Dirk Verburg

We have all been programmed to associate innovation and problem solving with phrases like ‘Thinking Out of the Box’, ‘There are no bad Ideas’, ‘Celebrate Failures’, and ‘Throw Against the Wall and See What Sticks’.

According to Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg, this leads to ‘Kindergarten innovation’. No one takes these phrases (and the processes they are supposed to guide) seriously, and yet we all pay lip service to them, especially in brainstorm sessions. As Thomas said during the conversation I had with him, this approach might work for people working on a dating app in Silicon Valley, but is not suitable for the vast majority of people and problems in the corporate world.

Therefore, Thomas advocates a focused method and approach to innovation.

► Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg is the author of What’s Your Problem? (Harvard Business Press, 2020), a book on how to solve the right problems. He is also the co-author (with Paddy Miller) of Innovation as Usual, a Harvard Business Review Press book on the art of driving innovation in regular organizations.

In the 34th episode of the Leadership 2.0 podcast, I interviewed Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg about innovation, both at an individual, as well as on an organizational level.

► You can watch or listen to a podcast with our conversation on:

➡️ Apple Podcasts

➡️ Spotify

➡️ YouTube

➡️ No time to watch or listen to the podcast now? Here is a short summary of our conversation ⤵

Dirk Verburg: Could you explain, using the slow elevator problem, how reframing is a higher-level activity than analysis, and why it is about finding a better problem to solve?

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg: The slow elevator problem captures the essence of the method. Tenants complain the elevator is too slow. Many take the problem for granted and jump to solutions, like buying a new elevator or updating the software. They miss that they may be trapped in the wrong problem. The experienced landlord knows it is not about the speed of the elevator; it is about the fact that people hate waiting. To remedy this, they might put up a mirror next to the elevator. When people see a mirror, they forget time. The example shows you should not jump into action immediately or analyze why the elevator is slow. Start by reframing and asking, “Is the speed of the elevator really the problem, or is there something else going on?”. That is the difference between analyzing issues and framing them differently.

Dirk Verburg: Can you give an example of how a frame can be weaponized, and how can we detect if that is the case?

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg: The classical illustration is calling an armed group ‘terrorists’ versus ‘freedom fighters’. A corporate example is Uber, which, when criticized for safety incidents, shifted the frame to say, “Uber is the safest place you could be at night,” comparing it to walking or driving yourself. My favorite example is the carbon footprint concept, which a reporter states was developed by the petroleum industry (British Petroleum). This frames the climate problem as one of individual choice rather than systemic solutions, moving the focus from production to usage. This is “ninja-level” framing that gently nudges people away from thinking about corporate responsibility. You detect it by simply noticing the frame—once you understand what framing is, you start to become attuned to it.

Dirk Verburg: You mentioned we often fall in love with problem framings, which prevents us from changing. Could you explain that notion and give an example?

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg: We fall in love with problem framings to avoid conflict or fear. For example, if you have a team member not performing, but you are conflict-averse, you might frame the issue as, “They are never going to change anyway,” because your mind wants to avoid the uncomfortable discussion. A closer example is a writer who wants to write a book but secretly fears the result. Instead of confronting the fear, the brain invents obstacles: “I need a new computer, I need a specific editing program before I can get started.” Your brain invents this framing to hold you back from the thing it fears, even though you also want it. The illustrative version is when you get the new computer, and you are still not writing.

Dirk Verburg: Can you explain the importance of examining bright spots by looking at where the problem is not, and perhaps provide an example?

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg: It is one of my favorite strategies because it shifts the mood of the conversation. We often focus on the negative, but this strategy reveals we may have already solved the problem once before. The essence of the bright spot strategy is to ask: “Has there ever been a time when this problem was less bad or didn’t happen?”. For example, in retention issues, instead of only focusing on why talented people leave, we should focus on the bright spot: Why do talented people stay? Understanding the culture or specific factors that retain them allows you to double down on those efforts. On a personal level, I write about a couple who fought over their budget. The wife noticed their morning discussions were kind. Their insight was that the fights always happened after 10 PM. They made a rule to only discuss the budget the next morning, when they were better prepared and kinder towards each other.

Dirk Verburg: Why is testing the problem framing with a hard ask, like a down payment, more reliable than simply asking stakeholders if they would like the proposed solution?

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg: There are multiple factors. Often, people are polite and will tell you what they think you want to hear or what they genuinely believe to be true. However, the true test comes when they have to pull money out of their wallets. We know from lean startup practice that you must test your price point to ensure people genuinely value the solution. In the book, I share a story of entrepreneurs who pitched their service to co-op boards. The boards were positive until the entrepreneurs asked for a small down payment. Very few paid, and the entrepreneurs knew the project was not viable. They redesigned it for offices, and 18 out of 25 customers signed up immediately. That hard ask confirmed they had found the right problem that people were serious about solving.

Dirk Verburg: Before moving on, do you have any final advice or recommendations for people who want to address problems according to the methodology set out in your book?

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg: I have two pieces of advice. First, get into the habit of discussing your problems with other people. Very often we think about our problems alone and only discuss solutions later. The best shortcut to spotting your own blind spots and having your thinking challenged is discussing the issue with at least one other person and asking them to challenge your framing. The second is to try that with AI. AI is powerful if you know to ask it to reframe. If you ask the AI to specifically “challenge and reframe the way you see the problem,” it can act as a very positive problem coach for an emotionally difficult issue.

Dirk Verburg: Why do you believe most ideas are bad ideas, and why shouldn’t leaders celebrate failure when trying to build an innovative culture?

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg: We must move past the “kindergarten version of innovation” where we pretend every idea is lovely. Innovation is risky because, as a fact from research, most ideas don’t work out. They may not fit, or they may just be plain bad. If you pretend all ideas are good, you are lying to people, and they know you are playing a game. There is room for “adult innovation,” which means treating people like the intelligent individuals they are and saying, “We know not all ideas are good. We need your help to find the good ones.” The same applies to celebrating failure. When I saw it, it never felt genuine; it felt like leaders were pressed to do it. We should focus on what works and not play these games.

Dirk Verburg: Why is focus so important for innovation when it sounds counterintuitive to the common advice of “think outside the box” and throwing everything at the wall?

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg: It is not about mindset; it is about understanding what innovation looks like. The “brainstorm island” approach, where employees are told “all ideas are good,” doesn’t work when time and resources are constrained. The leaders we saw succeeding deliberately pointed their employees in the direction of an important problem. Leaders have the vantage point to understand which issues cost the business money or which customers dislike. Simply telling your people, “Here is an issue, here is how much it matters to the business—now get creative about that,” makes a tremendous difference. The opposite is the suggestion box, which is an “idea graveyard.” Leaders are well-positioned to focus their people’s efforts, providing a massive return on motivation. Creativity is best put in service of something that matters, moving away from blue-sky brainstorming.

Dirk Verburg: Successful innovation is as much about politics as it is about having a great idea. Why is this so, and how can leaders support staff in bringing their ideas safely over the organizational line?

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg: Many creative people hate politics, thinking, “I don’t want to play that game.” This is a mistake. If you work in a big organization, politics is part of the context. It can hinder you if you ignore it, or help you if you know how to harness it. Successful innovators understand and embrace this. An example is Jordan Cohen at Pfizer, who focused on the politics to succeed. He had a senior person informally help him navigate the organizational waters, offering simple guidance like: “Don’t take this to procurement; they won’t understand it. Take it to commercial operations; they will see the potential.” Simple guidance from someone who understands the politics can make a huge difference. As a leader, you should do this for your people yourself, or connect them to someone who can help. Ignoring politics does not work.

Dirk Verburg: Do you have any final recommendations for leaders in supporting company-wide innovation that we have not yet discussed?

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg: Your first job is to diagnose what is going on. Before jumping into action, study what has and hasn’t happened in the past to understand what is holding you back from delivering better results. Like a doctor, you need to diagnose the patient first: is the issue about funding, politics, or lack of focus? Once you have diagnosed the problem, the second component is to understand what behaviors need to change, not just mindsets. What do leaders, including yourself, need to do differently? The prominent guidelines we discussed are the things that will help you make progress when you know what you actually have to do Monday morning.

► About Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg

Thomas has worked with managers in nearly all parts of the globe, including China, India, Russia, Singapore, Britain, France and his native country, Denmark. His research has been featured in Harvard Business Review, The Economist, The Sunday Times, The Telegraph, BBC Radio, Bloomberg Businessweek and the Financial Times. His work on innovation led HR Magazine to recognize him as a “Top 20 International Thinker”.

As an executive advisor and keynote speaker, Thomas has addressed organizations such as Cisco, Microsoft, Citigroup, Time Warner, AbbVie, Caterpillar, Amgen, Prudential, Union Pacific, Credit Suisse, Deloitte, the Wall Street Journal, and the United Nations. Thomas holds an MA in Media Science from the University of Copenhagen and an MBA from IESE Business School. Prior to his business career, Thomas served for four years as an officer with the Danish Royal Guards.

► Five nested strategies to reframe your thinking of a problem to make sure you’re solving for the right things:

1. Look outside the frame. What are we missing?

2. Rethink the goal. Is there a better objective to pursue?

3. Examine bright spots. Where is the problem not?

4. Look in the mirror. What is my/our role in creating this problem?

5. Take their perspective. What is their problem?

► 5+1 Key actions leaders who want others to act as innovation architects should take

1. Focus: Direct people to look only for ideas that matter to the business. (Focus beats freedom)

2. Connect: Urge people to connect to new worlds (customers, colleagues, external experts). (Insight comes from the outside)

3. Tweak: Challenge people to test, challenge, and reframe their initial ideas repeatedly. (First ideas are flawed)

4. Select: Guide people to filter and select the best ideas and discard the rest. (Most ideas are bad ideas)

5. Stealthstorm: Help people navigate the internal organizational politics of innovation. (Stealthstorming rules)

6. Persist: Motivate everyone to continue pursuing the other five keystone behaviors. (Creativity is a choice)

► Books

► Website