what it's trying to accomplish and is disciplined about where it spends its attention can afford to invest deeply when the right opportunity appears. It can experiment with something new because that experiment serves a purpose, not because leadership is afraid of being left behind.
The difference is intentionality.
Innovation-chasing asks, “What should we be doing next?”
A more discerning organization asks, “What are we trying to accomplish – and is this the right way to get there?”
That distinction may not sound as exciting as the next big thing. But it's far more likely to produce something worth calling innovation.
Before you chase the next big thing
The next time a new technology, initiative, or opportunity comes up, ask:
What are we actually trying to accomplish?
Does this help us get there?
What are we willing to stop doing to make room for it?
Organizations rarely become overcommitted because they deliberately choose too many priorities. It happens one reasonable yes at a time.
Sometimes the most valuable thing a leadership team needs is an experienced outside perspective before making the next big commitment. If that would be helpful, let’s talk.